Posted on 02/25/2011 7:59:02 AM PST by Alex Murphy
The Catholic bishops of Egypt will not call for the repeal of Article 2 of the nation’s constitution, which declares Islam to the state religion.
Thousands of Coptic Christians marched in Cairo on February 20 to demand the removal of Article 2 from the Egyptian constitution. Article 2 reads: “Islam is the religion of the state. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia).”
At a recent meeting, Egypt’s Catholic bishops decided “we will never ask for its abolition because it would [injure] the feelings of Muslims,” said Coptic Catholic Bishop Kyrillos William of Assiut. “In the future we will ask to add some assurances for the non-Muslim communities.”
Bishop William traces much of the Muslim-Christian tension in Egypt to an incident two years ago when a Coptic Orthodox layman “committed an act of sacrilege against Islam”-- an incident that led to the brutal murder of his parish priest.
0.3% of the nation’s 79.1 million people are Catholic, according to Vatican statistics. An estimated 5-10% of Egyptians are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Are you the Pope now?
Please post that source — or your research.
I was going by the numbers in the article posted.
The Pope does not own truth, it is open to all.
We don’t want to hurt their feelings??? WTF.
Regarding the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any idiot can take a section out of context with the purpose of deception; I suspect this won't be the last time we see it happen.
Start at 839 and read the entire section, through to 856.
And understand that the "plan of salvation" does not mean that Muslims are saved. Isn't it the Presbyterians who teach that in their plan of salvation, there are those predestined to hell?
The statement Alex is quoting here is, first of all, not about "Islam" at all, but about "Muslims". It is not an evaluation of Islam as a system, but of Muslims as people who need to be led on by whatever elements of truth and value they have been graced to find in their lives.
God desires salvaton for Muslim people through Christ, since he would "have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:4).
These misled Muslim people, under the influence of the false prophet Mohammad, believe many falsehoods. Yet within what they profess to belive, there are recurring affirmations of
This ties in with the larger mission described in 2 Tim 2:25 --"Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth."
The whole document is about coming to Christ. That's what the whole Catechism is about. Nobody is saved by Islam.
With 80 million fanatical Muslims in Egypt killing Coptics and burning Christian Churches and an overall breakdown in the civil structure how would you suggest the Bishop better protect his flock and preserve a Christian presence and future in the land that sheltered the infant Jesus from Herod.
Some people make me sick. While snug in their dens they are willing to fight the Islamicists down to the last Coptic and Israeli. Their idea of personal sacrifice is exposure to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from banging out anonymous demands that others take it on the chin for their beliefs.
Now you are trying to assert that there is a difference between Islam and Muslims. Lets consult the dictionary.
Mus·lim
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.
–noun
2. an adherent of Islam.
I agree with your assertion that Muslims are misled and follow a false prophet. In fact, I would assert that the religion that ALL muslims follow (Islam) is a satanic moon worshiping death cult. I also agree with the theologic point that should a muslim give up their religion and turn towards Christ, they too can partake in salvation.
Where the catechism is in error is with the following "....amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham" and "...together with us they adore the one, merciful God".
Muslims (Islam) does NOT hold the faith of Abraham. They do not worship the same God. Those that make such assertions have not read the Quran.
Nonesense. Would you say that Unitarians worship a different God. There is only one God. Many, however imperfectly describe and worship Him, but they do not alter His monotheistic nature.
"Those that make such assertions have not read the Quran.
Nonesense again. I've read it and recognize its ties to the God of Abraham.
Then we will have to disagree
They are probably afraid they will be murdered if they try.
pol·y·the·ist: n. One who worships or believes in more than one god.
You have correctly noticed, also, that the quote says they "profess" to hold the faith of Abraham --- it does not say they hold it, it says they "profess" (claim) to hold it. There is no statement here supporting the validity of that claim.
And "...together with us they adore the one, merciful God". This highlights, I think, the error-and-truth mixture which Mohammad larded together in his concoction. If a Muslim says "I adore the Creator," then he or she is doing the right thing, as we must all adore the Creator. If they say they adore "Allah," the case becomes equivocal, since "Allah" is the Arabic word for God and not just some sort of prooper name for the entity (a demonic one) which inspired Mohammad.
As I'm sure you realize, Arabic-speaking Christians called God "Allah" for almost 600 years before Mohammad even came on the scene, still do to this very day, and insist (rightly) that they have a prior claim to the word.
So what it comes down to, is that we respect the Muslim who wishes to adore the Creator. There's nothing there that claims we revere either Islam or Mohammad.
The encyclical Dominus Iesus - ("On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ") contains this thought:
"Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ -- who is God himself made man -- in relation to the founders of the other religions."
I'm happy to say we're in strong agreement on that.
Farghin gyps.
This is way above your pay grade your not a canon lawyer. He is talking about within the context of Invincible Ignorance. Notice the word Plan in the statement not salvation. The plan is laid down for salvation.
Christ said He that believe in me has eternal life if he does not he is already condemned. Now does this mean a child who hears or a handicapped mental child or adult who does not understand is condemned. No! What about the rare few who for no fault of their own either what background( Muslim or whatever) never heard or understood what this means. This is noted for these few in the statement. They will be judged on what they do know like the Apostle Paul states and implies. Their conscious is judged.
Unfortunately, it is what we have come to expect from the anti-Catholic Caucus. The post absent the context of the of the following three paragraphs from the Catechism is as honest a portrayal of Catholic doctrine as the domestic violence arrest of a man for the following confession; "I beat my wife many times..." before hearing the completion of the sentence; ".... at checkers".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.