Mideast: Christians in danger, Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III warns Pope Francis

This is why I am dubious of the end times scenario of a "one world government" that certain fundamentalists believe in.

I cannot see all the religions of the world uniting; especially Islam with Christianity.

I saw Schlussel's piece the other day. I am not a regular reader of her site. I'm not sure what to make of this piece - "Pope Francis urged members of all religions and those belonging to no church on Wednesday to unite to defend justice, peace and the environment and not allow the value of a person to be reduced to “what he produces and what he consumes." What is your point? What do you mean by the new pope doesn't give 3rd-person present tense form of the the Latin verb, etc.?

In Latin, the 1st person of the verb scire ("to know") is scio ("I know", pronounced SHEE-oh); the 2nd person is scis ("you know", pronounced SHISS); and in Jesuit seminary teaching remedial Latin, they would jokingly insert cognovit for the proper 3rd person form scit ("he (or she) knows", pronounced SHIT).

If you read the Schlussel piece, and you read the additional piece I added in my blog essay to which I linked above, you'll see why I say what I say.

When I learned Latin, I was taught that "c" was always pronounced as a hard c, there being no such thing as soft c's in the language. Also, "v" is pronounced as "w", therefore veni, vedi, vici would be pronounced as weni, wedi, wici.

That's also why the proper pronunciation of
"Celt" is "Kelt", not "Selt".

LemonLime, like Bill O'Reilly tells his audience, "I am a simple man." You are making things complicated. Maybe if I studied Latin it would not be complicated. Are you saying you agree with Schlussel, you have some misgivings about this new pope with respect to Islam?

Let's hear the Christians' version of what was done and said.

I am dubious of the Mohammedan version of anything.

What I learned was that apparently medieval Latin pronounced "sc" as (at least sometimes) "sh". Classical Latin was another matter.

As to the first piece of evidence, the report from the Buenos Aires Herald, assuming that Muslims have bad intentions, I can't see anything but bad in good words from Muslims. I.e., what would they get out of falsely claiming that Bergoglio was always involved in positive "dialogue" with the Muslim community of Argentina? If they wanted to malign Bergoglio, they'd say the opposite, since the PC MC media always presumes that "positive dialogue" with Muslims is a good thing, not a bad thing.

As for the second piece of information, from The Telegraph, it's not the word of Muslims, it's a report on how Bergoglio opposed Pope Benedict on his Regensburg lecture and took precisely the wrong stand on that -- even worse than Benedict's own post-fallout cringingly apologetic (in the colloquial sense) about-face.

Links in my first post above.

"since the PC MC media always presumes that "positive dialogue" with Muslims is a good thing, not a bad thing."

And of course it's not just the PC MC media that think "positive dialogue" with Muslims is a good and necessary thing, but so too does the majority of mainstream Christians throughout the West -- as Robert Spencer agrees in his description of the significance of his recent disinvitation by Bishop McManus to speak for Boston Catholic diocese men's club, in his recent interview with Stephen Coughlin on the problems of interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

Thus, as Spencer describes, Bishop McManus explained in his letter why he dropped Spencer, that, quote:

"...he was doing so because he thought my appearance, if I spoke about the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world and the doctrinal roots of that persecution in Islamic texts and teachings, that that would have a negative impact upon the wonderfully constructive dialogue that he was having in the Worcester area; and I think it is taken as axiomatic by most Christians -- Catholics, Protestant, Orthodox in the United States and elsewhere -- that it is a good and positive thing to have dialogue with Muslim leaders and obviously they are anxious not to harm that dialogue, as evidenced by my being dropped and other things..."

[68-second snippet from YouTube: http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=z4T5H2D1Cb8&start=260&end=328&cid=1044663 ]

On the basis of my two links above, Pope Francis seems no different from Spender's description of Bishop McManus (and "most Christians -- Catholics, Protestant, Orthodox in the United States and elsewhere") on this most pivotal issue.

And Spencer's...