Posted on 08/15/2016 6:28:57 AM PDT by detective
Islam is a religion of peace, but “peace” is defined as everyone living perfectly under submission to sharia.
-PJ
There's a pretty clear spectrum, going from things that must be believed "with divine and Catholic faith" like, e.g., the Trinity, down to the opinion of an individual like Msgr. Swetland, which could be received respectfully because of his clerical state & office ... and then just as respectfully disagreed with.
There are a number of books that discuss this sort of thing. It's not a mystery.
"Buddhism is a religion that exalts personal enlightenment" may be a true statement, but no Catholic can be required to believe it under pain of heresy.
Ping!
Except that they can't even agree within themselves.
Sunni?
Or Shi'ite?
Cause when there's no infidels around to behead, they eat each other alive.
You can't argue with that.
As a active and practicing Catholic I disagree with everything you say.
You do not need to have a PHD in economics and Marxist studies to realize the Pope Francis is wrong when he states that free enterprise economies are evil and that “Terrorism ... increases whenever there is no other option, when the global economy is centered on the god of money and not the human person, men and women. This is already a first form of terrorism. You've driven out the marvel of creation, man and woman, and put money in their place. This is a basic act of terrorism against all humanity.”
We know there is systematic genocide by Muslims against Catholics in the middle east. It has been documented.
We know there is systematic terrorism by Muslims against Catholics throughout the world.
The author reviews the Monsignor's statements and correctly concludes that they go against centuries of Catholic teaching and tradition.
“The Catholic Church has no competence to rule on whether another religion is “peaceful” or “violent”. That’s beyond its job description.”
Your statement is contradicted by the historical record. Read about the Battle of Vienna and the many other times Catholics fought against Muslims and killed Muslims to protect there families and their way of life.
For Centuries leading Catholic scholars have written persuasively the Muslims are violent and evil. There is a long and noble traditions of Catholics protecting and nourishing Western Civilization.
And when they did Western Civilization flourished.
You're preaching to the choir. I agree with everything you've said.
Yet, you've completely missed my point. Go back and read my post in its entirety.
A Catholic is not obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to believe that Islam is "a religion of peace" or a "religion of violence". Those things are not part of the deposit of faith. Even if Aquinas or Popes Leo or Callixtus or Pius say Islam is violent. To disagree with them may be unwise, naive, even stupid but it's not a deal breaker for my Catholicism since the statement that "Islam is a religion of peace/violence" is not part of the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and passed on to their successors.
A Catholic is obliged to believe that Islam teaches heresy and untruth because the Church is competent to evaluate theology and doctrine.
See the difference?
The statement that Islam is violent or peaceful is a prudential judgment based on a personal observation of history, current events etc., with which I'm free to agree or disagree without disavowing the Catholic faith.
“I agree with everything you’ve said.”
“A Catholic is obliged to believe that Islam teaches heresy and untruth because the Church is competent to evaluate theology and doctrine.”
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t mean to split hairs but there is a long and venerable tradition of Catholic teaching that clearly states that Islam is violent and a threat to Catholic families and the Catholic way of life.
Thank you for your reply. You are right about Catholics not being obligated under pain of sin. I did not mean to imply that they were but I should have worded my response better.
My point was that the current hierarchy have strayed from Catholic teaching and tradition on this issue and on many other issues. The hierarchy are meant to be servants and protectors of the faithful, not propagandists for the violent jihadists who attack the faithful.
“Msgr. Swetland contends ... Catholics must give ‘religious assent,’ as per ... Lumen Gentium, which states: ‘In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ ...’. “
That should be “In matters of CATHOLIC faith and morals, the bishops speak ...” Argument shot down.
William Federer is author of “What Every American Should Know About Koran/Islam.” He explains in his talks it is religious, political, and military structure - not only religious. Two of his talks posted on Youtube are excellent educational items. This: youtube.com/watch?v=-YpJjRzQDIM is a rapid fire delivery and lasts about 45 minutes.
A better talk given more recently has much more detail (2:41 length), and better charts: youtube.com/watch?v=tBaZ2mhpPLI
I urge everyone to view one or both of these talks, for without knowledge, the motive and method of Islamic world conquest may very well succeed.
Pardon me if you think I'm splitting hairs, but I disagree with that ... slightly. A Catholic is obliged to believe that certain propositions are heretical and untrue. He is not obligated by divine and Catholic faith to hold that, e.g., Islam teaches those propositions. They may or they may not, but either way it's not germane to the faith. If someone says, e.g., "God has no son," that statement is heretical and untrue no matter who says it. Asserting that Muslims say that is not germane to the teaching; they could say it today and stop saying it tomorrow, and the teaching would remain just as heretical.
I hope I'm not muddying the waters further. :-) The magisterium has the authority to teach what Catholicism is, and what it isn't. It has no competence to make (definitive, unchanging) assertions about what another religion claims or teaches.
Hopefully this form of words avoids the impression that Catholics are obligated to hold as dogma, certain beliefs about another religion
No one said it must be logical or consistent...
Sure doesn't make sense with the koranimal ALAHU AKBAR!!!
The moral equivalence gambit.
It didn't work for Obama, either.
Context matters
If youre going to play that game, at least choose the same century.
We are in the 21st, in case you happened to miss it.
I will restrain myself from posting the current ghastly koranimal barbaric executions and random mass murders.
Have a nice evening.
Religious zealots bore me.
Spencer is being rhetorical. He is perfectly aware that Swetland is a fraud. Spencer is not leaving the Church.
Past statements by Popes and bishops that Islam is demonic, and violent, etc., were not statements of the MAGISTERIUM. They were statements based on observation and common sense.
Msgr. Swetland is committing theological malpractice by claiming that the Magisterium can teach anything about Islam, positive or negative. The content of the Magisterium is the Catholic Faith, and morals, and absolutely nothing else.
In this argument, Spencer is 100% correct, and Swetland is 100% fraudulent.
“One does not give up on the Church founded by Christ because of an opinion, not infallible, of some of her leaders.”
the author was not talking about leaving the church. He was saying his view of Islam would make him unwelcome in the church.
Yet you reply...
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.