Do Christians And Muslims Worship The Same God?

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Gladius said:

The Muslims do not worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  They use derogatory terms to describe the idea of the Trinity.  They are not only unbelievers, they are pagans.  Same with the Jews.  They reject the Trinity, they reject the Messiah, they reject the Church.  

Vatican II says the Muslims worship the same God together with us.  This is blasphemy, heresy, and a grave sin against the First Commandment. 

So what's your favorite SSPX chapel you attend?

[Gladius]

8 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

So what's your favorite SSPX chapel you attend?

St Vincent de Paul in KC, MO.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Gladius

[Peace]

11 hours ago, Gladius said:

The Muslims do not worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  They use derogatory terms to describe the idea of the Trinity.  They are not only unbelievers, they are pagans.  Same with the Jews.  They reject the Trinity, they reject the Messiah, they reject the Church.  

Vatican II says the Muslims worship the same God together with us.  This is blasphemy, heresy, and a grave sin against the First Commandment. 

Hmm. So you reject Vatican II?

I foresee a phishy tag in the future. . .

[Gladius]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. So you reject Vatican II?

I foresee a phishy tag in the future. . .

What "Catholic" doesn't reject VII?  How can anyone claim to be "Catholic" and accept heresy?  Just sayin'.

[MarysLittleFlower]

3 minutes ago, Gladius said:

What "Catholic" doesn't reject VII?  How can anyone claim to be "Catholic" and accept heresy?  Just sayin'.

V2 didn't proclaim doctrine, it was pastoral. All the doctrines of Trent and V1 stand, they are just not talked about enough perhaps. The difficulty with V2 is figuring out what it meant because the language isn't always as technical. But it wasn't a dogmatic council and it defined no doctrines. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I accept fully the doctrines of Trent and other Councils.. In V2 there's no further doctrine. It either restates previous doctrines or makes non doctrinal statements 

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Gladius said:

What "Catholic" doesn't reject VII?  How can anyone claim to be "Catholic" and accept heresy?  Just sayin'.

"One cannot accept Trent and Vatican I and reject Vatican II, just as one cannot accept Vatican II and reject the others. The same authority made all of these Councils. To reject one is to reject all." - Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report

[Gladius]

17 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

"One cannot accept Trent and Vatican I and reject Vatican II, just as one cannot accept Vatican II and reject the others. The same authority made all of these Councils. To reject one is to reject all." - Cardinal Ratzinger in The Ratzinger Report

Baloney with cheese.  There were no dogmatic pronouncements made at VII.  That means, no infallibility.  It's the first "Council" in history to do that.  Just like there have never been two Popes in residence at the Vatican.  There have been false claimants to the Papacy, called anti-Popes.  Never two men in the Vatican, both dressed in white and answering to the title of Pope.

These are strange times.  Refer to Anne Catherine Emmerich's prophecy about the relationship between two Popes.  "How baleful" was this false church.  I saw heretics of every kind enter the city of Rome...and I saw a great darkness".

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Gladius said:

What "Catholic" doesn't reject VII?  How can anyone claim to be "Catholic" and accept heresy?  Just sayin'.

Here's a more exact quote:

"...it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also in regards to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates  their texts word for word in decisive points."

"It is impossible [for a Catholic] to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I... It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent or Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation." - Cardinal Josef Ratzinger

[MarysLittleFlower]

3 minutes ago, Gladius said:

Baloney with cheese.  There were no dogmatic pronouncements made at VII.  That means, no infallibility.  It's the first "Council" in history to do that.  Just like there have never been two Popes in residence at the Vatican.  There have been false claimants to the Papacy, called anti-Popes.  Never two men in the Vatican, both dressed in white and answering to the title of Pope.

These are strange times.  Refer to Anne Catherine Emmerich's prophecy about the relationship between two Popes.  "How baleful" was this false church.  I saw heretics of every kind enter the city of Rome...and I saw a great darkness".

Gladius I have something to share with you on that because I spent a good amount of time researching about the two Popes and Emmerich. I ended up looking it up in the book. All the sources that link the two Popes to two current Popes are getting it wrong - because they only quote that part of the text. If you read the whole chapter, its very clear that she is describing a Pope from a particular time being linked to a Pope from the early Church - I forger their names but I ended up just reading the whole chapter. The early Church is shown to be fighting idolatry with much strength. All the parts about two Popes in the Vatican are about the two visions she had about two Popes from different times. The quotes typically given on the websites talk about the relationship between the two Popes and then about a "false Church" and that is very striking but if you read the whole thing - in the actual book, not websites - its describing something else and the passage is out of context..as the two Popes are actually from different times. You can find books by Emmerich online and read the whole chapter there

5 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Here's a more exact quote:

"...it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also in regards to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates  their texts word for word in decisive points."

"It is impossible [for a Catholic] to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I... It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent or Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation." - Cardinal Josef Ratzinger

I think what he is saying perhaps is that we need to see V2 as a real Council under the authority of the Pope, and that if we don't, we are undermining the authority of the Pope. I was also told though that V2 didn't make new dogmatic statements and any time it mentions a dogma its just quoting from before. So its a Council coming from the authority of the Pope and Bishops - but doesn't change as much as some would like it to because it didn't declare doctrines. Its also helpful to remember that many used V2 for their own agendas... And since the language is not as technical, sometimes its unclear what was meant and that could be used as well by more liberal minded people. Clearly there were also many disagreements at V2 between conservative and liberal Bishops. But since it didn't make doctrines, we can simply stay with doctrines made previously - once something is defined, it is always true, after all. I don't know if this is all correct but just how I remember I was told about it. 

[Ice_nine]

24 minutes ago, Gladius said:

Baloney with cheese.

It's bologna.

Argument invalid.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Any more thoughts about Muslims? I read that early on Islam was actually seen as a heresy. Because they took some true points - there being one God (not many), points from the OT etc, but rejected others - the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion etc. The true points continue being true like there being one God. But He is the Holy Trinity and this has been revealed, and since Islam rejects that part I read that mediaeval Catholics saw Muslims as a type of heretics. Any thoughts? Of course we need Jesus to know the Father. 

[PhuturePriest]

13 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Gladius I have something to share with you on that because I spent a good amount of time researching about the two Popes and Emmerich. I ended up looking it up in the book. All the sources that link the two Popes to two current Popes are getting it wrong - because they only quote that part of the text. If you read the whole chapter, its very clear that she is describing a Pope from a particular time being linked to a Pope from the early Church - I forger their names but I ended up just reading the whole chapter. The early Church is shown to be fighting idolatry with much strength. All the parts about two Popes in the Vatican are about the two visions she had about two Popes from different times. The quotes typically given on the websites talk about the relationship between the two Popes and then about a "false Church" and that is very striking but if you read the whole thing - in the actual book, not websites - its describing something else and the passage is out of context..as the two Popes are actually from different times. You can find books by Emmerich online and read the whole chapter there

I think what he is saying perhaps is that we need to see V2 as a real Council under the authority of the Pope, and that if we don't, we are undermining the authority of the Pope. I was also told though that V2 didn't make new dogmatic statements and any time it mentions a dogma its just quoting from before. So its a Council coming from the authority of the Pope and Bishops - but doesn't change as much as some would like it to because it didn't declare doctrines. Its also helpful to remember that many used V2 for their own agendas... And since the language is not as technical, sometimes its unclear what was meant and that could be used as well by more liberal minded people. Clearly there were also many disagreements at V2 between conservative and liberal Bishops. But since it didn't make doctrines, we can simply stay with doctrines made previously - once something is defined, it is always true, after all. I don't know if this is all correct but just how I remember I was told about it. 

A solid point Ratzinger makes in the aforementioned book is that councils always result in about one hundred years of subsequent heresy and defiance. Nicaea, Trent, etc. Look at all of them and read what happened afterward. People who claim to have deep knowledge of the Church never seem to know what happened after Vatican II is simply what happens every time. 

[Gladius]

38 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

It's bologna.

Argument invalid.

I'm in over my head.

32 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

 People who claim to have deep knowledge of the Church never seem to know what happened after Vatican II is simply what happens every time. 

I would never claim to have deep knowledge about anything, but your point is valid.

[Gladius]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

Here's a more exact quote:

"...it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also in regards to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates  their texts word for word in decisive points."

"It is impossible [for a Catholic] to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I... It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent or Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation." - Cardinal Josef Ratzinger

There is no such thing as the college of Bishops.  That's another VII innovation.  The Council of Trent dogmatically defines, that if one of the Pastors, that includes the Pope.  If one of the Pastors changes the liturgy, or invents a new liturgy, he is outside of the Church.  In Pope St Pius V Bull of 1570, the official Roman Rite of the Catholic Church was codified forever.  Canon Law states that it is a God given right, for every Catholic to have their own Rite. 

The new mass was written up by a couple of bureaucrats chosen by Paul VI.  In the forward of the book, Paul VI says, I like this book and I add 3 Eucharistic prayers.  Nowhere does Paul VI say that it has to be used.  Paul VI never signed a decree saying the new mass has to be used. 

An excerpt from the closing session of VII:  This council… has concentrated principally on man … Would it not be, in short, a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God? To love man, we say, not as a means but as the first step toward the final and transcendent goal which is the basis and cause of every love… The religion of God who became man has met the religion of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. … we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism; we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor man; we have the Cult of Man”.

An excerpt from the encyclical, E Supremi, Pope St Pius X:  When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2).

As for Josef Ratzinger,  I direct your attention to the scandalous "Theological Commentary" on the Third Secret, released by the Vatican in June of 2000: 

The concluding part of the “secret” uses images which Lucia may have seen in devotional books and which draw their inspiration from long-standing intuitions of faith.  (It takes a convoy of cargo ships to carry the amount of audacity that Cardinal Ratzinger has, to attempt to debunk the visits of the Virgin Mary to Fatima.)

and...

I would like finally to mention another key expression of the “secret” which has become justly famous: “my Immaculate Heart will triumph”. What does this mean? The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind.  (Another convoy of cargo ships is needed again for the audacity Cardinal Ratzinger uses to equate every heart open to God as an Immaculate Heart.)

I just hope the Good Lord is too busy punishing the clergy to remember my sins.