Us Catholic Leadership Invites Hindu Leader

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516583' date='May 2 2008, 07:22 AM']Very well.
This is exactly the problem. I agree that "true worship is only given to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit." That's exactly why I emphatically stated that the Muslims can only "worship" God in the way heathens "worship," i.e. they go through the motions, but it's not a true, fruitful, spiritual exercise of the soul because it is not done through the Incarnation, as must be the case. . . .[/quote]
I understand your point, but I do not agree with it, because heathens do not worship God. Pagan worship is – by its very nature – [i]false[/i], and so it has no value because it cannot bring a man into a living relationship with the tri-hypostatic God.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1516554' date='May 2 2008, 06:52 AM']Would you say the same to Phatmass poster, Socrates, who regularly posts intelligent and succinct comments about Muslims and Islam? Would you discount him, too, on the stereotype that he's a conservative lackey?[/quote]
Stereotype, no. In fact, I mentioned Limbaugh and Hannity as examples of conservative media; didn't mean to say that you necessarily listened to them. I did, however, notice that you have a link to Michelle Malkin on your blog. I guess I'm not so far off afterall.

As for Socrates, I think it's plainly obvious that I do not support many of his views. Regardless, I am nevertheless a conservative. I was planning to vote for Sam Brownback until he left the race, and right now I'm planning on writing in Pope Benedict because McCain is simply a liberal in disguise.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516583' date='May 2 2008, 07:22 AM']Dr. Hildebrand would say, for instance, that...oh, gosh...what was the name of that French anthropologist he made us read from...anyway, the book was in Sacraments, he made us read it to show that sacramentality was a universal trait of various human cultures, even though only Christian sacraments actually take that human need for sacramental living and put it in a truly sacramental way of worship. Similarly, all I'm saying is that in as much as we all have a human need to worship, we all "worship" something, but it's not truly worship in the sense of orthodoxa.[/quote]
I greatly respect Dr. Hildebrand, but he and I would probably not agree with each other on this issue, because I no longer subscribe to the modern views of Western theologians. I am more interested in what the Fathers taught on this topic, and they would make a hard distinction between the worship given by the Church to the tri-hypostatic God, and the vile acts of false religions, which can never give true glory ([i]doxa[/i]) to God.

The main point is this: the Islamic religion is false, and so it cannot bring a man into a living relationship with the Triune God.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516583' date='May 2 2008, 07:22 AM']...oh, gosh...what was the name of that French anthropologist he made us read from...[/quote]
Dr. Hildebrand assigned Mircea Eliade's, "The Sacred and the Profane" for the class on the sacraments, but I prefer his book entitled, "The Myth of the Eternal Return."

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516597' date='May 2 2008, 09:39 AM']I understand your point, but I do not agree with it, because heathens do not worship God. Pagan worship is – by its very nature – [i]false[/i], and so it has no value because it cannot bring a man into a living relationship with the tri-hypostatic God.[/quote]
Exactly, but you still call it "pagan worship." You use the word "worship" to describe it. I am using this same meaning of the word in reference to Muslim "worship." The issue I have, however, is that in a purely subjective form of "worship," the object of the worship is entirely in the will of the worshipper. If I wish to "worship" the half-eaten can of pineapple my lovely wife left on the counter this morning (just happens to be the nearest thing I wanted to make an example of), the fact that I am not in right-relation to the can cannot keep it from being the object of my worship, nor can anything else. I maintain that if the Muslims intend to worship "the God of Abraham," or, for that matter, if a complete heathen without religion sees the universe and realizes that there must be a Creator and wishes to worship that Creator, then the object of their "worship" (in the strictly pagan sense that you have used above) is God, though they do not know Him and are not in right-relation to Him and cannot offer Him orthodoxa.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516605' date='May 2 2008, 09:48 AM']Dr. Hildebrand assigned Mircea Eliade's, "The Sacred and the Profane" for the class on the sacraments, but I prefer his book entitled, "The Myth of the Eternal Return."[/quote]
Yes, thank you.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516601' date='May 2 2008, 09:44 AM']The main point is this: the Islamic religion is false, and so it cannot bring a man into a living relationship with the Triune God.[/quote]
I agree.

I am saddened, though, that you do not care for the modern views of Western theologians. I admit that I need to learn more about Eastern theology, but I cannot imagine leaving behind Western theology, which is so necessary and so articulate in the philosophical language of westerners.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516606' date='May 2 2008, 07:51 AM']Exactly, but you still call it "pagan worship." You use the word "worship" to describe it. I am using this same meaning of the word in reference to Muslim "worship." The issue I have, however, is that in a purely subjective form of "worship," the object of the worship is entirely in the will of the worshipper. If I wish to "worship" the half-eaten can of pineapple my lovely wife left on the counter this morning (just happens to be the nearest thing I wanted to make an example of), the fact that I am not in right-relation to the can cannot keep it from being the object of my worship, nor can anything else. I maintain that if the Muslims intend to worship "the God of Abraham," or, for that matter, if a complete heathen without religion sees the universe and realizes that there must be a Creator and wishes to worship that Creator, then the object of their "worship" (in the strictly pagan sense that you have used above) is God, though they do not know Him and are not in right-relation to Him and cannot offer Him orthodoxa.[/quote]
Conventions of speech are not a doctrine. Pagan worship is not true worship, and since it is not true worship it has no power, no divinity, within it. Similarly, I can call Zeus a god, but that does not mean that I believe there really is a god called Zeus.

Let's stick to the real point at issue: Islam! Is it a false religion, or can a Muslim give true worship to God through the practice of the precepts established by Muhammed?

I believe that Islam is a false religion, and that Muhammed has deceived uncounted million of human beings, leading them away from communion with God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1516610' date='May 2 2008, 07:55 AM']I agree.

I am saddened, though, that you do not care for the modern views of Western theologians. I admit that I need to learn more about Eastern theology, but I cannot imagine leaving behind Western theology, which is so necessary and so articulate in the philosophical language of westerners.[/quote]
The Western focus on philosophy is part of the problem, and it is one of the reasons why I left the Roman Church and became Byzantine Catholic.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Apotheoun

[mortify]

I think this teaching is succinctly stated in the dogmatic formula, "[b]Outside of the Church there is no salvation[/b]." In other words, only the Church possesses the power to save. The Church is the *only* Ark of salvation. This of course does not necessarily apply to the ignorant disbeliever, who through no fault of his own never heard the Gospel, though had he had an opportunity he would have searched it out and embraced it. And even if such a person were to be a Muslim or Buddhist, and they were to make it to heaven, it would be despite their religions. Their life of grace, living according to the natural law and what God reveals to them (not referring to their religion), and their implicit faith, would hopefully grant them the merits of Baptism and therefore they would die members of the Church even though they were visibly outside it. Who are to say that the Holy Ghost can't infuse the truth of the Gospel in such a person, and grant him the ability to know the Truth necessary for salvation.

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516619' date='May 2 2008, 09:17 AM']The Western focus on philosophy is part of the problem, and it is one of the reasons why I left the Roman Church and became Byzantine Catholic.[/quote]

Some of contemporary Catholic Theology (if we may even call it Catholic at times!) does introduce some very strange and unheard of ideas. The anonymous Christian theory, the non-existence of hell, the idea of universal salvation. But the pristine and strict scientific method of the Scholastics has been praised and accepted by the Church. If I'm not mistaken, one Pope placed St Thomas' Summa on the Altar as a sign of the Magesterium's promotion of Thomistic Theology. I don't think the East has anything comparable to our theology, and even though I'm not a theologian I hear it among the so called Orthodox practitioners. They don't know why they pray for the dead, they're not sure what happens after they day, whether they sit in a dark room waiting for resurrection or whether they have to walk through demonic toll booths. It just seems too nebulous for may lay ears. We are trying to make it to heaven, we need certain unshakable principles reasonably based on Revelation and Tradition, and illuminated by the Holy Ghost. The Fathers at times contradicted each other and sometimes they simply taught incorrect things. I looked up purgatory in the Summa at newadvent.org and St Thomas quoted a statement from St Gregory of Nyssa, and to my surprise he did in fact teach a purgation after death that was temporary, does the East accept purgation? No. On the down side, from what I hear he also taught the error of Origen, that hell is not eternal. The point is, we can't confuse the teachings of a particular or whole group of Fathers with that of the Magesterium, and that Magesterium has shown favor to original and pristine Thomistic theology.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516615' date='May 2 2008, 10:08 AM']Conventions of speech are not a doctrine. Pagan worship is not true worship, and since it is not true worship it has no power, no divinity, within it. Similarly, I can call Zeus a god, but that does not mean that I believe there really is a god called Zeus.

Let's stick to the real point at issue: Islam! Is it a false religion, or can a Muslim give true worship to God through the practice of the precepts established by Muhammed?

I believe that Islam is a false religion, and that Muhammed has deceived uncounted million of human beings, leading them away from communion with God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[/quote]

Islam is precisely what I'm trying to figure out here. Perhaps I'm going at it too philosophically. I agree with everything you've just said, but I still don't see how it negates what I have said. The Zeus example doesn't really touch what I've brought up because all it does is say that calling a fictional person a "god" doesn't make that person so. Naturally, I agree. However, since God (the true God) is real, and since the Muslims acknowledge Him as their God (despite the fact that He does not acknowledge them as His people because they do not offer orthodoxa), the situation we're addressing is entirely different.

As for conventions of speech, no, they are not doctrine, but they can help us understand doctrine. I think a part of the reason philosophy is so deeply influential on Western theology is that we had so many dang heretics throughout our history that we had to show were wrong. This is why our doctrines still develop (or rather, we develop in our understanding of them), because there are constant attempts by the secular world to combat the Church, and the Western Church is in constant battle with the master of this world, who uses cunning lies and deception to defraud the Christian people of their inheritance. We engage him in combat, and that requires that we learn careful distinctions between one thing and another and the effects of those distinctions, which is most certainly a philosophical exercise.

Perhaps all the philosophy I'm using to express my point is why you keep seeming to think that I disagree with your conclusions.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1516619' date='May 2 2008, 10:17 AM']The Western focus on philosophy is part of the problem, and it is one of the reasons why I left the Roman Church and became Byzantine Catholic.[/quote]

I prefer the "two lung" model. If it weren't for philosophy, the Western Church would have had no answer to heretics, no way of understanding their arguments and answering properly. If it weren't for philosophy, the Western Church would have remained silent in the face of a thousand heresies.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1516578' date='May 2 2008, 08:17 AM']as regards your fears of censorship...[/quote]


FEARS?? When did I say I fear anything? Please do not put words in my mouth. I have repeatedly said that you moderators are free to do as you wish. [b]Your repeated threats are abusive and rude[/b]. Stop making threats--the same ones over and over--and just do what you want to do.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1516578' date='May 2 2008, 09:17 AM']What you fail to recognize, Madame, is a basic truth of history and of the Christian Faith: The Catholic Church is the new Israel, Christians are the true continuation of the Hebrew Religion, and Rabbinic Judaism, founded in AD 90, is not a continuation of that.

As Apotheoun said, pre-Christian Judaism had an experiential relationship with the Triune God. Rabbinnic Judaism explicitly rejects the Triune God... the fact that He is triune is not some arbitrary little fact but an essential part of His nature.

it's amazingly self-contradictory that you could make excuses for one group that rejects the trinity because of their racial ties to the Chosen People of the Old Testament whilst insisting that another group who recognizes the God of the Old Testament have a completely different god. You can't have it both ways, Madame.

anyway, I have reworded nothing; I have stated that Jews do not believe in the same God because the God they believe in is based upon talmudic writings coupled with an incorrect interpretation of the Old Testament and a refusal to accept the Messiah and the Triune God. They direct their worship towards the God of Abraham, but have veils of misunderstanding placed up by talmudic teachings which contradict God's true revelation. Muslims have many more veils than Jews do, but they clearly direct their worship towards the true God. Apotheoun's wording is precise and correct: neither have right worship of God. they simply direct their worship towards Him. you are being absolutely unreasonable in calling these statements "incorrect theology" and spouting off as many inappropriate comments as you can think of.

as regards your fears of censorship... I have the power to completely delete every one of your posts at a whim and I have not done so despite your rudeness. calm your jets and cease in rudeness and you won't have to fear anything because we don't mind if you have a differing opinion so long as you're charitable and respectful.
very well put... the point everyone must realize is that the fact that God is tri-une is not some arbitrary fact about God... it's not some little personality trait... it's not like we know God prefers the taste of pizza to the taste of kumquats... the Tri-une nature of God is an essential part of His nature. If He were not Triune, He would not be God.[/quote]

Could not have put it better myself.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote]The Blessed Virgin Mary was about 13 when she was already betrothed to Joseph.[/quote]

That is a theory.

[quote]claim that it was rape simply because of her age[/quote]

If you're fine with a 50 + year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl, that far be it from me to try to change your mind.


[quote]Ah, so now I'm being rude for trying to ask you not to be?[/quote]

No, you are not. And I was never rude to you or anyone else. What you are rude for is repeatedly hammering threats that are ABUSIVE, Micah. What is it about that that you don't get? You don't like my tone. You think I'm sarcastic. You can delete, edit or ban me. You have said all those things. Over and over and over and over. And every time you say them you become more and more abusive and battering. So you tell me, who is being rude here? Who is not practicing charity here? Who is being impolite here?

[quote]I was not being rude, chauvanistic, or inappropriate.[/quote]

Yes, you were Micah. You were. And you did it becuase you feel you have the power to do it and that I deserve it and you are ENJOYING it because you think you look like the big man on the street and that everyone else dislikes me as much as you do so you are free to continue to be abusive and hammering. But I will repeat to you YET AGAIN that I have never verbally abused or hurt anyone here. I am more than willing to acccept how my tone and sarcastic comments make me look. But you should consider how your battering and abusive words are making YOU look.

[quote]You've said offensive things[/quote]

Not true. If you insist, show me please.


[quote]Evidently you are a child.[/quote]

Of course I am, Micah. Your list of accusations and insults grows with every new comment, so why shouldn't you know question my age and maturity level? You've accused me of pretending people agree with me who don't, piggybacking on other posts. Your list grows and grows. You are behaving like an abusive chauvanist, Micah. Please pluck out the beam in your eye before you rant about the splinter in mine.

And I will say it again, 10,000 times if I have to: I have never been verbally abusive towards anyone in this forum. The person I came closest to doing that to was Deb because of her remarks about America. However, I put her on ignore and I now don't see her posts. I suggest Aloysius and the others who are sooooooooo hurt by me might consider doing the same.

[quote]As such, I have never threatened it.[/quote]

So your repeated abusive comments were just fluff then? All your remarks about I had better fix myself, be warned, do this for my own good, etc...was just you blowing out hot air or what? How about you work on fixing yourself, Micah.

[quote]To be honest, I didn't take a look at this thread until someone complained about your rude response to Aloysius,[/quote]

Poor Al. Seems everything comes back to Al. Al needs to grow a thicker skin.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Madame Vengier