The Most Holy Family Monastery

[MMLJ]

Pope Benedict XVI error free?

When he teaches universally in faith/morals, you bet he is.

Is this one of those times when he is in error?:

BENEDICT XVI ESTEEMS ALL RELIGIONS

Benedict XVI, Address to Italian Bishops’ Conference, May 24, 2007: “Esteem and respect for all other religions and cultures, with the seeds of truth and goodness that are present there and that represent a preparation for the Gospel, **are particularly necessary today **in a world that is growing ever closer together.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 6, 2007, p. 3.)

All means all right?

Contrast with:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. 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 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.”

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede (#15), Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. ** Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”**

What is going on here? Do you see what all see?

Bub, lemme know if you want more for you to explain to me. What else I got you ask? It is not what I got, it is what they have spoken or written that is in question. You are so diligently going to explain to me again how he/they meant it/should have said it (I still do not know why they always need to be clarified:shrug: ), hold on a sec I think I am forseeing your future words now too!!!:whacky:

 

[MMLJ]

First off, why is there an “ex cathedra” next to that–it’s a concilliar statement–the Council doesn’t speak from a “chair.” I don’t get why so called “traditionalists” don’t understand that very basic point of doctrine. “From the chair” refers to papal infallibility.

So Pope Benedict XVI is infallible and at the same time not infallible, depending from where he is speaking from.

It’s also part of the Bull of Union with the Armenians, and not a statement aimed at the universal Church. Therefore, it does not have the solemn characteristic of a dogmatic definition binding on the whole Church. People like MFH put the words “ex cathedra” next to everything they like and everything they don’t like they completely dismiss. It’s absurd. But, that being said, that passage from*** the Council does express a truth of our faith***.

Again, that what is important here. The Truth of ‘Thee’ Faith.

But, Our Lord also said someone must eat His flesh to have eternal life–he didn’t mention any exceptions–and yet we believe Baptized children who neither believe in the Incarnation nor have eaten His flesh are saved (even the folks at MHF believe that.)

And who is MORE correct than Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the Second in the Trinity and is GOD? You see the problem stems from forgetting his CLEAR and All Powerful Words-
There are no exceptions you must eat his flesh because he is the Resurrection, but you are correct about Children and I emphasize CHILDREN since Our Lord also said:

St Matthew 19

14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

Our Lord has already mentioned what you say he has not. He is perfect and He meant No Exceptions, for by your own words you said he did not give any.

 

[DJim]

…and your point is what…it is not true?

My point is that it doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means. Florence does not contradict teaching regarding the salvation of the invincibly ignorant and the unbaptized infant. Florence deals with those who actually have both real knowledge and real opportunity to hear and reject the Gospel.

That is what I have being trying to get you to admit. Thank you. Rather to the point is it not?, but we can agree it is powerful and extremely clear. So what is all that air coming out about practice any religion…religious freedom…yada yada yada…ad nauseum?

John’s text does not contradict the notion of religious freedom whatsoever. You are trying to force a connection that’s not there. When one positively denies Christ, they are positively against Him (anti-Christ). This does not mean such a person should not be able to choose according to their own will and conscience what they believe. The fact that they are in error will have consequences, but they can’t be forced to the truth.

Others also stick a lot with Vatican II and seem to forget everthing that has occurred before it.

Not me.

I shall attempt to simplify, forgive me if I fail to do so: What is the papacy and who must believe/follow/whatever it?

All who desire salvation are subject to Christ and subject to His Vicar, the Pope.

What happens to my Muslim and Hindu friends who are knowledgeable of Christ and know Christians believe he is the Son of GOD, but deny him outright.

It depends upon how subjectively guilty they are for their denial.

In addition they do not want anything to do with Baptism or desire in any way to be a Christian . They believe it is the Catholics who are going to feel the wrath of God if they do not convert. What say you of this, please feel provide links or cite references so that my colleagues and I can read them. Thank you.

Sounds like the opposite of what you are trying to say about them–convert or be damned.

I am not as well versed as you, I am a simple person trying to get answers.

If you want answers, you won’t bother looking for them at the site mentioned as thread topic. I and many others have demonstrated the deceptive tactics practiced at that location.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Now you are a mind reader since you are indicating that you know what I shall say speak in the Future???.:hypno:

Well, do you accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, or not? There’s simply no indication so far in this thread that you do, and every indication that you don’t.

I will try but school is starting so may not be able to continue for much longer.

Hmm. Well, you said there were hundreds of examples, and you’re only using one source. How about the best five? Pick what are the best five and we’ll go from there.

The source you mean, singular. Unreliability is a characteristic that you are familiar with.

If you are only using one source, then you are likely not really seeking truth. Why not, for example, go to the Vatican web site directly and read every last original word from the Pope himself, in context? Instead of messing with a site that’s already proven to be exceedingly unreliable by any reasonable standard.

Now you have elevated yourself to the status of JUDGE. Do you now think you are Christ who is GOD? :hypno:
I say this because above you are clearly indicating who shall not be saved. That is a medical condition is it not?:whacky:

I don’t think you are clear on what I meant–I was observing that no one who is still alive is yet saved. Not you, not me, not your friends. Salvation is a process, and that process is not complete until we pass from this life to the next.

There’s still time for your “friends” to get the truth, and still time for those with the truth to fall if they are not careful…

DJim

 

[DJim]

MMLJ–explain to me what is erroneous about the following (the text below is absolutely continuous):

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ITALIAN EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE
GATHERED FOR THEIR 57th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Synod Hall
Thursday, 24 May 2007

…

Even today, as the Declaration Dominus Iesus confirmed, we must be fully aware that from the mystery of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man alive and present in the Church, flows the salvific oneness and universality of Christian revelation and therefore the inalienable duty to proclaim to all, without tiring or resignation, the same Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (cf. Jn 14: 6).

It seems to me that if we look at the panorama of the world situation today, one can understand - I would say even humanly, almost without the need of having recourse to faith - that the God who has taken on a human face, the God who has become incarnate, whose name is Jesus Christ and who has suffered for us, this God is needed by all and is the only response to all the challenges of this time.

Esteem and respect for all other religions and cultures, with the seeds of truth and goodness that are present there and that represent a preparation for the Gospel, are particularly necessary today in a world that is growing ever closer together.

One cannot, therefore, diminish the awareness of the originality, fullness and oneness of the revelation of the true God who in Christ has given himself to us definitively, and neither can one tone down or weaken the missionary vocation of the Church.

The relativistic cultural climate that surrounds us makes it always more important and urgent to root and to bring to maturity within the entire ecclesial body the certainty that Christ, the God with a human face, is our true and only Saviour.

NOTHING above contradicts the full teaching of the Magisterium.

DJim

 

[MMLJ]

MMLJ–explain to me what is erroneous about the following (the text below is absolutely continuous):

Esteem and respect for all other religions and cultures, with the seeds of truth and goodness that are present there and that represent a preparation for the Gospel, are particularly necessary today in a world that is growing ever closer together.

NOTHING above contradicts the full teaching of the Magisterium.

DJim

That is what you say but check the posts before this one from previous popes. It is manifest contradiction.
I Have to apologize, but many and I mean many of us, just cannot accept respecting another religion who denies Christ outright. It is a ridiculous notion.

It is ASTOUNDING that **other Christian denominations **are more in line with true Catholicism, than Catholics! That is they would never use the words, ‘Esteem’ and ‘High Regard’ concerning Islam. Church goers of these denominations were bewildered when they were directed to read some of Pope Benedict XVI comments/addresses/etc., on the Vatican website!

Look, as I mentioned my colleagues of different faith laugh at this intellect but are not surprised, because they said, 'It is good that you hold their religion in High esteem and regard, as you should because it is inevitable that you will submit to the Only True God ‘Allah’ (Most Merciful), it is the will of Allah (The All Beneficent). It is good that you are on your way, because you blaspheme if you believe that Jesus the prophet is GOD." They are happy that you and others who use these comments, as Allah (the Almighty) wills, are on your way to Islam. (please note I typed as they wanted it written).

I of course totally disagree with them on this.

 

[MMLJ]

My point is that it doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means. Florence does not contradict teaching regarding the salvation of the invincibly ignorant and the unbaptized infant. Florence deals with those who actually have both real knowledge and real opportunity to hear and reject the Gospel.

Cite a reference corroborating your misconception here.

John’s text does not contradict the notion of religious freedom whatsoever. You are trying to force a connection that’s not there. When one positively denies Christ, they are positively against Him (anti-Christ). This does not mean such a person should not be able to choose according to their own will and conscience what they believe. The fact that they are in error will have consequences, but they can’t be forced to the truth.

THE QUESTION SHOULD BE why are you trying to tell ST JOHN how should have written that text? Again cite your reference which explains your New Revised Edition (sound familiar) of what St. John meant to say not what he said.

.Not me.
(regarding the statement:Others also stick a lot with Vatican II and seem to forget everthing that has occurred before it.)

On the contrary, you have since you do not understand what a Saint (St John), has written. Oh yeah I forgot you do not think much of Saints, I guess that is why you revise the New Testament at your leisure, without fearing the wrath of GOD.

The Apocalypse Of Saint John: 22:18-19: For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

It depends upon how subjectively guilty they are for their denial

Sounds like the opposite of what you are trying to say about them–convert or be damned.

fully guilty, and so what now since they are still free to practice Paganism? True one must be converted to Christ, as he himself said, unless of course your New Revised edition has new meaning the supercedes the Word of Christ who is GOD?

If you want answers, you won’t bother looking for them at the site mentioned as thread topic. I and many others have demonstrated the deceptive tactics practiced at that location.

DJim

So are all the quotes on this website false? But since you have made biblical revisions, you would know better than I.

 

[japhy]

That is what you say but check the posts before this one from previous popes. It is manifest contradiction.
I Have to apologize, but many and I mean many of us, just cannot accept respecting another religion who denies Christ outright. It is a ridiculous notion.

Perhaps you didn’t look closely enough at the context of what the Pope said:
Esteem and respect for all other religions and cultures, with the seeds of truth and goodness that are present there and that represent a preparation for the Gospel, are particularly necessary today in a world that is growing ever closer together.

One cannot, therefore, diminish the awareness of the originality, fullness and oneness of the revelation of the true God who in Christ has given himself to us definitively, and neither can one tone down or weaken the missionary vocation of the Church.

The relativistic cultural climate that surrounds us makes it always more important and urgent to root and to bring to maturity within the entire ecclesial body the certainty that Christ, the God with a human face, is our true and only Saviour.
I think what the Pope is getting at is that, insofar as all religions have some “seeds of truth and goodness” (such as knowledge of Creator, or the sanctity of life, or remorse for wrongdoing, or acceptance of a higher moral law) which prepare them for the mature fruit of truth and goodness, the One and Only Gospel, these must be respected. We are to break down what is false, but build upon what is true in their religions. Islam purports to worship the God of Abraham, which it recognizes as the supernatural Creator of all – that’s one step in the right direction. But Islam also denies the complete revelation of God (as does Judaism) that God is a trinity of Persons and that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate – that’s something we have to correct. Furthermore, Islam has superimposed later (false) revelation on top of the revelation already received by Israel – that’s something we must tear away completely.

We cannot accept the partial truths of these other religions – the Church has a missionary vocation which must be fulfilled. This vocation requires us to teach the Gospel – the complete and single and unique revelation of God – to whoever we can, wherever we can. This is not always a “starting from scratch” endeavor, since non-Christians have some “seeds of truth”, much in the same way the ancient Gentiles had “seeds of truth”: they knew about God the Creator, but some worshiped the creation instead of the Creator, and some simply did not know about the revelation of His Son Jesus Christ until Paul and the Apostles shared it with them.

We must tell all outside of Christ (and firmly remind those in him) that “Christ … is our true and only Savior”.

WHERE did Benedict err here?

 

[MMLJ]

Well, do you accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, or not? There’s simply no indication so far in this thread that you do, and every indication that you don’t.

What a joke! You worry whether I accept Vatican II but not whether My Hindu (pagan) and Muslim colleagues accept Christ. They in totality clearly deny him. I do not know how much clearer that can be for you. Whether I accept or not accept Vatican II is of know consequence, because according to you and Pope Benedict XVI, I am not excluded from Salvation. I do not deny Christ who is God. I believe one must be Baptized to be saved. I believe, …, you know the rest, the creed, the sacraments, etc.

In any event, say one believes everything taught by the Church prior to Vatican II but not all of Vatican II (some), is one such as this doomed to the hellfire? Please, man wake up to reality. What shall happen to all those Catholics that have practiced the Faith prior to Vatican II?

Hmm. Well, you said there were hundreds of examples, and you’re only using one source. How about the best five? Pick what are the best five and we’ll go from there.

There are, check the Holy See daily, he reiterates the High regard for Islam on a regular basis. I guess you already know that though because you parallel the Pope in his remarks.

If you are only using one source, then you are likely not really seeking truth. Why not, for example, go to the Vatican web site directly and read every last original word from the Pope himself, in context? Instead of messing with a site that’s already proven to be exceedingly unreliable by any reasonable standard.

Again this is untrue. I have used The Vatican website, the New Testament (not your revised edition but the DR), Pope Benedicts books (these are the ultimate source of his previous comments).and few other Catholic websites ( to verify the Most Holy Monastery).

There’s still time for your “friends” to get the truth, and still time for those with the truth to fall if they are not careful…
DJim

They say the same of you or you shall suffer the wrath of God. I also think that is not to late for you since you have a vast knowledge of Catholicism, although misdirected it may be, I am confident with prayer you shall see the Truth. GOD bless you.

 

[MMLJ]

Perhaps you didn’t look closely enough at the context of what the Pope said:
Esteem and respect for all other religions and cultures, with the seeds of truth and goodness that are present there and that represent a preparation for the Gospel, are particularly necessary today in a world that is growing ever closer together.

One cannot, therefore, diminish the awareness of the originality, fullness and oneness of the revelation of the true God who in Christ has given himself to us definitively, and neither can one tone down or weaken the missionary vocation of the Church.

The relativistic cultural climate that surrounds us makes it always more important and urgent to root and to bring to maturity within the entire ecclesial body the certainty that Christ, the God with a human face, is our true and only Saviour.
I think what the Pope is getting at is that, insofar as all religions have some “seeds of truth and goodness” (such as knowledge of Creator, or the sanctity of life, or remorse for wrongdoing, or acceptance of a higher moral law) which prepare them for the mature fruit of truth and goodness, the One and Only Gospel, these must be respected. We are to break down what is false, but build upon what is true in their religions. Islam purports to worship the God of Abraham, which it recognizes as the supernatural Creator of all – that’s one step in the right direction. But Islam also denies the complete revelation of God (as does Judaism) that God is a trinity of Persons and that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate – that’s something we have to correct. Furthermore, Islam has superimposed later (false) revelation on top of the revelation already received by Israel – that’s something we must tear away completely.

We cannot accept the partial truths of these other religions – the Church has a missionary vocation which must be fulfilled. This vocation requires us to teach the Gospel – the complete and single and unique revelation of God – to whoever we can, wherever we can. This is not always a “starting from scratch” endeavor, since non-Christians have some “seeds of truth”, much in the same way the ancient Gentiles had “seeds of truth”: they knew about God the Creator, but some worshiped the creation instead of the Creator, and some simply did not know about the revelation of His Son Jesus Christ until Paul and the Apostles shared it with them.

We must tell all outside of Christ (and firmly remind those in him) that “Christ … is our true and only Savior”.

WHERE did Benedict err here?

I have posted this already:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. 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 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.”

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede (#15), Dec. 8, 1892:
** “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”**

your welcome

 

[japhy]

Here is the complete paragraph.2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission.

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.
This encyclical speaks to the error of seeking a common doctrinal ground for all religions to form a “basis of the spiritual life”. This is not what Pope Benedict said or suggested.

This encyclical also speaks to the error of considering all religions to be “good and praiseworthy” simply because they all lead us “to God”. This is not what Pope Benedict said or suggested.

The encyclical does not speak against the recognition of those particular elements in other (yes, false) religions which are ordered to the one true religion of God. It says that these false religions are not different manifestations of the same yearning for God (meaning that God did not “manifest” Himself as Buddha for Buddhists, Christ for Christians, Allah for Muslims, etc.); this is certainly true. It is clear that the so-called “laws of God” differ from one religion to the next. The True Religion cannot be manifest “in different ways”. Christ is not Buddha. False religions do not lead to the same understanding of WHO God is that the Catholic religion proclaims. They might know what God is, but not who He is.

Pope Benedict has not said we must accept other religions; on the contrary, he has reaffirmed the need to serve as missionaries to them. He has said respect for other religions and cultures is particularly necessary because of the relativistic climate we find ourselves in today. What is it we respect in them? Those elements that are correct and that prepare them for the Gospel. Those elements do not make those religions “good” or “praiseworthy” – those elements are good and praiseworthy, but the falsities of the religion work against them. I can respect Islam (in its belief in ONE God) without praising it or considering it good – I don’t praise it nor do I consider it good. I am not content with Muslims remaining Muslims because they are denying parts of the revelation of God and supplanting them with their own.

Could you say this to a Muslim or Jew? “I am glad you want to worship and serve the One True God.” I could. But we must follow that with teaching them how we are not content with their religion’s understanding of God because it is incomplete and errant… God is not content with it either! Thus, as I said before, we build upon what is true, we correct that which is misunderstood, and we remove that which is errant.

 

[Genesis315]

MMLJ–I hope you are seeing that you really need to read things in their entirety and not just snippets from people who are levying bitter attacks agains the Catholic Church.

If you read all of Mortalium Animos you will see that Pius XI is most concerned the pan-Christian or pan-religious movemements that seek to create one “unified” body based on the lowest common denominator of agreement.

On the other hand, Leo XIII also established the Confraternity of Compassion whereby Catholics and non-Catholics could pray together for unity. Bl. Pius IX invited the Orthodox to come participate in the First Vatican Council. The Fathers of the Council fo Trent invited Protestants to come participate (Session 13)…

Here is a good article on the history of ecumenism up until 1909:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Union of Christendom

Leo XIII wrote to the bishops of America to deal with non-Catholics in this way:

“But if, among the different ways of preaching the word of God that one sometimes seems to be preferable, which directed to non-Catholics, not in churches, but in some suitable place, in such wise that controversy is not sought, but friendly conference, such a method is certainly without fault. But let those who undertake such ministry be set apart by the authority of the bishops and let them be men whose science and virtue has been previously ascertained. For we think that there are many in your country who are separated from Catholic truth more by ignorance than by ill-will, who might perchance more easily be drawn to the one fold of Christ if this truth be set forth to them in a friendly and familiar way.”

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm

 

[MMLJ]

This encyclical speaks to the error of seeking a common doctrinal ground for all religions to form a “basis of the spiritual life”. This is not what Pope Benedict said or suggested.

This encyclical also speaks to the error of considering all religions to be “good and praiseworthy” simply because they all lead us “to God”. This is not what Pope Benedict said or suggested.

The encyclical does not speak against the recognition of those particular elements in other (yes, false) religions which are ordered to the one true religion of God. It says that these false religions are not different manifestations of the same yearning for God (meaning that God did not “manifest” Himself as Buddha for Buddhists, Christ for Christians, Allah for Muslims, etc.); this is certainly true. It is clear that the so-called “laws of God” differ from one religion to the next. The True Religion cannot be manifest “in different ways”. Christ is not Buddha. False religions do not lead to the same understanding of WHO God is that the Catholic religion proclaims. They might know what God is, but not who He is.

Pope Benedict has not said we must accept other religions; on the contrary, he has reaffirmed the need to serve as missionaries to them. He has said respect for other religions and cultures is particularly necessary because of the relativistic climate we find ourselves in today. What is it we respect in them? Those elements that are correct and that prepare them for the Gospel. Those elements do not make those religions “good” or “praiseworthy” – those elements are good and praiseworthy, but the falsities of the religion work against them. I can respect Islam (in its belief in ONE God) without praising it or considering it good – I don’t praise it nor do I consider it good. I am not content with Muslims remaining Muslims because they are denying parts of the revelation of God and supplanting them with their own.

I do think your are interpreting it correctly. As I have asked your colleague DJim, please provide your reference as to this revised meaning of yours. You are making something so simple confusing and misleading. This is an injustice to those who are trying to learn from this thread. If it was meant the way you have explained, then why did the original author not do so, are you more competent or are they incompetent? What is it with individuals always having to make the simple so complex in order to make people stray from Christ? Read my last few posts to DJim.

Lets move on since I feel your point is not proven.

Here what bout this?:

Benedict XVI Address to Islamic Republic of Pakistan, June 1, 2007: “…young people will come to recognize the dignity common to all men and women, including those belonging to cultures and religions different from their own… I encourage Pakistan to bolster its efforts in securing freedom for people to live, worship and perform works of charity according to the dictates of their conscience… I wish to conclude by expressing my deep respect and admiration for the religious heritage that has inspired the human development of your Country, and greater peace and mutual understanding. Christians and Muslims both worship the One God, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. It is this belief that moves us to unite minds and hearts as we work tirelessly for peace, justice and a better future for mankind.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 27, 2007 p. 14.)

What!!! We do not worship the same GOD. Islam says those who believe in the Trinity and Jesus is GOD, blaspheme and shall suffer the wrath of GOD. This is simple logic. Please let me hear your revised explanation to this and provide your reference.

 

[MMLJ]

Genesis315:
Let me start again for everybody. Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same GOD?
Let me clarify, I am not talking of ill-will or of ignorance, and neither is Pope Benedict XVI.

Can we worship Allah or Ram or the COW and obtain salvation if we are in full knowledge of Christ? Does Benedict say otherwise? (cite the reference).

1 St John 2:22 – “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”
(members have already attempted to show (to no avail), that this statement means something other than what it so perfectly clearly says on its own)

Did he forget to mention items/points/exceptions/footnotes in it when he spoke, for example DJim has made biblical revisions by saying Jesus never mentioned infant Baptism and so he never mentioned exceptions to salvation. This is incorrect. Christ Words Stands perfect as it is. Clear , concise, perfect with no need for revisions and alternate meanings. Simple yet Powerful for all to understand (not confusing as so many on this thread have do diligently tried make it), unless of course you and other members suggest the contrary? Please read previous posts.

Please cite a reference other than Benedict XVI,and John Paul II, possibly something before Vatican II. (if not then they would in no doubt corroborate with Benedict XVI and John Paul II (obvious)).

 

[MMLJ]

Tell me this is not true, Please:

BENEDICT XVI SAYS WE ARE INDEBTED TO THE KORAN AND PARTICIPATES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF IT

Benedict XVI, Address to Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, Feb. 1, 2007: “… the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order… we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us… Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today. The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue.

“… a common task of reflection. This is a labor of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion…. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Feb. 7, 2007, p. 5)

 

[japhy]

Tell me this is not true, Please:

BENEDICT XVI SAYS WE ARE INDEBTED TO THE KORAN AND PARTICIPATES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF IT

I’m not sure where you got that “headline” (from L’Osservatore, I guess) but when it is deprived of its context it loses meaning. It’s not the headline used by Zenit.

He did not say Christians are indebted to the Koran:Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today.The plural pronouns here are referring to Jews, Christians, and Muslims respectively. (The failure to use the word “respectively” in his address is, indeed, regrettable!) There is certainly no way the Christian Scriptures are the “source of [Jews’] religious beliefs”, nor would any adherent Jew who denies that Jesus is the Messiah say he is “indebted” to the Christian Scriptures. Christians and Jews likewise can say the same about the Koran. I mean, the Koran does not just oppose revelations found in our Scriptures, it flat-out accuses them of being wrong and falsified!

He goes on to call the work “a common reference point” for inter-religious dialogue to help “to discern and reject everything that usurps God’s name and deforms man’s humanity”. This is not a book to be given to Joe Q. Christian, this is a book for those who work in the field of inter-religious dialogue, so that all are on the same page and can make their arguments from the same texts. FOR INSTANCE, it would allow a Christian to show where the Koran deviates from the continuity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.

The Pope is not advocating the adoption of the Koran by Christians.

 

[japhy]

I do [not? – *japhy

] think your are interpreting it correctly. As I have asked your colleague DJim, please provide your reference as to this revised meaning of yours. You are making something so simple confusing and misleading. This is an injustice to those who are trying to learn from this thread. If it was meant the way you have explained, then why did the original author not do so, are you more competent or are they incompetent? What is it with individuals always having to make the simple so complex in order to make people stray from Christ?
If I am being more clear than the Pope – if he is speaking in ambiguous terms and I am clarifying in the light of tradition – then it is certainly not an attempt to confuse or mislead, and I wish no injustice to those reading this thread, nor do I wish for people to stray from Christ.

Benedict XVI Address to Islamic Republic of Pakistan, June 1, 2007: “…young people will come to recognize the dignity common to all men and women, including those belonging to cultures and religions different from their own… I encourage Pakistan to bolster its efforts in securing freedom for people to live, worship and perform works of charity according to the dictates of their conscience… I wish to conclude by expressing my deep respect and admiration for the religious heritage that has inspired the human development of your Country, and greater peace and mutual understanding. Christians and Muslims both worship the One God, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. It is this belief that moves us to unite minds and hearts as we work tirelessly for peace, justice and a better future for mankind.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 27, 2007 p. 14.)

You can find that online at the Vatican web site, by the way.

But, um, yeah, this is a serious issue of contention that has yet to be proven in the affirmative. Muslims recognize one God who is the Almighty Creator, and worship Him according to the revelations they believe to be true. Jews recognize one God who is the Almighty Creator, and worship Him according to the revelations they believe to be true.

But the Jews and the Muslims have it wrong. The fact that they know the wrong thing about God does not necessarily mean they don’t believe in the right God, but it does mean they’re not listening to Him well enough to know they’re wrong!

I don’t think the Jews stopped worshiping the True God when the rejected Jesus – what did they put in God’s place? They just failed to understand more about him. So I think they still worship God, but not in the way He wishes to be worshiped (anymore). They don’t know Yahweh is Jesus.

The Muslims, though, I can’t argue for them in the same way. They did not spring from Christianity or Judaism. It’s not only that they don’t accept Allah is Jesus, but they claim the Jews deviated from the true faith as well. Their origin is far more tumultuous. It is for this reason I fear that they do not worship the True God. But even if they do, their faith (if they practice it as the Koran tells them to) denies Christ explicitly despite what “the book” says about him. Thus, a “proper” Muslim is rejecting his salvation.

There. I’ve said it. I don’t think the Pope was correct in his address to the new Ambassador of Pakistan to the Holy See.

 

[MMLJ]

I’m not sure where you got that “headline” (from L’Osservatore, I guess) but when it is deprived of its context it loses meaning.

You have not proven it to be in deprivation, since you by your own words have said,“The failure to use the word “respectively” in his address is, indeed, regrettable!”. This shows there is a deprivation but it is not how you are presenting it.

He did not say Christians are indebted to the Koran:Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today.The plural pronouns here are referring to Jews, Christians, and Muslims respectively. (The failure to use the word “respectively” in his address is, indeed, regrettable!)

You must be kidding me, right? Regrettable? It is intentional. Pope Benedict XVI, is an extremely well educated Pope, Fluent in many languages, he is an author (and a good one at that), he speaks eloquently in public, he is very intelligent, He is The Pope…He knows what he says and how he wants to say it. His credentials speak for themselves.
Think of it this way, He knows that many Catholics are to say the least confused about his continual quotes. Yet HE HAS NOT BOTHERED TO CLARIFY his point. One must remember most Catholics are not well versed in the faith, so if they are interpreting his comments in the wrong manner, say so, correct yourself and go on. But he never does, have you asked yourself why? Most newly emerging Catholics are not in Western Nations, but developing nations such as Africa. Most have no access to literature, TV, internet, encyclicals,. so why not be clear or make corrections? It cannot be Pride (right?). SIMPLIFICATION is in CLARIFICATION and not in complex redundancy.

There is certainly no way the Christian Scriptures are the “source of [Jews’] religious beliefs”, nor would any adherent Jew who denies that Jesus is the Messiah say he is “indebted” to the Christian Scriptures. Christians and Jews likewise can say the same about the Koran.

My point exactly, thank you. So if Christians say this why does Benedeict XVI not?

I mean, the Koran does not just oppose revelations found in our Scriptures, it flat-out accuses them of being wrong and falsified!

Therefore there is no way you can justify promoting their distribution. After all, I do not hear him objecting to distributing the Holy Bible (the word of GOD) with the Koran (denies Christ=opposition = denial =anti-Christ). Now this, you may say, is Regrettable!

He goes on to call the work “a common reference point” for inter-religious dialogue to help “to discern and reject everything that usurps God’s name and deforms man’s humanity”. This is not a book to be given to Joe Q. Christian, this is a book for those who work in the field of inter-religious dialogue, so that all are on the same page and can make their arguments from the same texts. FOR INSTANCE, it would allow a Christian to show where the Koran deviates from the continuity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.

That is not how it is being distributed, anyone has access to this volume of books. More importantly, One not need to distribute the Koran to show that it Deviates from GOD!

The Pope is not advocating the adoption of the Koran by Christians.

But the dilemma is that most Joe Q. Christians, which happens to probably 99% of Catholics, See it as just that, the Pope advocating and promoting the use of the Koran. And Why not, again because most of us Joe Q. Christians hear utterances of High regard and Great Esteem for Islam, Pagans, Cults (because these are all Religions) …On a regular basis.
May God Help You, May GOD help me
May GOD help us all.

GOD Bless You.

 

[DJim]

That is what you say but check the posts before this one from previous popes. It is manifest contradiction.

Show me where the contradiction resides instead of simply citing the same texts over and over. Point to the exact location of the contradiction, or, in your own words, explain it, please.

I Have to apologize, but many and I mean many of us, just cannot accept respecting another religion who denies Christ outright. It is a ridiculous notion.

Please define what you mean by “respect.” Then I’ll know whether or not I can agree with you.

It is ASTOUNDING that **other Christian denominations **are more in line with true Catholicism, than Catholics! That is they would never use the words, ‘Esteem’ and ‘High Regard’ concerning Islam.

\

No. Other denominations are NOT more in line with true Catholicism. You are merely misrepresenting true Catholicism, sadly.

What exactly do you think those words mean?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Cite a reference corroborating your misconception here.

NO misconception to corroborate–Florence doesn’t oppose anything currently taught.

THE QUESTION SHOULD BE why are you trying to tell ST JOHN how should have written that text? Again cite your reference which explains your New Revised Edition (sound familiar) of what St. John meant to say not what he said.

Tell me in your own words exactly what St. John said.

fully guilty, and so what now since they are still free to practice Paganism? True one must be converted to Christ, as he himself said,

And how are you, mere mortal, able to determine that someone is fully guilty of rejection of Christ???

So are all the quotes on this website false? But since you have made biblical revisions, you would know better than I.

The propaganda is all false–some of the quoted snippets are false, some are real quotes yanked completely–and i mean completely–out of context…

DJim