Thoughts?

[Maggyie]

Popes and saints say all kinds of things. Wrong things, stupid things, or verbal mistakes they didn't mean to make. It would only bother me if this was being said ex cathedra. I mean he's not even pope any more. Never been into the "Saint quote" stuff. 

The picture is definitely photoshop though. I have the original (of the pope giving his blessing, no Koran in sight!) 

i think there does exist a black and white photo of the pope holding a Koran, it was a gift from somebody he was meeting, I think. Or a gift TO them. Anyway, not this photo. 

John Paul kisses the Koran (you can see the official he was meeting with... He was trying to be polite I think)

Original prior to Photoshopping 

[dominicansoul]

I took the prayer as a prayer for their conversion.  It was not taken that way by the majority of people, but I'm pretty sure St. John the Baptist knows what to do...

[Peace]

Knight,

Just to clarify a few things, I have no intention of praying for Islam. It is not on my bucket list of things to do. Nor am I specifically advocating that anyone else here do the same. But if St. John Paul II or anyone else decides to do so, I do not feel that I am in a position to assert that they are wrong. I would not be as quick as you are to condemn the statement he made because I do not think the issue is as black and white as you do. And I think that anyone who wants to make an assertion that other people’s actions constitute sin or are wrong carries the burden of proving that he is correct.

I will try to respond to your post the best that I can.

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

When did something that is false, corrupt, or a lie become good?

Things that contain falsehoods, corruption, or lies can be considered good (and praiseworthy) because the common definition of “good” includes things that are not perfect.

You seem to equate the word “good” and the word “perfect”. I asked you whether this was the case in my previous post and you did not answer the question, so I can only assume that the answer is yes.  If your answer is not yes please let me know.

Based on your view of things, it would seem that if your young son scored a 99% on a math test, you would not think it right to say to him “Good job Johnny! You did an amesome job on the test”.  Seemingly under your logic because the test contains flaws, you could only say to your son “Johnny, you got one question wrong on the test. Therefore you smell of elderberries and your performance on the test smells of elderberries. If you want me to say that you did a good job, study harder next time and get 100% of the questions right.”

Is that what you would say to your son, or would you agree that things can be good even though they are not perfect? Or is there some other alternative that I have overlooked?

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The only moral and sane suggestion would be the cake without poison. Suggesting the other two for whatever reason would be immoral.

What you wrote may be true, but you have not presented any authoritative or logical reasons in support of your opinion. I think that I have already established here on the forum that I am not inclined to assent to things “just because Knight says it is so.” If you present any authoritative or logical reasons in support of your opinion, I will be happy to consider them.

Now, concerning the matter of birthday cakes, it just so happens that my birthday was a few months ago, and my girlfriend made me a birthday cake. It was quite delicious.

If you do a brief search online you will notice that drinking water contains trace amounts of Sodium Fluoride (NaF). Because some drinking water was used to make my birthday cake, I think that it reasonable to conclude that my birthday cake contained some trace amount of NaF.  Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the birthday cake was 0.001% NaF.

On my birthday I said to my girlfriend “Thanks baby! What an amesome and delicious cake you made! Good job! I really appreciate it. I hope that I am lucky enough to have you make me a cake like this every year.”  Or something similar to that.

Now, if I hire a bunch of scientists and pay one million dollars, I am pretty sure that I can get them to make me a birthday cake with 0% NaF.  That is, they can bake me a perfect, NaF free birthday cake.

Apparently, according to your logic, what I should have said to my girlfriend was “what tha fonze is this baby? Are you trying to poison me with this 0.001% NaF birthday cake? This cake is no good babe. You have NaF mixed in with the chocolate filling and the vanilla icing so so the whole cake is a disaster. Come back with the perfect and true 0% NaF cake and then I will show you some love for your efforts.”

You would find that to be an unreasonable and ridiculous way to respond to my girlfriend, would you not?

But the only difference between my hypothetical and your hypothetical is that we are dealing with different numbers.  You say “you cannot call the 10% NaF cake good, because even though it is better than the 15% NaF cake, it is not perfect.”  I said “you cannot call the 0.001% NaF cake good because, even though it is better than the 10% NaF cake, it is not perfect.”  The principle and logic here is exactly the same.  The only thing that is different is the numbers.

So if you would find it ridiculous if I had told my girlfriend that the cake she made for me was not good, can you please explain why your statement concerning the cake should not also be considered ridiculous?

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Monotheism is true, so Monotheism can be praised, that the true God is the God of Abraham is true so that can be praised. But Islam is truth mixed with lies, it rejects the God of Israel for example. We cannot adopt a sort of dualism, believing we can praise something that is both true and false, good and evil. The Devil believes in monotheism, the devil believes God is the God of Abraham. The devil holds elements of truth, but should we praise the devil because he holds to elements of truth? No. But using your position for praising false religions, we can also praise the devil. Because the devil has elements of truth. 

My position is not that we should praise the devil, should anyone reading this be wondering if that is the case.  My position is also not that one should praise a thing (be it the devil, Islam, or otherwise) merely because it holds elements of truth or goodness.  Let’s say, for example, that Johnny comes home and shows me his math test, which has 10% and a big fat “F” written on the front in red.   I would certainly not say “Good job on the test Johnny my boy! Even though you got 90% wrong, you got 10 questions right. Let’s go out for ice cream”.  I would say “What a horrible test. Go up to your room, you are on punishment.” I do not know where the devil would score on our hypothetical measure of goodness, but I am guessing that his score would be a lot less than 10%.

Now, as for where Hinduism, Judaism, Southern Baptists, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. fall on the scale, I have no strong opinions about. But I would tend to say that some of these religions are “good”, although imperfect. Many people have come to know the Lord through Orthodoxy, Southern Baptist beliefs, etc.

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Amos 5:21-24 gives a clear picture of how God feels about false worship of Him. Psalm 96:5 gives us a clear picture of how God feels about worship of false gods.

That may very well be true. But neither of those Bible verses specifically addresses or answers the questions that I asked you, and which you did not answer. I will ask them again (1) who says that God does not use false regions?  (2) How do you know that it was not God’s will that I became a protestant on my way to becoming Catholic?

Now, I also asked you whether you deny that God acts through non-Catholic communities of faith.  You also did not answer the question. I can only assume that your answer to this question is “no”, but if this is not the case please let me know.  As for me, I do not know for certain whether and the extent to which God uses non-Catholic religions and communities of faith. But I do not have any reason to rule out the possibility, nor have you provided any. 

And there are Church documents that indicate that God does.  For example:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
 

Quote

 

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

 

The document states right there that spirit of Christ uses non-Catholic communities of faith as a means for salvation. What do you have to say about it? Does that not indicate that God works through non-Catholic communities of faith? Is that an unreasonable conclusion to make?

20 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

No. As I stated before false religions are of two kinds, worship of false gods, or the false worship of the true God. Judaism rejects the true nature of God, due to it's rejection of Christ as God. So they give false worship to the one true God. The only Church that gives God true worship is the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Church gives God true worship. Are their Masses not valid? Is Christ not present in their Mass? Are we not allowed to attend their Mass under certain circumstances?

So it seems fairly clear to me that your statement that “the only Church that gives God true worship is the Catholic Church” is wrong. Please feel free to correct your statement.

If you go to any evangelical Church you might hear them sing a song that goes “Our God is an amesome God! He reigns from heaven above with wisdom, power and love! Our God is an amesome God!”  Now what about this, exactly, does not constitute true worship in your opinion? What about it is defective?

Lastly, concerning Islam specifically, you know exactly what the Catechism has to say on the matter, but I will repeat it here again for your reading enjoyment:

Quote

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

The Catechism plainly states that Muslims “with us” adore the one, merciful God.  So how exactly does this adoration, that the Muslims do “with us”, constitute worship of a false god or false worship of the true God?

21 hours ago, Josh said:

@Peace I don't see the comparison in Islam and Protestant Churches. Protestants accept Christ as God. Islam doesn't. That is the spirit of the Antichrist is it not?

1 John 2:22 ►

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.

 

Josh, I will try to get to this when I have time. I had a bit to chew on with Knight's post.

[KnightofChrist]

I attempted to reply point for point but my computer's wifi is not working. I will not even bother trying to do so on my phone. I will attempt to do so tomorrow.

However,  I will quote two authoritative sources Christ and Pope Pius XI (later if I am able I will provide other like sources)

 @Peace, Christ teaches us that " Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him",  and "whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

So how can someone truely accept and adore God the Father if they reject Christ as God or do not honor Christ as God? Christ, to me, clearly states it is not possible to truely honor or accept (truely worship) God the Father if they reject or do not honor God the Son. So, to me, it is clear that anyone who professes to believe in the God of Abraham yet rejects and does not honor Christ as God gives God the Father false worship.

As for finding false religons praiseworthy, Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos made it clear that is both dangerous and erroneous. 

"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded
as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in
different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the
obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in
distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."

source: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html

[KnightofChrist]

Also from Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos 

"The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. "

[Guest]

Some teachings of Islam are apparently sound moral teachings -  and there are many good people of Islamic profession, including those living and contributing, in sometimes quite outstanding and positive ways, in our own communities:
 

Quote

 

http://Vatican Translation: James Ch 1    V 17 "Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers: all good giving and every perfect gift ⁹ is from above, coming down from the Father of lights

V27" Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows ¹⁵ in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world. "

 

Wiping off Islam completely because of those within it who are evil, is like wiping off Catholicism completely because of those in our midst who do evil.  It does not make any logical sense at all.

[Peace]

Knight, 

Thanks for the document. I will have to study it. There does seem to be a conflict between that one and the Vatican II stuff. I am not sure how I would reconcile them, at least not tonight.

Can you give me the Bible verse numbers?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

Knight, 

Thanks for the document. I will have to study it. There does seem to be a conflict between that one and the Vatican II stuff. I am not sure how I would reconcile them, at least not tonight.

Can you give me the Bible verse numbers?

John 5:23 and Luke 16:10

[Guest]

     In considering Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos (On Religious Unity) comparing it with the Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio , it might be helpful to read an informed commentary by Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., is an emeritus professor of theology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico who is now based at the Oblates of Wisdom Study Center in St. Louis, Missouri.:

Catholic Answers Magazine "Is Ecumenism Heresy?"       
 

Quote

 

Vying with the Declaration on Religious Liberty for the honor (or disgrace, depending on one’s theological outlook) of being the Second Vatican Council’s most doctrinally innovative document is its Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (UR). Those at both traditionalist and liberal ends of the Catholic spectrum have seen this Decree (with sentiments of glowering gloom and gloating glee respectively) as representing a significant departure from traditional doctrine. The latter, of course, emphasized Catholicism as the one true religion, to which separated Christians will simply have to return if ever unity is to be restored. In this short article I shall limit myself to a comparison between UR and the pre-conciliar papal document most frequently cited as being incompatible with it, Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical on fostering true religious unity, Mortalium Animos (On Religious Unity). This encyclical set out the Catholic Church’s position regarding the fledgling movement for religious unity which had been gathering steam in liberal Protestant circles since the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

...........................Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase " subsistit in " in order to try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist without the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular churches or in the ecclesial communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio introduced the term fullness ( unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although .........."...............