Cardinal Dolan Makes First Visit to New York City Mosque: “You Love God, We Love God…”

The Deacon's Bench ^ | 6/21/13 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[marshmallow]

Details:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, made his first visit to a mosque in New York City and it was the Albanian Islamic Cultural Center in Tompkinsville where he met with Muslim and other faith leaders.

The cardinal spent more than two hours touring the mosque and the Miraj Islamic School and having lunch with about 40 clergy and laity.

“I thank God that this day has arrived,” the cardinal said. “I thank you for your welcome, I thank you for making me feel like a friend and a member of a family.”

The cardinal asked questions about the Muslim faith and emphasized throughout his visit how much the two religions and their members have in common.

[Jay Redhawk]

It seems that satan has scored an impressive victory. After the prayer Dolan gave at the Republican convention I would not have guessed he would do this.

[piusv]

Plain talk...that’s VII talk....vague.

[pgkdan]

Cardinal Dolan Makes First Visit to New York City Mosque: “You Love God, We Love God…”,

You're an idiot Cardinal..with all due respect, this statement is dangerously naive! Their 'god' told muslims that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross, was not resurrected and is NOT divine. Still think we love the same God?

[DManA]

They revere Jesus. We worship Christ.

A difference with eternal consequences.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Meanwhile, rural American Fundamentalist Protestants are treated as Public Enemy Number One by American Catholicism (and other places where Catholicism is having to combat its progress). Can anyone imagine a Catholic priest, much less a bishop, paying a friendly visit to a Fundamentalist Protestant church? (And no ridiculous remarks about "he would be lynched." That's a lie and you all know it!)

I recall reading about a Catholic bishop who visited a mosque saying that he felt right at home there with his "fellow fundamentalists." Can you imagine a Protestant being referred to by any Catholic as a "fellow fundamentalist?"

I was doing some reading about Armenia yesterday, and I read that the Armenian Church is rabidly opposed to "sects" that threaten Armenian "national identity," but have no problem with people who practice a reconstructed Armenian paganism . . . because reconstructed Armenian paganism, like Armenian chrstianity, helps bolster Armenian "national identity!!!"

There is absolutely no doubt that the ancient liturgical churches are more authentic than any Protestant "restoration" based on "the bible" . . . but there is also absolutely no doubt that those ancient churches are sick and twisted beyond measure.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Muslims do not love God. That is, in fact, one of the fundamental distinctions between Islam and Christianity; the absence of love. There is nothing to love, since there is no redemption, no sacrifice, no Calvary.

Ahem--Orthodox Jews manage to love G-d just fine without the need for "calvary."

I wonder if chrstian FReepers ever stop to read the words they type when they're railing against islam: those dirty muzzies don't believe in the "trinity," they don't eat pork (how dare they!), and their religion is an all-embracing legal system. My goodness. Even I wince at some of this stuff. I can only imagine what Jewish FReepers must think when they read some of these criticisms of islam.

Has anyone on FR besides me ever read the Book of Joshua? Was he a monster leading a political movement disguised as a "religion" as well?

[wideawake]

(1) These "visits" are really invitations from the congregation in question. The bishop did not just decide to stop by and visit.

(2) Self-described fundamentalist congregations are not in the habit of inviting Catholic or Orthodox prelates to their churches and frankly, do not like to even address the prelates by their titles.

(3) Interaction between fundamentalist Protestant pastors and Catholic and Orthodox clergy usually take place in venues like meetings in support of marriage or life rather than churches.

(4) American Protestants are highly focused on condemning religious law largely because their tradition comes from the "Dissenters" of England, Holland and Germany who opposed not just Catholicism and Orthodoxy but also the official Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran state churches of Europe.

[jagusafr]

Ooh, just all warm and fuzzy, isn’t he? Argh - we look like such fools when we make public statements that give Islam any credibility at all. I rather expected better from Cardinal Dolan.

[kenmcg]

“Dolan has been a massive disappointment.”

His “just can’t we all get along” attitude is nauseating. He comes across as a friendly teddy bear. He’s cow-towed to Obama on freedom of religion and has let murdering abortion Catholic politicians continue their reign of terror on the unborn as he distribute Holy Communion to them.

[Alex Murphy]

Let's stay on track with approved Roman Catholic doctrine...Dolan is toeing the party line here.

We got an anathema. Muslims got dinner and a movie!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Cardinal Dolan seems to say something wince-worthy on a once-a-week basis, with streaks where he hits once-a-day.I'd want to make a distinction, though, between Dolan's amiable but garbled fragments, and the coherent truths found in the Catechism.

It's this: the Areopagus strategy. In Acts, we read where Paul praised the Athenians for being "religious" and for believing in a Deity of whom we are "His offspring", "in Whom we live and move and have our being".

He acknowledges all this, but sees it as strictly preparatory, putting it in the context that "you are worshipping an Unknown God" and "what you are worshipping in ignorance, I will proclaim to you." He uses it as his entree in order to talk about the True God, and His only-begotten Son, our divine Savior Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Catechism does the same thing. It sees a quantum of truth in the Muslim's faith "in the Creator," but considers this (para 843) "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." The Catechism follows this up with:

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

This is what I see in St. Paul's remarks to the Athenians, and in St. Francis of Assisi's dialogues with the Sultan Al-Kamil, but do not see in Dolan: the follow-up of proclaiming the Gospel.

Come on, Cardinal Tim. Give it to 'em straight.

[Alex Murphy]

Self-described fundamentalist congregations are...do not like to even address the prelates by their titles.

Maybe it's a case of quid pro quo:

...it is inconvenient for a Catholic to call a Protestant preacher “reverend,” because this is to indirectly confer legitimacy to his heretical confession. It is much better to call a Lutheran Mr. Jones instead of reverend Jones, or use the title Doctor or Professor, if it is applicable. In writing, it is sometimes necessary to refer to a Protestant as bishop, but the title should be lower case, e.g. bishop Philip Robinson, or Protestant bishop Robinson, as a sign of differentiation from the Catholic Bishop.

We Americans have the duty to be especially vigilant regarding tolerance toward Protestantism. It was such tolerance that produced the heresy of Americanism, which in final analysis, is to adapt Catholic doctrine and practices to Protestantism. Unfortunately that same penchant that induced Leo XIII to write against Americanism is still alive today not only among progressivist Catholics, but even among conservative or traditionalist American Catholics.

The same general rule regarding Protestants – that is, to avoid the religious title in direct address – would apply to the hierarchy in other heretical or schismatic confessions. If a title is used in writing, it should be lower case, e.g. rabbi Jacob Levinsky, or for an “orthodox” bishop, bishop Michael Baldwin, etc.
-- from the thread How to Address Priests and Religious: Titles and Signs of Respect

[Zionist Conspirator]

Unfortunately, the article you cite is by an extreme right wing dissident who adheres to Catholic positions that have long since vanished down the rabbit hole. These people don't count, Alex, and they aren't a threat.

My point was that today's liberal, pro-islamic, ultra-ecumenical Catholic Church treats only one group as pariahs: traditional rural American Fundamentalist Protestants. The point was to highlight liberal hypocrisy, not the arrogance of the old, pre-VII Catholic Church. I don't begrudge the member of any religion believing that theirs is the only one that's true. It's the others, the "we're all brothers except for those rednecks" that I can't stand.

You and I seem to be approaching Catholicism from two completely opposed places, Alex. I can assure you that the big bad old "orthodox" Catholic Church is never coming back and will never threaten you. The current Church will, however, treat you like a leper for believing the "old testament" (chas veshalom!) is literally true.

[don-o]

I only had to read the first sentence and I knew who was writing. Flawless.

[Zionist Conspirator]

(1) These "visits" are really invitations from the congregation in question. The bishop did not just decide to stop by and visit.

(2) Self-described fundamentalist congregations are not in the habit of inviting Catholic or Orthodox prelates to their churches and frankly, do not like to even address the prelates by their titles.

(3) Interaction between fundamentalist Protestant pastors and Catholic and Orthodox clergy usually take place in venues like meetings in support of marriage or life rather than churches.

(4) American Protestants are highly focused on condemning religious law largely because their tradition comes from the "Dissenters" of England, Holland and Germany who opposed not just Catholicism and Orthodoxy but also the official Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran state churches of Europe.

You're missing the point, widey.

1)Fundamentalist Protestants don't engage in pulpit exchanges because they take their religion seriously. Religions, including Catholicism (and now apparently islam) who do engage in such exchanges obviously do not take their religions seriously. No such pulpit exchanges ever occurred prior to the current era of universal apostasy.

2)Despite their well-known antinomianism (at least so far as ritual and ceremony is concerned), those radical Fundamentalist Protestants certainly are adopting Jewish rituals and ceremonies these days, aren't they?

3)My point wasn't dogmatic, but rather social. Catholics want to talk with everyone under the sun except for Fundamentalist Protestants--not because they are Protestant, but because they are Fundamentalist! Modern Catholicism is nothing but "new age" liberalism, which is why Fundamentalist Protestantism is the only religion routinely attacked, maligned, libeled, and avoided by today's Catholic officials. And they are treated this way not because of what they actually believe but because of the fact that they actually believe it. Apparently the Catholic Church can't stand anyone who actually believes anything. This fact in and of itself show's that Catholicism is no longer "orthodox" but liberal.

Did you notice the point I made about the Catholic Archbishop (name not now recollected) who actually went to a mosque and said he "felt comfortable among [his] fellow fundamentalists?" Why then the disdain for his "fellow fundamentalists" in the Protestant low churches? Why is their fundamentalism attacked while the fundamentalism of islam is accepted as in fellowship with the "fundamentalism" of liberal Catholics?

Did you read my observation about the Armenian Church's acceptance of Armenian neo-paganism because it helps that church defend the "Armenian national identity" from the "sects?"

You didn't say a thing about those two points.

I know for a fact that you don't agree with everything the current "mind of the church" is thinking. How you can pretend that all is well, that doctrine changed radically after VII, and that a revolution has occurred is beyond me.

I read a while back about the "error of magisterialism"--a state of mind that accepts all, and only, what is being taught by the contemporary magisterium, with absolutely no concern whatsoever with what the magisterium taught in ages past.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Catholic churches do not engage in pulpit exchanges. No one is canonically authorized to offer the sermon at Mass (homily) except a Catholic deacon or priest.

Not a Muslim. Not even a Catholic layperson.

If you have seen some sort of "pulpit exchange" with the Catholics listening to a non-Catholic homilist, this is strictly against Canon law.

Once again, the problem would be with the Catholics not being Catholic enough. This is always to be deplored.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ha! Funny, but really thick-sliced baloney-oney-o, my dear Alex.

If you're talking about Back Then, you got an anathema and the Muslims got 200 years of Crusades, PLUS getting their butts kicked at Lepanto, Malta, Vienna and Prague. If you're talking about Now, you got this (hold onto your halo):

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

So there you are: certainly, though imperfectly!

It's true!

Dinner and a movie forthcoming!

[metmom]

Dolan is toeing the party line here.

Obviously.....

I wonder if HE kissed a copy of the Koran....

[Zionist Conspirator]

Catholic churches do not engage in pulpit exchanges. No one is canonically authorized to offer the sermon at Mass (homily) except a Catholic deacon or priest.

Not a Muslim. Not even a Catholic layperson.

If you have seen some sort of "pulpit exchange" with the Catholics listening to a non-Catholic homilist, this is strictly against Canon law.

Once again, the problem would be with the Catholics not being Catholic enough. This is always to be deplored.

I was referring to nothing more or less than the type of thing described in the article at the top of this forum: a visit by a Catholic bishop to a mosque to announce what a wonderful religion islam is. I am sorry if I used an unfortunate phrase.

As I understand it, you live in Nashville, TN. Maybe you can answer my question: why do Catholics make nice with everyone in the universe except for Fundamentalist Protestants? Why are Fundamentalist Protestants the one and only religious community it's okay to have conflict with?

Why are moslems "fellow fundamentalists" with Catholics while Fundamentalist Protestants are anti-Catholic monsters? If the first eleven chapters of Genesis really are so corrosive to the Catholic worldview, they should never have been canonized as part of the Catholic bible.

Why is it okay to be a reconstructed pagan in Armenia but not a Fundamentalist Protestant?

Seriously. What's the deal with all this?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, I live in Upper East TN. Tennessee has three grand divisions:

• Western (= Mississippi River, Memphis, Elvis, jazz)
• Central (=Cumberland Plateau, Nashville, Grand Old Oprey, Country and Bluegrass)
• Eastern (=Appalachian Mountains, Knoxville, Old-Timey Acoustic, Gospel & White Spirituals).

I don't hold it against you, but we're not Nashville!

OK, honest questions, and I'll do my level best. But to clarify, maybe you can answer my question: Could you mention one conflict Catholics have had with Fundamentalists in my adult lifetime? (That would be in the last 40 years.) I'm --- seriously --- wracking my brain, and I can't think of any.

So "Why do you have these conflicts only with fundamentalist Christians" is like "Are you still beating your wife?" It presupposes something from jump street that I don't presuppose.

I don't get "Fundamentalist Protestants are anti-Catholic monsters." When I lived north of the Mason-Dixon line, the only fundamentalists I knew were pro-lifers who did "Operation Rescue" type sit-ins at abortion clinics, and we went to jail together and got along just fine.

When I moved to the mid-South 25 years ago, the only fundamentalists I knew were all my relations on my husband's side, the Baptists who allied with us very generously in putting together a Religious Liberty rally (whom I value and revere), and the Shape-Note singers--- some are Fundamentalists, some not.

So I'm examining my conscience: when did I or any Catholic I know ever diss a Protestant Fundamentalist?

Even the theological Biblical example you cited, makes me draw a blank.

You said, "... If the first eleven chapters of Genesis really are so corrosive to the Catholic worldview, they should never have been canonized as part of the Catholic bible."

I'm thinking, "Haven't I always been taught --- and gone on to teach my RCIA students --- that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are foundational to the whole Catholic worldview? The indispensable starting point for the whole Christian proclamation of Jesus Christ our Lord? After all, it teaches the crucial truths of Creation, the Fall, the promise of the Messiah, God's saving power is rescuing a doomed human race---"

Now I am not being totally ingenuous about this. I know you think the first eleven chapters of Genesis are geologically, hydrologically, astrophysically, zoologically, anatomically and physiologically exact in every detail, and the Catholic Church does not. We see it as a primordial history which provides the true moral and spiritual basis to everything we believe about the Trinity and the past and future of Man. We don't believe in it less than you do.

We would certainly argue about this -- I'm not sure, but I think you and I do not see eye-to-eye on the Trinity --- but it would be an absurdity to say the first eleven chapters of Genesis are "corrosive to the Catholic worldview." The "Catholic worldview" is incomprehensible without those sacred eleven chapters, divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I would think that somebody who understands parables --- you do accept Jesus' parables? --- would understand that the truth comes in different formats, including the poem, the satire, the primordial prequel, and the parable.

"Why is it okay to be a reconstructed pagan in Armenia but not a Fundamentalist Protestant?"

What the clumpity-clump are you talking about?

"Seriously."

Seriously.

I await with ears WAY out there.