Infiltration... Top selling catholic book on amazon

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This may be what you are searching for, as it mentions both the Council of Florence and Trent.

Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God? By Raymond Taouk under the A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.

Scroll down to the part that says “The Council of Florence, clearly sets down the four notes of heresy as follows: 1,2,3,4” to the sentence "The Modernist’s in using these subjective terms " at the end of which is number 14 which is in the footnotes:- "14. This dogma has been affirmed many times over by the Churches Magesterium. It has been affirmed by Pope Innocent III (DS423), The IV Lateran Council (DS 430), Pope Boniface VIII (DS 468), The Council of Florence (DS 714), Pius IX (DS1647), Pope Clement VI (DS 5706), The Council of Trent (DS 861). "

There is also this site in Brazil - There is no salvation outside the Church Marcelo de Andrade

My own personal view is that I am living post Vatican II and under the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I submit to what the Church teaches. That we can hope for the salvation of all. But my own personal opinion is that Islam is not the same as Catholicism, in any way.

God bless.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this, though I’ve already seen it.
By the way, the author Raymond Taouk is now Fr. Taouk, member of the SSPX, so… I know his text won’t be much accepted.

And the one from Monfort, thank you as well.
I’m from Brazil, but I’m not a great fan of Monfort myself, but thanks anyway.
 
You’re welcome. I’m sorry but that’s all my searches came up with regarding salvation outside the church + islam + council of trent.

God bless.

Edited to add -
Petrus1 said:
the author Raymond Taouk is now Fr. Taouk, member of the SSPX
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware of that, so thank you for that info.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Heaven forbid a traditionalist ever confuse the opinions of Amazon readers with the truth. It is a measure of popularity with consumers, not a measure of veracity.
Click to expand...
Most critics aren’t disputing the truthfulness of the events that did in fact occur, but they seem to be critical of those who attempt to answer “why” they occurred.

If one were to examine the current state of the Church today and contemplate exactly how someone like McCarrick was able to rise to his level of prominence, in spite of his atrocities; I don’t think it’s sensational or conspiratorial to claim that others aided him in his corruption.

So I don’t think a book like this is so radical in its views, that it makes it impossible to believe that certain clergy conspired behind the scenes of some of these events.

In the end, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Just like there are those who flat out deny and refuse to believe, that anyone helped or aided McCarrick. And some still believe there is absolutely no evidence of corruption or deceit and attribute much of what we hear, to anti catholic media and practices.

That’s doesn’t make it true, but for some it’s better than admitting the alternative.
 
angel12 said:
I just did. Sorry if you missed it.
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t and your follow up passive aggressiveness does you a disservice. I said logically sound argument not a question about how something might make me feel. I will try again:

CHRISTians are so called because they follow the teachings of Christ

Using the term MOHAMMEDans to describe those those who follow the teachings of Mohammed makes perfect sense and should not be seen as the least bit offensive.

Would you like to refute that with a logical argument? Just statements will do fine. Rhetorical questions are not an argument.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I read the review. Tells me a lot about Jeffrey Mirus - a man with his head in the sand, or worse. Maybe in the Princeton clouds, a worse place to be.
 
translaticius said:
40.png
gracepoole:
and his choice to call Muslims Mohammedans seems like an unnecessarily divisive and offensive choice.
Click to expand...
You are a Christian because you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Does that offend you? Muslims follow the teachings of a man whom they think is a prophet. His name was Mohammed. I think Mohammedans is a much more accurate term than Muslims.
Click to expand...
Have you actually watched the program in which he makes this statement? Did you follow his reasoning for it?
 
translaticius said:
40.png
angel12:
I just did. Sorry if you missed it.
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t and your follow up passive aggressiveness does you a disservice. I said logically sound argument not a question about how something might make me feel. I will try again:

CHRISTians are so called because they follow the teachings of Christ

Using the term MOHAMMEDans to describe those those who follow the teachings of Mohammed makes perfect sense and should not be seen as the least bit offensive.

Would you like to refute that with a logical argument? Just statements will do fine. Rhetorical questions are not an argument.
Click to expand...
Just because one religion chooses to title itself according to the deity it worships does not mean they all do (spoiler alert: Jews don’t worship Jew). Look up the etymology of the word Islam.
 
I have seen all his videos made in the last year. I don’t remember his reasoning but I am arguing using my own reasoning not his. I simply contend that it isn’t offensive to be referred to using a term that completely and accurately describes the actions.
 
This is common practice if you are at all familiar with Amazon. Just about every product offered has reviews with the caveat of “this is part of a free promotion.” This is the world in which we live. Sink or swim.

Also referring to his fans as “sycophants” is uncharitable and against forum rules.
 
translaticius said:
Also referring to his fans as “sycophants” is uncharitable and against forum rules.
Click to expand...
syc·o·phant

/ˈsikəˌfant,ˈsikəfənt/

noun

noun: sycophant ; plural noun: sycophants
  1. a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.
Click to expand...
These are fans who received free copies and a mention in the book in exchange for writing glowing reviews. The word seems to be extremely accurate.
 
synonyms: toady, creep, crawler, fawner, flatterer, flunkey, truckler, groveller, doormat, lickspittle, kowtower, obsequious person, minion, hanger-on, leech, puppet, spaniel,

You meant it as in insult which is ironic as this is what you claim Dr. Marshal is doing while refusing to acknowledge my justification for his word use just as you are trying to justify yours. You do see the hypocrisy right?
gracepoole said:
The word seems to be extremely accurate.
Click to expand...
This sounds familiar. Perhaps it’s because it is exactly the point I was making. 😂
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
He basically bought a thousand positive Amazon reviews by giving away free copies to his most ardent sycophants.
Click to expand...
In all fairness he only asked 200 people to read an advanced PDF version. He didn’t mail out 1000 copies to 1000 people.
Click to expand...
This is true! I do wonder, though, how 1000 people managed to get a copy that quickly. Amazon didn’t order nearly enough copies and ran out very early on. Up until at least a couple of days ago, Marshall’s co-host Timothy Gordon hadn’t even received one yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top