Posted on 03/14/2015 6:43:21 PM PDT by ebb tide
The Philippines’ top prelate decried the clergy’s harmful treatment of lesbian and gay people during a recent address in London, saying modern science and social attitudes must be integrated into the church’s pastoral efforts.
(Excerpt) Read more at newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com ...
Note that not one of the quotation at that site says that “Allah” is “Satan.” They say that Mahomet is a false, diabolical prophet, and that his religion is diabolical.
No question, Islam is diabolical. Mahomet is (if he ever existed), diabolical. If Mahomet ever actually had any visions, they were, without question, diabolical.
That is completely different from saying that “Allah” is Satan, as many on FR have said.
If a Muslim understands by “Allah,” “the supreme infinite being,” then that’s what “Allah” is, and that Muslim is worshiping the true God. Everything Islam teaches about God is totally warped. And Satan has everything to do with Islam. But it is nonsensical to say that a person who correctly understands that there is one infinite eternal God, and worships that God, is worshiping Satan.
And the Catholic Church's endorsement of "theistic evolution" continues to pay dividends!
They say that Muslims are godless. They say Muslims are damned because they do not profess the Holy Trinity (ie. God). And nowhere do they even suggest that Allah is God.
The point is that what the Vatican II religion says about Islam is VERY different from what the Catholic Faith prior to Vatican II said about Islam. Anyone who does not see that is truly blind.
But in a sign that the welcome wasn't all it could have been, the New Ways Ministry pilgrims were only identified on the Vatican's list of attendees as a "group of lay people accompanied by a Sister of Loretto (the dissident heretic, Sister Jeannine Gramick).
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Vatican-welcomes-gay-Catholics-6088893.php
The homos were given preferential treatment and they were singularly recognized, but not by name. VIP seating is not first come - first serve; it is roped off and policed. Only visitors with invitations are seated in that section.
No one worships the Supreme Being if they knowingly and vincibly reject His Son.
Despite your lengthy riposte, you have missed the entire point. Of course, God’s Word was given by God Himself. No one disputes this. This is a straw man’s argument.
But before we knew exactly what was God’s Word, we had the Church. God’s Word was not up in the clouds, and the books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and self-assemble themselves. There were hundreds of other writings purporting to be God’s words like the gnostic gospels of Judas and Thomas. Who sorted all this out? Yes, it was the early Church Fathers who through infallible authority sorted out what was truly God’s Word and what was not. This is the ultimate authority, to know exactly what is God’s Word.
It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. These were ALL Councils of the ONE Church. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible and its universal interpretation given by the Church. The only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.
There were many things that Christ said and did that were not written down but became part of the sacred oral traditions of the Church, its liturgies and rituals.
It is this command to go out to the whole world (all nations) that marks the Church that Christ established, which is why that Church came to be known as “Catholic”, from the Greek word katholikos (kata “about”, and holos, “whole”).
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
St. Paul in his letters also warns the faithful to hold fast to the tradition they received: “We command you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid any brother who wanders from the straight path and does not follow the tradition you received from us” (2 Th 3, 6).
This is precisely why scores of preeminent Lutheran and other Protestant scholars have after a lifetime of scholarship, teaching, and preaching have decamped from the Protestant rot and converted to Catholicism.
You are trying to play neophyte “internet” theologian by telling us how Paul tried to “correct” etc. This is the shallow nonsense of Bible Christians and why now scores of Protestant theologians have found to taken out of context and is considered sheer rubbish.
Ulf Ekman, the founder of Scandinavia’s biggest Bible school, with a congregation of some 4000 individuals, converted to Catholicism because his theological inquiry confirmed for him the indispensability of the Catholic sacraments.
Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians resigned and joined the Catholic Church. One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan’s defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.
Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, was a pre-eminent Lutheran theologian in America. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant. When he converted to Catholicism he said, “I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
Don’t take my word. Here’s one original source. St. Irenaeus:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
At the end of the day we can’t have a million interpretations of every Tom, Dick, and Harry and you and the Joel Osteens, Billy Grahams, the Moonies, and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights of this world crack open the pages of the Bible and each offers us their “own” interpretations of Scripture with all their vapid and contradictory nonsense. Christ established ONE Church to make sure His Word and it’s interpretation will be infallibly proclaimed through the ages as ONE truth.
I wasn’t talking about them.
But “Allah” IS God.
Islam teaches a boatload of falsehoods about God, but if the definition of “Allah” is “the supreme, infinite, eternal being,” then “Allah” is God.
Says who? Vatican II? Um, no.
With all due respect, Father, you said, “Muslims do that.”
5:17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
5:72 They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.”
I really don't understand how anybody can claim a Muslim who follows his Koran is not knowingly rejecting the Son of God. And most are certainly not invincible.
If St Francis of Assisi and his disciples could convert Muslims to Catholicism, why can't Pope Francis? Why doesn't he even try to?
Take the Jews and the Golden Calf for example.
If a Muslim thinks that “Allah” is “the supreme, eternal, infinite being,” then that Muslim is worshiping the true God.
Everything else he thinks about God is screwed up, but he is NOT an idolater comparable to the Israelites worshiping the Golden Calf.
They are rejecting JESUS. They DON’T KNOW they are rejecting the truth.
The people I wasn’t talking about are those who KNOW they are rejecting the truth.
Most have been exposed to the Truth; and they have rejected it.
There is absolutely no reason to claim they do worship God. It’s a lie. They worship something, but it sure isn’t the Blessed Trinity.
Why do you single out all monotheists, only, as worshipping God. Why can’t polytheists worships God also?
It is IMPOSSIBLE to THINK you are worshiping the one, true, eternal, infinite God, and not be worshiping Him.
If you don’t get the truth of the foregoing sentence, then you have no idea what “worship” is.
I'm sorry, but I consider that to be a downright silly argument. Who, in his right mind, would reject the Truth about God and His Church, and still hope to get to Heaven? And I also consider that statement to be a huge insult to the Catholic missionary martyrs.
The only people I can think of knowingly reject the Truth are Satanists who long to be with Lucifer.
That's like thinking the Maserati is behind door Number One when it's really behind Door Number Three. You can't just "think" the Truth.
So why the need for a Catholic Church?
I was told by a traditional Catholic priest that even a Catholic, in a state of mortal sin, cannot truly worship God until he returns to a state of grace. Do you disagree?
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.