Posted on 06/06/2014 5:24:13 PM PDT by ebb tide
For the first time in history, Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran will be heard at the Vatican on Sunday, in a move by Pope Francis to usher in peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Francis issued the invitation to Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during his visit last week to Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.
Abbas, Peres, and Francis will be joined by Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious leaders, a statement released by Peres’s spokesperson said, according to the Times of Israel.
Holy See officials on Friday said the evening prayers would be a “pause in politics” and had no political aim other than to rekindle the desire for Israeli-Palestinian peace at the political and popular level, according to the Associated Press.
Low expectations
The Vatican will broadcast a live feed of the event to viewers across the world.
However, expectations for the event should be kept low, according to Rev. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the custodian of Catholic Church property in the Holy Land.
[No-one should think] “peace will suddenly break out on Monday, or that peace is any closer,” AP reported him as saying.
On Friday, the Pope met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and discussed ways of promoting peace and stability in Asia the Vatican said in a statement.
Trust nothing that came out of Vatican 2.
I asked you a sincere question and you still chose to use it as an opportunity to slam "my catechism". I should have known better. I rarely interact with you and, with this response, I'm done.
Wow....you just proved the whole point made by non-catholics that a large part of Catholicism is man-made and therefore subject to error.
Don’t forget that the first war on Islamic terrorism, also known as the First Crusade, was called by a Catholic pope, Urban II. Catholicism has always known that Allah and Mohammedism are inventions of Satan, and as soon as the attack on the Church that began in the 20th century is beaten back, this error in the CCC will be corrected.
Wow....you're the second person to admit there is error in the catechism! You've also just proved what non-catholics have said about Catholicism...that a lot of it is man-made and made up and therefore subject to error.
btw...urban II promised a false salvation for those who fought in the crusades when he promised that those who fought and died in the battle would be forgiven of their sins and would go to Heaven. nothing in the Bible to support that....just more man-made false teaching by the catholic church.
This contradiction that you are describing is part of the reason why sedevacantists believe that the popes who promulgated Vatican II (and those who continue to enforce it) were (are) not true popes. Having said that I probably won’t be able to get into a full discussion/explanation of it because I am not very good at it.
This is a good place to get the basics though (for anyone interested, especially those Catholics who are really starting to question WTH is going in the Catholic Church):
http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml
And is replete with Vatican II non-Catholic theology.
I'm sure a lot of RC's will be surprised by this, but the RCC has a bigger agenda. They want Jerusalem under their control. The RCC is Supersessionist and Amillennial. A Jewish nation in control of Jersulem is inconsistent with these beliefs.
Try an Evangelical Bible centered church. It may seem outside the box, but you might find peace.
I would just prompt ALL of you to consider what would constitute a reason for the ‘great falling away.’
And the verse I posted earlier about the destruction of the fruitful tree of man.
We are living in prophetic times.
Well I apologize...As you can witness, there aren't too many Catholics on these threads that are sincere with questions...The intention is to try and trip us up...
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Thank you.
It seems that you agree with my note 216.
“Wow....you just proved the whole point made by non-catholics that a large part of Catholicism is man-made and therefore subject to error.”
Jeez, try to think. God gave us reason because He wants us to use it.
I *asserted* that a part of Catholicism that is neither a part of Revelation nor of Tradition, which is to say, a part that is *known* and *admitted* to have been written by men, is mistaken. Further, in comparison to the vast sweep of Catholic theology, Revelation, and Tradition, it is not a “large” part, but rather a secondary and comparatively minor part.
If you want to criticize something, you really should learn something about it, first.
For some people, but of course no one who posts on Free Republic, theological leftism is not an intellectual exercise, but just a matter of hatred and prejudice. No Free Republic poster would ever sink so low, I hasten to add, so I must not be talking about anyone here.
“Wow....you’re the second person to admit there is error in the catechism!”
No, there were millions ahead of me. By the way, each mortal soul is allowed only five exclamation points in a lifetime. All the excess punctuation must be worked off in Purgatory before one can enter Heaven.
“You’ve also just proved what non-Catholics have said about Catholicism...that a lot of it is man-made and made up and therefore subject to error.”
You take my assertions as proof? My goodness, such power.
In Catholicism, we have things called disciplines, and other things called devotions, and just a wealth of things that give us comfort and aid in our salvation and our search for holiness. We recognize the difference between that and the parts where God done spoke upon it. You don’t.
The Catholic Church allows but does not require a great deal. It is a wonderful freedom.
For Protestants, that which is not forbidden is mandatory, and vice versa.
“Urban II promised a false salvation for those who fought in the crusades when he promised that those who fought and died in the battle would be forgiven of their sins and would go to Heaven.”
That is an urban legend (what a natural pun).
http://www.strangenotions.com/the-crusdades-urban-legends-and-truth/
“just more man-made false teaching by the catholic church.”
How sad that some people are too brainwashed even to consider the matter calmly and rationally.
The post Vatican II Church is not supersessionist. It is anything but.
“Wow....you just proved the whole point made by non-catholics that a large part of Catholicism is man-made and therefore subject to error." Jeez, try to think. God gave us reason because He wants us to use it. I *asserted* that a part of Catholicism that is neither a part of Revelation nor of Tradition, which is to say, a part that is *known* and *admitted* to have been written by men, is mistaken. Further, in comparison to the vast sweep of Catholic theology, Revelation, and Tradition, it is not a “large” part, but rather a secondary and comparatively minor part.
Again you make the point there is error in the catechism which opens up the whole document as to which part is correct and which is not. If it speaks to tradition...how do we know that is correct? Major error? Minor error? Assumption of Mary? Major error? Minor error?
If you want to criticize something, you really should learn something about it, first.
For some people, but of course no one who posts on Free Republic, theological leftism is not an intellectual exercise, but just a matter of hatred and prejudice. No Free Republic poster would ever sink so low, I hasten to add, so I must not be talking about anyone here.
This part of your posts makes zero sense.
“Wow....you’re the second person to admit there is error in the catechism!” No, there were millions ahead of me. By the way, each mortal soul is allowed only five exclamation points in a lifetime. All the excess punctuation must be worked off in Purgatory before one can enter Heaven.
again you admit error in the catechism.
“You’ve also just proved what non-Catholics have said about Catholicism...that a lot of it is man-made and made up and therefore subject to error.” You take my assertions as proof? My goodness, such power.
Hey...you're catholic. it's your document. I'm just calling it like you present it.
In Catholicism, we have things called disciplines, and other things called devotions, and just a wealth of things that give us comfort and aid in our salvation and our search for holiness. We recognize the difference between that and the parts where God done spoke upon it. You don’t. The Catholic Church allows but does not require a great deal. It is a wonderful freedom.
For Protestants, that which is not forbidden is mandatory, and vice versa.
Nope...we rely up the Bible. That is the sole source of God's revelation to us.
“Urban II promised a false salvation for those who fought in the crusades when he promised that those who fought and died in the battle would be forgiven of their sins and would go to Heaven.” That is an urban legend (what a natural pun). http://www.strangenotions.com/the-crusdades-urban-legends-and-truth/ “just more man-made false teaching by the catholic church.”
According to one of the six accounts he did promise this.
Most notable about Fulcher of Chartres is his account of Pope Urban II's speech at the Council of Clermont in November 1095 to launch the First Crusade. Within his account of Urban’s speech there was a promise of remission of sins for anyone who participated in the crusade: All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.
No Biblical support for this position at all
How sad that some people are too brainwashed even to consider the matter calmly and rationally.
It is. When the pope, the "vicar of Christ" promises such a whopper as this people should measure it up against the Bible. If it's in the Bible it's good. If not, then you're back to making stuff up again. Which is where we started the conversation.
I go to that other site a few times a week. I could not understand why they were thrilled with this guy. Guess they knew more about him than I did. I can not understand why Catholics still support him.
“Again you make the point there is error in the catechism which opens up the whole document as to which part is correct and which is not.”
Only to the malicious.
“If it speaks to tradition...how do we know that is correct? Major error? Minor error?:
You ask that as though you suppose there is no answer that is satisfying to an educated and mature intellect. One way we know whether something in the CCC is correct is to ask whether it is congruent with Tradition. And, of course, the Bible is the ultimate authority.
“Assumption of Mary? Major error? Minor error?”
No error. But then we butt heads with that “educated and mature intellect” thing again, so I suppose the matter must be totally opaque to many.
“This part of your posts makes zero sense.”
Boy, you are really lucky you’re not homosexual. Those b*tches would skin you alive with references that would fly right over your head.
“again you admit error in the catechism.”
So what? Nobody ever alleged the infallibility of the CCC.
“Hey...you’re catholic. it’s your document. I’m just calling it like you present it.”
You don’t even begin to comprehend.
“Nope...we rely up the Bible.”
Some protestants rely more on man-made nonsense when criticizing Catholicism than on the Bible. Oh, they come up with Biblical citations, but those come later to justify the terrible falsehoods their hatred leads them to swallow, hook, line, and sinker.
Oh, maybe that’s not fair. They were most probably taught those falsehoods as children in protestant churches, and only hang around with the like-minded. It takes real courage and strength to overcome a lie one was taught as a child.
“That is the sole source of God’s revelation to us.”
Yes, it is the sole source of God’s revelation us, but it is no part of the creepy nonsense some protestants come up with about Catholicism—God’s One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.
“According to one of the six accounts he did promise this.”
Well, since that one of six accounts is convenient to hatred and prejudice, let’s ignore the other five—more reliable—accounts.
“No Biblical support for this position at all”
Which is probably why the pope never said it.
“It is. When the pope, the “vicar of Christ” promises such a whopper as this”
Okay, you have been shown that it didn’t happen. From now on, your every repetition will constitute a lie, uttered with full consent of the will. Think about that.
“If it’s in the Bible it’s good. If not, then you’re back to making stuff up again.”
That notion is not in the Bible. It is a man-made fiction created to justify the hatred and prejudice of early protestants. You know, so they could sleep at night after slaughtering Catholics.
“Which is where we started the conversation.”
Yes, with hatred and prejudice. Or did that go over your head too?
If the Bible is the ultimate source, it is by default, the only source.
Enjoyed the conversation. This will be my last post on this thread.
Apostasy and blasphemy.
“If the Bible is the ultimate source, it is by default, the only source.”
I was trying to find a facepalm graphic, but any that were strong enough would have gotten me banned.
So let me just say, Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch.
The “institution” is all they have. If they admit that the institution has errors they are left with nothing.
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.