Catholic Church only last hope for Christendom to survive.

Posted by: Crusader at January 5, 2009 8:30 PM

I guess Rev. Susan Boegli, John Esposito, Grover Norquist and the Archbishop of Canterbury make up the New Muslim Curia.
I suppose we should see Jimmy Carter preside over the next Papal Election on behalf of the UN. After all, the Bishop of Rome is a Head of State.

Posted by: Shawmut at January 5, 2009 9:06 PM

There is no canon law relevant to any discussion with Muslims -- only the law of the cannon.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at January 5, 2009 9:23 PM

Crusader,

We've survived. In 1204 the Catholics unwittingly caused the destruction of the Eastern Christians (not that they were that concerned). Though much persecution and inequality ensued, we persevered. We shall always.

Posted by: Palamas at January 5, 2009 10:12 PM

i fear for the church , there are too many dhimmis and Vatican II was a major error. I hope the vision of Pope Leo XIII was just an old man dream

Posted by: Péguy at January 5, 2009 10:34 PM

Raymond

Are Methodists Catholic? If not, one can hardly expect a Methodist minister to subscribe to anything coming out of the Vatican.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 6, 2009 12:02 AM

The attitude of the named Methodist minister is exactly why I am no longer a Methodist. They do difer conference to conference but all have become far to liberal for me to be confortable with. Rather than the Catholic Church being the hope of Christianity look to the Baptist Church and non-affiliated Evangelicals.

None the less, I am happy the Vatican has concluded that there is just too many differences between Christianity and Islam and actually have said so!

Posted by: CLL1709 at January 6, 2009 2:20 AM

Meanwhile, a Muslim mob in Milan, fresh from its hysteria-and-hate-filled rally against Israel, chose carefully to end its rally right in front of the Duomo, the Cathedral, of Milan, where the "slaves of Allah" (Oriana Fallaci's favorite phrase to describe Muslims) bowed toward Mecca. The anger this act has aroused in Milan, among Catholic clerics, worshippers, and even the non-religious or the traditionally anti-clerical who are coming around to Fallaci's own view, that the threat of Islam was so great, that all that anti-clerical stuff need not matter. At the end of her life, Fallaci met with Pope Benedict, and left her books and papers, I understand, to the Vatican. And many in Italy, indifferent or even hostile to religion, found themselves, to their own secret surprise, infuriated by the attempt of Muslims, led by one Adel Smith, to have the crucifix banished from all public places and spaces, for this attempt was sensed as a civiliizational attack.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2009 5:13 AM

I think what the Muslims were looking for with their 'dialogue' [between you and us] - was to eventually bring Christianity under Islam - they were hoping that the Christians would be so charitable as to give up part of their belief in favor of Islam - thereby making Christianity a part of a greater Islam.

Case in point after the 'dialogue' - the Muslims became incensed when the Pope publicly Baptized an apostate from Islam - at an Easter ceremony.

It seemed that the Muslim's thought that because they talked with the Pope - that he would somehow tone down his Christianity.

It looks less and less likely that will happen everyday!

Reality - there are no churches in Saudi Arabia - almost everything else in the form of 'dialogue' coming from the Muslim world - is an attempt to lull Christians in a false sense of hope.

Posted by: Cole at January 6, 2009 7:13 AM

The cathedral in Milan is beautiful and indeed represents not only the faith that built it but the civilization resulting from that faith. It is part of the West's patrimony.

One needn't go so far to witness such careless indifference to Western patrimony, however. At the recent Toronto pro-jihad rally, the pro-jihad demonstrators slopped over on to the steps and property of Church of the Redeemer Anglican Church. I am not an Anglican, but nevertheless felt affronted by such casually assumed usage of church property.

Posted by: Chatillon at January 6, 2009 8:03 AM

I've never understood 'interfaith' dialogue.

Surely it would boil down to believing each person except you would be going to hell?

Are they trying to come up with a new religion that takes the best bits from each?

Posted by: Islam_Not_4_Australia at January 6, 2009 8:38 AM

So when will the Vatican admit that Jesus (PBUH ;) had brothers and sisters, and that his mother wasn't a virgin? And can those who observe this clearly from the New Testament text itself, be brought into the theological dialogue?

Is the Vatican (PBUH), also saying that it is constrained in discussing the theology of others? What if it want's to simply instruct Catholikkkos to reject the Pedophile Messiah AKKKA Mohamedos the Gross? Since he didn't recognize the divinity of Yehushua?

Does the Vatican rule out a discussion on the Prophethood of Borat (PBUH)?

Of course we can proselytize, but a "dialogue" is too good for them.

When will they take off their fake skull-caps, which they steal from the Jews pretending to be the new Israel? Or is that not even on the table? Can we like, talk about that? There is no mention of skullcaps in the New Testament...oh, not even the Torah...so why are they out there, cardinals and Holy See, wearing them and calling themselves Israel?

Is their undermining of the legitimacy of Eretz Israel up for theological discussion?

How come I don't hear Jihad Watch readers, nor Spencer, booing Ratzingeros, for his call on Israel to stop the Hamas offen-sive.

Posted by: SkepticOverAll at January 6, 2009 9:13 AM

Good. As in Really Good :)

Christianity is a root cause of civilization, prosperity and freedom. No other religion, however peaceful, inspired such dilligence and creativity.

Posted by: Henrik at January 6, 2009 9:13 AM

"Rather than the Catholic Church being the hope of Christianity look to the Baptist Church and non-affiliated Evangelicals." Posted by: CLL1709

I don't know if it's one over the other. I'm hoping they all carry forward the banner of Christ.

"Onward Christian soldiers..."
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh575.sht

Posted by: Josephine at January 6, 2009 9:42 AM

The Pope and the magisterium speak for Catholic Christians. The heads of the Baptist churches and evangelical leaders are welcome to speak for their members.

Whenever Rome speaks we have to hear that they never say enough or forcefully so when they do. Will you be happy when another nun is shot in the back?

If Christians and other religions targeted by Islam cannot tolerate one another, we'll lose this battle.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at January 6, 2009 10:55 AM

Cole, RE ... no churches in Saudi Arabia ...

that may be true. however, the kingdom is very porous ... and there is reason for hope there.

Posted by: boakai ngombu at January 6, 2009 11:32 AM

Sorry.. I HAD to (finally) comment here.. the Roman Catholic church has in its own writings that the plan of (its) salvation includes the muslims. Not the Baptists or the Methodists or the Lutherans have this. Only the Catholics and their Pope. So I don't see how he cannot say he cannot dialogue with them.

Posted by: nuclearsquirrel at January 6, 2009 11:40 AM

oops I dont know how to edit so here is the link to the RCC catechism that shows the muslims are in the plan of salvation.. I thought it was the URL box.. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#841 ..

Posted by: nuclearsquirrel at January 6, 2009 11:42 AM

YES and also, bah. I was raised Roman-Catholic and I love the pageantry and grandiose celebrations, but I am not a Catholic now. They simply don't educate Christians enough on the Good Book. It's also way too chauvinistic for this feminista. But maybe that's what's needed right now for change in Italy: good old fashioned chauvinism and anger from the Catholic populace.

I would hope that Italy keeps waking up from their dhimmified zombie status. It is my dream to live there one day.

Posted by: lorfalcon at January 6, 2009 12:49 PM

There is a vast difference between saying that Muslim's are worthy of salvation (many are) and that Islam is a valid path to salvation (It most certainly is not).

To think that those that suffer under the heavy hand of Islam will not be heard when they cry out to God of Abraham (albeit with a flawed Koranic understanding of who he is) is to deny both the justice and mercy of God.

The Catholic Church recognizes that all will be judged according to what they have received.

"But the servant who did things that deserved a beating without knowing it will receive a light beating. Much will be required from everyone to whom much has been given. But even more will be demanded from the one to whom much has been entrusted."

Luke 12:48

Posted by: Brazentide at January 6, 2009 1:10 PM

“we do not have the same relationship with God and much less with our respective sacred books.”

This statement will filter down to millions of Catholics in Dioceses and Arch-Dioceses throughout the world. It will help to prepare and guide Catholics who engage in spiritual formation at all levels. From those who work within the local parish to the highest degrees of seminary education.

It is a very powerful statement, the effects of which are being underestimated by those looking for grandiose speeches and fireworks.

Although I really should not be, I am still surprised at how many posts appear critical of Pope Benedict and Catholicism whenever this topic comes up. regardless of what is said or what is done.

If you understand nothing else about the history of the Catholic Church, understand this. The Church moves slowly but patiently and methodically. Everything from Church doctrine to declaring someone a saint takes years, sometimes centuries.

This isn't meant to be rude, but many of you are critical of what you THINK the Church is and what it stands for, not what the Catholic Church actually is.

But then, most Catholics don't know thier faith and would rather complain. It's easier to blame a priest or Bishop rather than taking the time to learn the faith.

http://www.salvationhistory.com/

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

Posted by: adobe at January 6, 2009 1:31 PM

Nuclearsquirrel:

The "Plan of Salvation," so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, includes all of humanity, bringing the Gospel to those unfamiliar with it. In other words, God calls all nations to Him. Why wouldn't the "Plan of Salvation" also include Moslems?

You're not a devotee of Jack Chick by any chance, are you?

Posted by: Chatillon at January 6, 2009 3:35 PM

The "Plan of Salvation" as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, if it meant all of humanity, would not specifically state the Jews and the Muslims as it does in this paragraph. The Jews are chosen of God, and the Muslims are totally worshipping another god. You simply cannot combine God and the god of islam together. By stating Jews and Muslims in this manner, they are saying that Jews are saved by their believe in a holy and just God - the God of the Bible - and saying that Muslims are saved by their belief in God of the Bible - however.. as evidenced by their own writings, Muslims are NOT worshipping the God of the Bible. they're far apart. two totally different things. If you think they are the same, do some reading. become educated.

Posted by: nuclearsquirrel at January 6, 2009 6:02 PM

“we do not have the same relationship with God and much less with our respective sacred books.”

Posted by: Always On Watch at January 6, 2009 9:13 PM

There is a vast difference between saying that Muslim's are worthy of salvation (many are) and that Islam is a valid path to salvation (It most certainly is not).
Posted by: Brazentide

The "Plan of Salvation," so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, includes all of humanity, bringing the Gospel to those unfamiliar with it. In other words, God calls all nations to Him. Why wouldn't the "Plan of Salvation" also include Moslems?
Posted by: Chatillon

Look at what the Catholic Catechism says that nuclearsquirrel linked:

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."

It specifically says that Muslims are saved because they have a true belief in God (the Creator) and because they have the true Abrahamic faith and because they properly "adore" the true God.

The Catholic Church is dead wrong on this one. Dead wrong.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at January 7, 2009 11:40 AM

Here is a permalink to an article from 2001 question and answer session with then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). I think you will find he outlines his views on relativism (moral and cultural) more clearly than any pronouncement by Tauran or the other Vatican bureaucrats have done.

http://www.zenit.org/article-5961?l=english

I am very optimistic that God has provided us Catholics (Roman + 22 other Rites remember) with just the right pope for this time in the 1400 year history of islamic jihad. I was reading his articles about the limits of endless "dialogue" back in the 1990's. My pastor has met with him many times in the past 15 years. The Pope is a very bright man but not an egghead elitist with no notion of reality.

When the Brit papers were proclaiming "Former Nazi Elected Pope", I thought they were bigoted journalistic nitwits. It is PRECISELY Benedict's childhood and teen years in Nazi Germany that would allow him to see what we are dealing with here and now; both in terms of One World EU/UN Global Utopians and One World Islamic Ummah Upholders.

Posted by: bevc at January 7, 2009 11:58 AM

bevc - I am not Catholic but I agree with you about the Pope.

Posted by: Josephine at January 7, 2009 1:50 PM

Denverodeo, nuclearsquirrel:

Perhaps one of you could comment on whether a plan for something is identical to the thing itself.

The posting does not say that Moslems are saved. It says that the plan of salvation includes them. The plan of salvation includes all of humanity, as to be understood from Matthew 28:19-20. None are to be turned away on the basis of where they start. All are judged on the basis of what they come to.

Driving a wedge between Catholic Christians and Christians of other denominations is unhelpful. In fact, people of all faiths, or no faith, have a stake in the jihad being waged against us all.

Posted by: Chatillon at January 7, 2009 2:48 PM

Posted by: Palamas
Crusader,

We've survived. In 1204 the Catholics unwittingly caused the destruction of the Eastern Christians (not that they were that concerned). Though much persecution and inequality ensued, we persevered. We shall always.

I agree Palamas eastern christians suffered a lot under the catholic and crusaders. the crusaders tried to force us to be catholic but failed.

palmas look at this video
Did the vatican create islam? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c5qcd86-pbo&feature=related

Posted by: Maria at January 7, 2009 7:12 PM

This is one of the few times I agree with what comes out of the Vatican. Not only is it relationship, but two different deities - Jesus and Allah do not come on the same level, period.

Posted by: abad at January 7, 2009 7:24 PM

Chatillon,,

"The posting does not say that Moslems are saved. It says that the plan of salvation includes them. The plan of salvation includes all of humanity, as to be understood from Matthew 28:19-20."

Even if you're right about this, the way that catechism is worded sticks in my craw, it's like bending over backwards in deference to Islam. Your way of putting it, that the plan of salvation includes all humanity -- ok, but part of "all humanity" are lots of evil and corrupt people and groups. For example, I don't have a problem with the idea for Catholics that even heretics, Satanists, and other deluded people are part of the "plan for salvation", as long as they turn away from their deluded ways and repent. But the way the catechism words the Muslim does not show any sign of recognizing that they are, as we know, horribly deluded and twisted.

"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."

This is a terribly mistaken way of wording it. Here's how they should word it:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who think they acknowledge the Creator even though their belief system is horribly twisted and has deformed the true faith about the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, but in actuality are one of the most deformed of the heresies, and although they are NOT together with us in adoring the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day -- because their God is not our God and may well even be Lucifer -- nevertheless, we hold out the hope that they will turn from the depraved error of their ways and find the true God."

Now, why can't the Church say something like that? It took a lay bozo like me 60 seconds to come up with that. Surely learned theologians who should know better can do the same. They either don't know better -- which is weird, since they have studied this stuff all their lives and they are very intelligent and well-read in the subject -- or they knowingly choose to support the error, the error that the Islam that Muslims follow is NOT a twisted heresy. Either way, they're dead wrong.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at January 8, 2009 3:25 PM

'maria'

the idea that 'the vatican created Islam', is pure raving lunacy: the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories.

If you think, 'maria', that by posing (one assumes) as an eastern orthodox, and posting that preposterous nonsense, you may be able to drive a wedge between eastern and western christians by blaming western christians for Islam, you are much mistaken.

Practically every element in Islam that can be related to 'christianity' can be identified as a direct pinch from the ideas of some of the weirder heretical groups that were floating about on the far fringes of eastern christendom. 'Mohammed', or his concocters, seem never to have met a heresy they didn't like.

When the mainstream eastern christian theologian, John of Damascus (d. 754: 300 years BEFORE the Great Schism of 1054 between the Latin and the Eastern churches) wrote one of the earliest 'outsider' assessments of Islam, he classified Islam as No. 100 in his 'The Book of Heresies'.

He also wrote an 'argument between a Muslim and a Christian'. Alain de Besancon, in his preface to 'Jacques Ellul: Islam et Judeo-Christianisme' describes this intriguing text, thus:

"It's a short catechesis to warn Christians against converting to Islam, which they were doing en masse. He [John] sets out to defend free will against the fatalism that he attributes to Islam, and he also [seeks to defend] the stability of the created order, the order of the laws of nature, against the pure caprice that, in Islam, belongs to god. John speaks [of Islam] with disdain, somewhat as a distinguished 19th century theologian would have treated the 'revelation' of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon."

He had lived as a dhimmi within the early Muslim imperium; he knew what Muslims believed. He doesn't connect Islam with 'Rome'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 8, 2009 9:55 PM

The Vatican is a walled city because of the Muslim hordes invading it. The Italian Mafia was formed to protect Italians from Muslims. Stop appeasing the people who hate you. Muslims just found out about Protestants (smile) Black Jews, etc. Mormon leader Joseph smith said he wanted to be the next Muhammad. He copied every thing Muhammad did. A new religion, a new book,polygamy, incest, and everyone was a Mormon ideology. God cursed Cain by turning him Black. Was Adam and Eve and Cain once white like Muslims say.

Posted by: tilly at January 9, 2009 4:35 AM