Vatican's War
Shabati..掐礽shneineh
Vatican War Against Others:
We have exposed the role of the Vatican in a previous article as far as
monotheism is concerned. We indicated that the Vatican does believe in
idols and have many of them; idols of Popes and Saints that God is
believed to have been incarnated in. We said that the Vatican is nothing
but the idolatry.
In this article; I am going to shed the light on some additional
disastrous aspects that the Christianists in the Vatican are conducting
against others in general and Arabs in particulars. So, besides the
cannons and missiles of the Judeo-Christian imperialists; we should not
underestimate the gun-powder of the priests and nuns of the Vatican.
Language is one of the most important aspect of the Christianist life in
the Vatican and Arabic is amongst the top five languages that the
priests and nuns speak very well. Many priests and nuns memorize some
chapters of the Quran.
In the Vatican, they have three institutions for teaching Islamic
Studies. Curriculum includes Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, Sunnah, Sirah, and the
Islamic Sharia. Most of their students are non-Muslims from Arabic and
Islamic countries!!! There are some Muslim students too!!!!! The staff
is mainly composed of priests, bishops and patriarchs who speak Arabic
as good as Seibawayh. They are equipped with one of the best libraries
that have the mothers of the Islamic books and sources. The kind of
studies they do are very analytical; basically to penetrate poor and
ignorant Islamic societies.
Contextualization is one of the most dangerous tools that the
evanglicaizing Christianist priests use in the Muslim world. This is the
same concept that the KGB used to train its members where the member has
to adapt completely to the life style, tradition, beliefs, culture,
language, .... of the country he will be assigned to (host land).
One of the funniest, but very serious issue though, is dealing with God
and Jesus. Some of their bulletins deal with this issue with headings
such as “Allah has no son.” But if you continue to read, you will
realize that Allah refers to the pre-Islamic idol with Arabic
pronunciation (not spelling) of Allat.
--
Quran 25:63
"O avdeim HaRachom [Ha-Elheim] hem sh'halcheim al haadamah bianvtanot.
O eim hanibareim deevero lhem: hem omreim shalom"
http://www.hebron.com
ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:38:06 -0500, "Shabati..Æþµishneineh"
<sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion> wrote:
>Vatican War Against Others:
>
>We have exposed the role of the Vatican in a previous article as far as
>monotheism is concerned. We indicated that the Vatican does believe in
>idols and have many of them; idols of Popes and Saints that God is
>believed to have been incarnated in. We said that the Vatican is nothing
>but the idolatry.
>
>In this article; I am going to shed the light on some additional
>disastrous aspects that the Christianists in the Vatican are conducting
>against others in general and Arabs in particulars. So, besides the
>cannons and missiles of the Judeo-Christian imperialists; we should not
>underestimate the gun-powder of the priests and nuns of the Vatican.
>
>Language is one of the most important aspect of the Christianist life in
>the Vatican and Arabic is amongst the top five languages that the
>priests and nuns speak very well. Many priests and nuns memorize some
>chapters of the Quran.
>
Modern Arabic I don't know about; but the languages in which the Bible
were written, of course: there are a lot of lay people who study them,
as well, (I'm not one of them).
Why should we not memorise chapters of the Quran? Why should we not
learn from each other? There is much that is good in the Quran; is
truth not available for all?
>In the Vatican, they have three institutions for teaching Islamic
>Studies. Curriculum includes Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, Sunnah, Sirah, and the
>Islamic Sharia. Most of their students are non-Muslims from Arabic and
>Islamic countries!!! There are some Muslim students too!!!!! The staff
>is mainly composed of priests, bishops and patriarchs who speak Arabic
>as good as Seibawayh. They are equipped with one of the best libraries
>that have the mothers of the Islamic books and sources. The kind of
>studies they do are very analytical; basically to penetrate poor and
>ignorant Islamic societies.
Um, not in my expereince, they weren't. Sure, missiology is a part of
Christianity, just as it is a part of many other faiths. But a lot of
the people you are talking about, (and which particular bishops teach
in the pontifical schools??) are sincelely interested in dialogue and
learning from each other. I can't believe, (or will need a lot more
proof to believe) that things have changed so radically in the last 15
years!
>
And, by the way, since when are all Islamic societies poor and
ignorant? A lot of those scholars have more respect for Islamic
culture than they have for their own!
As for the libraries, you are probably quite right, sigh. (The
problem, for us, was getting into the best English language library in
Rome: not a hope. Well, we could go in and be shown around, but use
it? Forget it).
>Contextualization is one of the most dangerous tools that the
>evanglicaizing Christianist priests use in the Muslim world. This is the
>same concept that the KGB used to train its members where the member has
>to adapt completely to the life style, tradition, beliefs, culture,
>language, .... of the country he will be assigned to (host land).
>
Actually, it gets called culturalisation, or inculturation, and there
is much more disagreement about it in the church than you might think!
The arguments have been going on since the Jesuits were accused of
going native in the East, (and proably date back to the arguments Paul
had about admitting Gentiles to the faith!).
Of course one would want to learn the language of the place where one
will live: to do otherwise is to insist that your own language is
superior in some way! (Although, to be fair, there are those who
really are incapable of speaking another language, no matter how hard
they try).
>One of the funniest, but very serious issue though, is dealing with God
>and Jesus. Some of their bulletins deal with this issue with headings
>such as “Allah has no son.” But if you continue to read, you will
>realize that Allah refers to the pre-Islamic idol with Arabic
>pronunciation (not spelling) of Allat.
I don't quite see what you mean here. (And it is possible that the
error you point out is just that, an error!).
I do not deny that there are those who are all out to convert people
of other faiths to Christianity. But what you describe above might
just as easily be interpreted as preparation for living somewhere new:
an attempt to get to know, in the jargon, "where people are coming
from", if you like.
Having lived a reasonable amount of my life out of my own country, I
have seen over and over again that problems can arise simply because
of different customs: people who are trying to be polite end up
insulting those whom they wish to honour!
If one of the institutions you are referring to is the Biblicum, (and
from the bit about the languages, you may well be), I think you have
misinterpreted the situation. The people at the Biblicum are scholars
indeed: the list of languages one needs to even begin to study there
is impressive, not to mention the ones one needs to advance to the
higher degrees.
I, too, took classes in missiology, and yes, there were earnest young
men, ready to save the world for Christ in them. The enthusiasm was
fine, the approach of many of them was immature. All I can say in
their defense, I suppose, was that they had a much wider perception of
what they were about when they finished than when they began! (And
all of them were headed either for Europe or America, north or south).
ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:27:14 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
<aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Shabati..掐礽shneineh wrote:
>
>> Vatican War Against Others:
>
>> Language is one of the most important aspect of the Christianist life in
>> the Vatican and Arabic is amongst the top five languages that the
>> priests and nuns speak very well. Many priests and nuns memorize some
>> chapters of the Quran.
>
>While I can't confirm or deny this, I would say, based on instinct, that
>this is probably not true. The Vatican is probably more concerned with
>Europe and America.
>
I think the vatican as a whole is concerned with the whole world, and
there are certanly sections of it that are very concerned about placed
other than the States and Europe, (perhaps especially Latin America).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Micheal Gamble
Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
traditions.
Sherif Safwat <She...@safwat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<YAJUJDAp...@safwat.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970726...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> writes
> > We pray to saints, but we do not
> >worship them. Worship is due to God alone. We ask saints to pray for us,
>
> Can they hear you? They are dead , aren't they?
>
>
> --
> Sherif Safwat
>
Anthony M Annett
In article <01bc9ad4$130a07e0$b74ac2cf@default>,
Micheal Gamble <mga...@rapidnet.net> wrote:
>Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
>need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
>traditions.
>
There is indeed good biblical precedent for praying for the dead--it's
in Second Maccabbees. But wait--- didn't Luther toss out this book
because it contradicted some of the stuff he made up?
Tony
"Bonum est id quod omnia appetunt"
--- Thomas Aquinas
Shabati..掐礽shneineh
Massoud Ajami wrote:
>
> X-no-archive: yes
> In article <33D938...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion> "Shabati..掐礽shneineh" <sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion> writes:
> >From: "Shabati..掐礽shneineh" <sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion>
> >Subject: Vatican's War
> >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:38:06 -0500
>
> >Contextualization is one of the most dangerous tools that the
> >evanglicaizing Christianist priests use in the Muslim world. This is the
> >same concept that the KGB used to train its members where the member has
> >to adapt completely to the life style, tradition, beliefs, culture,
> >language, .... of the country he will be assigned to (host land).
>
No, I mean people who give answers like yours are using their lower
medulla oblongata.
William M Klimon
On 27 Jul 1997, Micheal Gamble wrote:
> Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
> need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
> traditions.
Well, then I guess Our Lord Jesus Christ was guilty of this also because
he spoke with the dead:
"Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them conversing with [Jesus]." Mt.
17:3.
Of course, Our Lord was without any sin (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). So how can
this be? Quite simply because the blessed dead are NOT dead, but they are
alive in the Lord. "He is the God of the living, not of the dead." Mt.
22:32.
We know the blessed dead to be alive in the Lord, so we ask them to pray
for us, as we ask all the saints here on earth to do the same, "so that on
our behalf God may be thanked for the gift granted us through the prayers
of so many." 2 Cor. 1:11.
Pax Christi.
WMK.
______________________________________________________________________________
William M. Klimon ("12") wkl...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu
University of Maryland School of Law
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
Suzanne Fortin
On 27 Jul 1997, Micheal Gamble wrote:
> Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
> need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
> traditions.
It just amazes me that Protestants don't think we would have answered that
objection in our 2000 year history.
The verse condemns consulting with the dead as one would with a psychic.
Catholics don't seek oracles; we simply seek the prayers of those in heaven.
And anyway, the Bible is clear that Jesus founded a Church, headed by
Peter; and that Jesus promised the apostles that he would teach them all
that they needed to know, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against
them. If Peter could have a revelation about Jesus' messiahship, why
can't the whole Chruch receive the Truth from the Holy Spirit? O ye of
little faith...
> Sherif Safwat <She...@safwat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <YAJUJDAp...@safwat.demon.co.uk>...
> > In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970726...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> > Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> writes
> > > We pray to saints, but we do not
> > >worship them. Worship is due to God alone. We ask saints to pray for us,
> >
> > Can they hear you? They are dead , aren't they?
To answer your question: Only God is omnipresent. Saints are not.
However, when we address our prayers to God, we believe that God lets the
saints in heaven know of our intentions. As those in heaven receive a
vision of God, then God can easily let them know.
Suzanne Fortin *Minerva*: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724
Quebec City, Canada Email: sfo...@bigfoot.com
DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, web-site, religion,
cause, or get-rich-quick scheme. I don't do business with spammers.
Shabati..掐礽shneineh
ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:38:06 -0500, "Shabati..Æþµishneineh"
> <sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion> wrote:
>
> >Vatican War Against Others:
> >
> >We have exposed the role of the Vatican in a previous article as far as
> >monotheism is concerned. We indicated that the Vatican does believe in
> >idols and have many of them; idols of Popes and Saints that God is
> >believed to have been incarnated in. We said that the Vatican is nothing
> >but the idolatry.
> >
> >In this article; I am going to shed the light on some additional
> >disastrous aspects that the Christianists in the Vatican are conducting
> >against others in general and Arabs in particulars. So, besides the
> >cannons and missiles of the Judeo-Christian imperialists; we should not
> >underestimate the gun-powder of the priests and nuns of the Vatican.
> >
> >Language is one of the most important aspect of the Christianist life in
> >the Vatican and Arabic is amongst the top five languages that the
> >priests and nuns speak very well. Many priests and nuns memorize some
> >chapters of the Quran.
> >
>
> Modern Arabic I don't know about; but the languages in which the Bible
> were written, of course: there are a lot of lay people who study them,
> as well, (I'm not one of them).
> Why should we not memorise chapters of the Quran? Why should we not
> learn from each other? There is much that is good in the Quran; is
> truth not available for all?
You are correct if memorizing the Quran was in bona fide effort to
"communicate" with other religions. But when you memorize the two most
famous Chapters and use them as an introduction to recite the Bible to
illiterate people; then there should be something done about it.
There is no indication that memorizing these verses are done in bona
fide intentions and the indicators are contrary to that.
>
> >In the Vatican, they have three institutions for teaching Islamic
> >Studies. Curriculum includes Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, Sunnah, Sirah, and the
> >Islamic Sharia. Most of their students are non-Muslims from Arabic and
> >Islamic countries!!! There are some Muslim students too!!!!! The staff
> >is mainly composed of priests, bishops and patriarchs who speak Arabic
> >as good as Seibawayh. They are equipped with one of the best libraries
> >that have the mothers of the Islamic books and sources. The kind of
> >studies they do are very analytical; basically to penetrate poor and
> >ignorant Islamic societies.
>
> Um, not in my expereince, they weren't. Sure, missiology is a part of
> Christianity, just as it is a part of many other faiths. But a lot of
> the people you are talking about, (and which particular bishops teach
> in the pontifical schools??) are sincelely interested in dialogue and
> learning from each other.
That is not true. Fore each example of "sincerity" you provide; I will
give you 2 example of forced conversion to Christianity from Africa to
the former USSR. I am not saying that there are not priests who want to
help. What I am saying is that most of those who go out as missionaries
resort to unethical financial and physical tactics to force conversion,
especially among poor and illiterates.
> I can't believe, (or will need a lot more
> proof to believe) that things have changed so radically in the last 15
> years!
> >
> And, by the way, since when are all Islamic societies poor and
> ignorant? A lot of those scholars have more respect for Islamic
> culture than they have for their own!
I hope that you know that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait make less than 2% of
the Muslim population!!!
>
> As for the libraries, you are probably quite right, sigh. (The
> problem, for us, was getting into the best English language library in
> Rome: not a hope. Well, we could go in and be shown around, but use
> it? Forget it).
>
> >Contextualization is one of the most dangerous tools that the
> >evanglicaizing Christianist priests use in the Muslim world. This is the
> >same concept that the KGB used to train its members where the member has
> >to adapt completely to the life style, tradition, beliefs, culture,
> >language, .... of the country he will be assigned to (host land).
> >
> Actually, it gets called culturalisation, or inculturation, and there
> is much more disagreement about it in the church than you might think!
> The arguments have been going on since the Jesuits were accused of
> going native in the East, (and proably date back to the arguments Paul
> had about admitting Gentiles to the faith!).
>
> Of course one would want to learn the language of the place where one
> will live: to do otherwise is to insist that your own language is
> superior in some way! (Although, to be fair, there are those who
> really are incapable of speaking another language, no matter how hard
> they try).
No harm done. I am just informing my people of the tricks that the
Vatican uses to spread the Christianist religion. Muslims need to be
aware of that (and may use the same tactics) although I think that the
majority of Muslims will disagree.
How can you be a true believer if you were tricked into a religion?
>
> >One of the funniest, but very serious issue though, is dealing with God
> >and Jesus. Some of their bulletins deal with this issue with headings
> >such as “Allah has no son.” But if you continue to read, you will
> >realize that Allah refers to the pre-Islamic idol with Arabic
> >pronunciation (not spelling) of Allat.
>
> I don't quite see what you mean here. (And it is possible that the
> error you point out is just that, an error!).
Not really. Any Muslim regardless of his level of literacy will be
terrified if you tell him that God has a son. This is our main
perception of the Christianist religion. Christianist missionaries use
this trick to avoid Muslims' shun of the Christianist literature. No
Muslims expect a Christianist to say that God has no son. Combined with
other tricks, Christianist missionaries can and do sometime effect
conversions under false pretense.
>
> I do not deny that there are those who are all out to convert people
> of other faiths to Christianity. But what you describe above might
> just as easily be interpreted as preparation for living somewhere new:
> an attempt to get to know, in the jargon, "where people are coming
> from", if you like.
>
> Having lived a reasonable amount of my life out of my own country, I
> have seen over and over again that problems can arise simply because
> of different customs: people who are trying to be polite end up
> insulting those whom they wish to honour!
You do not have to get a Bachelor's Degree to get accustomed to the new
tradition. One or two days of orientation is enough to teach you what is
polite and what is not in a given country.
>
> If one of the institutions you are referring to is the Biblicum, (and
> from the bit about the languages, you may well be), I think you have
> misinterpreted the situation. The people at the Biblicum are scholars
> indeed: the list of languages one needs to even begin to study there
> is impressive, not to mention the ones one needs to advance to the
> higher degrees.
>
> I, too, took classes in missiology, and yes, there were earnest young
> men, ready to save the world for Christ in them. The enthusiasm was
> fine, the approach of many of them was immature.
I would like to know your opinion for calling them "immature". I hope
that you will address this question.
Abu-
wf...@enter.netxx
On 27 Jul 1997 22:39:45 GMT, "Micheal Gamble" <mga...@rapidnet.net>
wrote:
>Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
>need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
>traditions.
you are a creationist. biblical literalness is nowhere mentioned in
the bible. its a man made tradition. thus you just destroyed your own
position.
ron...@ibm.net
In <33DB71...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion>, "Shabati..F~5ishneineh" <sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion> writes:
>Massoud Ajami wrote:
>>
>> X-no-archive: yes
>> >From: "Shabati..F~5ishneineh" <sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion>
>> >Subject: Vatican's War
>> >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:38:06 -0500
>>
>> >Contextualization is one of the most dangerous tools that the
>> >evanglicaizing Christianist priests use in the Muslim world. This is the
>> >same concept that the KGB used to train its members where the member has
>> >to adapt completely to the life style, tradition, beliefs, culture,
>> >language, .... of the country he will be assigned to (host land).
>>
>
>
>No, I mean people who give answers like yours are using their lower
>medulla oblongata.
Now that you brought it up, abu-shikhtana, what exactly is the lower medulla
oblongata and what function does it serve? Will you answer this or ignore it
like the three basic questions?
Kindest Shikhta,
RM
Big Jim
On 26 Jul 1997 05:29:34 GMT, am...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (Anthony M
Annett) wrote:
>In article <33D938...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion>,
>Shabati..掐礽shneineh <sne...@ixReshet.Neged.Tsaion> wrote:
>>Vatican War Against Others:
>>
>>We have exposed the role of the Vatican in a previous article as far as
>>monotheism is concerned. We indicated that the Vatican does believe in
>>idols and have many of them; idols of Popes and Saints that God is
>>believed to have been incarnated in. We said that the Vatican is nothing
>>but the idolatry.
Exposed the Vatican? I doubt whether you have ever engaged in
serious dialogue with top Catholic theologians in the Vatican or
anywhere. I'm a Protestant but I would not take lightly the
doctrine of the Trinity as propounded by the Catholic Church now and
through the ages. I'm sure job One in Catholic theological
seminaries is to uphold the Old Testament's better thinking re
the Person of God "hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One..."
I personally think the Doctrine of the Trinity could use some
rethinking so modern Christians are not bogged down in a lot
of ancient Greek categories trying to make sense of the relationship
of Jesus Christ to the Father and creator of the universe. The
job is probably non-ending and basically impossible. But, as we are
limited finite creatures trying to address The Infinite and
inexpressible we are driven, probably by the Spirit, him/herself, to
state our beliefs re that relationship/
I personally have heard priests state publicly how idiotic and stupid
it is to think they would stoop to worshipping icons, statues, or
anything but God. Our Judea-Christian tradition has not been that
unsuccessful in convincing the world including Moslems of the oneness
of God.
There are many things you might criticize re the modern Catholic
Church but I don't think is any lack of emphasis on monotheism,
either in theory or in practice.
Nada
Sherif Safwat wrote:
===================
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970726...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> writes
> > We pray to saints, but we do not
> >worship them. Worship is due to God alone. We ask saints to pray for us,
>
> Can they hear you? They are dead , aren't they?
Regardless of the main point that dead won't help a bit,
Dead people hear as well as alive ones ..
During Badir battle, prophet Mohammed (SA3AS) was talking to dead
kafirs by saying: "did you find what Allah promised you .. we found
what what Allah promised us .." and his companions looked at each
other and asked the prophet .. do they listen ..!!? he (SA3AS) yes
but they don't speak.
dead people are eaten
.. alive people eat
dead people hear but don't speak
.. alive people hear and speak
....etc
-Nada-
ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk
Actually, all of the people I knew who studies Islamic studies (and
admittedly, that wasn't a large number, but then, you've given no
mubers, either) did so with the sincere hope to find truth.
>>
>> >In the Vatican, they have three institutions for teaching Islamic
>> >Studies. Curriculum includes Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, Sunnah, Sirah, and the
>> >Islamic Sharia. Most of their students are non-Muslims from Arabic and
>> >Islamic countries!!! There are some Muslim students too!!!!! The staff
>> >is mainly composed of priests, bishops and patriarchs who speak Arabic
>> >as good as Seibawayh. They are equipped with one of the best libraries
>> >that have the mothers of the Islamic books and sources. The kind of
>> >studies they do are very analytical; basically to penetrate poor and
>> >ignorant Islamic societies.
>>
>> Um, not in my expereince, they weren't. Sure, missiology is a part of
>> Christianity, just as it is a part of many other faiths. But a lot of
>> the people you are talking about, (and which particular bishops teach
>> in the pontifical schools??) are sincelely interested in dialogue and
>> learning from each other.
>
>
>That is not true. Fore each example of "sincerity" you provide; I will
>give you 2 example of forced conversion to Christianity from Africa to
>the former USSR. I am not saying that there are not priests who want to
>help. What I am saying is that most of those who go out as missionaries
>resort to unethical financial and physical tactics to force conversion,
>especially among poor and illiterates.
Are we talking today, or past instances? If we are going to go back
to the time of blesisng the Rhine and running the enitre populace of a
villiage through it in some sort of mass baptism, of course you can
find such instances. And yes, conversions to "rice Christianity" do
happen. They should not happen, but they do. What I fail to see is
any evidence that such tactics are either instigated or desired by
"the vatican".
>
>
>
>> I can't believe, (or will need a lot more
>> proof to believe) that things have changed so radically in the last 15
>> years!
>> >
>> And, by the way, since when are all Islamic societies poor and
>> ignorant? A lot of those scholars have more respect for Islamic
>> culture than they have for their own!
>
>
>I hope that you know that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait make less than 2% of
>the Muslim population!!!
>
I wasn't aware of the exact statistics, no. But wealth and high
literacy rates, important as they are, are not the only indicators of
culture! Yes, there is a great deal of poverty in many third world
countries, but that does not mean that there is no culture there! The
oral traditions of many places where literacy rates are low are very
important not only to the poeple there, but to the world as a whole.
Since when does culture depend on oil money? (That would also imply
that there was no culture in SA or Kuwait before they became rich,
which I would vehemently deny, and I know not all that much about it!)
>
>>
>> As for the libraries, you are probably quite right, sigh. (The
>> problem, for us, was getting into the best English language library in
>> Rome: not a hope. Well, we could go in and be shown around, but use
>> it? Forget it).
>>
>> >Contextualization is one of the most dangerous tools that the
>> >evanglicaizing Christianist priests use in the Muslim world. This is the
>> >same concept that the KGB used to train its members where the member has
>> >to adapt completely to the life style, tradition, beliefs, culture,
>> >language, .... of the country he will be assigned to (host land).
>> >
>> Actually, it gets called culturalisation, or inculturation, and there
>> is much more disagreement about it in the church than you might think!
>> The arguments have been going on since the Jesuits were accused of
>> going native in the East, (and proably date back to the arguments Paul
>> had about admitting Gentiles to the faith!).
>>
>> Of course one would want to learn the language of the place where one
>> will live: to do otherwise is to insist that your own language is
>> superior in some way! (Although, to be fair, there are those who
>> really are incapable of speaking another language, no matter how hard
>> they try).
>
>
>No harm done. I am just informing my people of the tricks that the
>Vatican uses to spread the Christianist religion. Muslims need to be
>aware of that (and may use the same tactics) although I think that the
>majority of Muslims will disagree.
>How can you be a true believer if you were tricked into a religion?
>
>
You can't. And there is a world of difference between having a lot of
people in a church and having a lot of people believe.
>>
>> >One of the funniest, but very serious issue though, is dealing with God
>> >and Jesus. Some of their bulletins deal with this issue with headings
>> >such as “Allah has no son.” But if you continue to read, you will
>> >realize that Allah refers to the pre-Islamic idol with Arabic
>> >pronunciation (not spelling) of Allat.
>>
>> I don't quite see what you mean here. (And it is possible that the
>> error you point out is just that, an error!).
>
>
>Not really. Any Muslim regardless of his level of literacy will be
>terrified if you tell him that God has a son. This is our main
>perception of the Christianist religion. Christianist missionaries use
>this trick to avoid Muslims' shun of the Christianist literature. No
>Muslims expect a Christianist to say that God has no son. Combined with
>other tricks, Christianist missionaries can and do sometime effect
>conversions under false pretense.
>
>
All I can say is that any conversion attained under such pretenses is
wrong. (That is meant to reflect on the means used, not on the
sincerity of the converted person).
>>
>> I do not deny that there are those who are all out to convert people
>> of other faiths to Christianity. But what you describe above might
>> just as easily be interpreted as preparation for living somewhere new:
>> an attempt to get to know, in the jargon, "where people are coming
>> from", if you like.
>>
>> Having lived a reasonable amount of my life out of my own country, I
>> have seen over and over again that problems can arise simply because
>> of different customs: people who are trying to be polite end up
>> insulting those whom they wish to honour!
>
>
>You do not have to get a Bachelor's Degree to get accustomed to the new
>tradition. One or two days of orientation is enough to teach you what is
>polite and what is not in a given country.
>
I doubt that, very much. I have lived here for almost 15 years, and
still manage to get things wrong. I lived in Italy for 3 years, and
really messed things up any number of times. (Maybe I am just a
social misfit!) One or two days will tell you the obvious basics:
what to wear, with whom to use the formal tense, and so on. It will
not suffice to teach you the history and culture of a different
country!
>
>>
>> If one of the institutions you are referring to is the Biblicum, (and
>> from the bit about the languages, you may well be), I think you have
>> misinterpreted the situation. The people at the Biblicum are scholars
>> indeed: the list of languages one needs to even begin to study there
>> is impressive, not to mention the ones one needs to advance to the
>> higher degrees.
>>
>> I, too, took classes in missiology, and yes, there were earnest young
>> men, ready to save the world for Christ in them. The enthusiasm was
>> fine, the approach of many of them was immature.
>
>
>I would like to know your opinion for calling them "immature". I hope
>that you will address this question.
Oh, dear. I hope none of them are reading this! Some of those young
men thought that they had the answer to everyone's problems: I thought
this related more to academic pride than to Christianity, as such,
however. Some of them were so sure of their own spiritual path that
they thought they could drag others with them, instead of seeing that
their job was to be a pointer, a beacon, maybe, not the road itself.
Some of them were just insufferable young puppies, the kind that any
university spawns, and any almost-all male environment seems to
foster.
The immaturity seemed to me to come out most clearly in discussing WHY
one would get involved in mission: some of them had never faced what I
saw as the fundamental questions, such as, "what is truth; can we know
truth; if we know truth, do we have the right to tell other people
ablout it; if we can know truth, do we have the duty to tell other
people about it", and so on. I sat and listened to their ideas for
incorporating various bits of other cultures in the Mass, and so on,
and got more and more distanced from them. Then when it was my turn,
they looked at me as if I had kicked them all! (However, the
discussion was good and fruitful; only one of them complimented me on
my "grasp of theological knowledge, in spite of your sex"!)
However, and this is a small point, but I think an important one, I
was saying that their approach was immature, not that they, themselves
were.
Carolyn Wright
The resurection of the dead was believed in the early church as noted in
the book of Second Maccabees 12:38---45...... " He then took up a
collection among all his soldiers amounting to two thousand silver drachmas
which he sent ot Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing
this, he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the
resurrection of the dead in view for if her were not expecting the fallen
to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in
death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits
those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this
sin."
Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970727...@hermes.ulaval.ca>...
>
> On 27 Jul 1997, Micheal Gamble wrote:
>
> > Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12.,
people
> > need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
> > traditions.
>
> It just amazes me that Protestants don't think we would have answered
that
> objection in our 2000 year history.
>
> The verse condemns consulting with the dead as one would with a psychic.
> Catholics don't seek oracles; we simply seek the prayers of those in
heaven.
>
> And anyway, the Bible is clear that Jesus founded a Church, headed by
> Peter; and that Jesus promised the apostles that he would teach them all
> that they needed to know, and that the gates of hell would not prevail
against
> them. If Peter could have a revelation about Jesus' messiahship, why
> can't the whole Chruch receive the Truth from the Holy Spirit? O ye of
> little faith...
>
> > Sherif Safwat <She...@safwat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > <YAJUJDAp...@safwat.demon.co.uk>...
> > > In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970726...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> > > Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> writes
> > > > We pray to saints, but we do not
> > > >worship them. Worship is due to God alone. We ask saints to pray for
us,
> > >
> > > Can they hear you? They are dead , aren't they?
>
Shabati..掐礽shneineh
William M Klimon wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 1997, Micheal Gamble wrote:
>
> > Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
> > need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
> > traditions.
>
> he spoke with the dead:
>
> "Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them conversing with [Jesus]." Mt.
> 17:3.
>
> Of course, Our Lord was without any sin (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). So how can
> this be? Quite simply because the blessed dead are NOT dead, but they are
> alive in the Lord. "He is the God of the living, not of the dead." Mt.
> 22:32.
>
> We know the blessed dead to be alive in the Lord, so we ask them to pray
> for us, as we ask all the saints here on earth to do the same, "so that on
> our behalf God may be thanked for the gift granted us through the prayers
> of so many." 2 Cor. 1:11.
>
> Pax Christi.
I am sure you realize that the Bible has been tampered with and you
cannot rely on it as a solid source. You really have to resolve all
conflicts before you even come close to the truth.
Peace
--
Quran 25:63
"O avdeim HaRachom [Ha-Elheim] hem sh'halcheim al haadamah bianvtanot.
O eim hanibareim deevero lhem: hem omreim shalom"
Shabatai Zvi
http://www.hebron.com
Suzanne Fortin
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Shabati..掐礽shneineh wrote:
> William M Klimon wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Jul 1997, Micheal Gamble wrote:
> >
> > > Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12., people
> > > need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
> > > traditions.
> >
> > Well, then I guess Our Lord Jesus Christ was guilty of this also because
> > he spoke with the dead:
> >
> > "Suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them conversing with [Jesus]." Mt.
> > 17:3.
> >
> > Of course, Our Lord was without any sin (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). So how can
> > this be? Quite simply because the blessed dead are NOT dead, but they are
> > alive in the Lord. "He is the God of the living, not of the dead." Mt.
> > 22:32.
> >
> > We know the blessed dead to be alive in the Lord, so we ask them to pray
> > for us, as we ask all the saints here on earth to do the same, "so that on
> > our behalf God may be thanked for the gift granted us through the prayers
> > of so many." 2 Cor. 1:11.
> >
> > Pax Christi.
>
> I am sure you realize that the Bible has been tampered with and you
> cannot rely on it as a solid source. You really have to resolve all
> conflicts before you even come close to the truth.
> Peace
Abu
For Catholics, the final arbiter of the Truth is not the Bible, but the
Church. Our Lord promised to send his spirit upon the Church to teach us
everything. And when the pope speaks infallibly in the name of the
Church, we can be sure that it is the Truth because God promised this
Truth, regardless of this Bible tampering: we know this not only from the
Bible, but from other historical documents.
George
Shabati..=C6=FE=B5ishneineh wrote:
[snip]
> I am sure you realize that the Bible has been tampered with and you
What do you mean by tampered with ? Do you mean corrupted, or
translated, you might laugh, but a Muslim guy called translation is a
kind of corruption of the book, so I want to know where you too stand.
> cannot rely on it as a solid source. You really have to resolve all
> conflicts before you even come close to the truth.
> Peace
Really ??? So why does Allah tlak about it so much in the Koran, why
does he even tells Muhammad to look at it if it was corrupted.
> --
> Quran 25:63
> "O avdeim HaRachom [Ha-Elheim] hem sh'halcheim al haadamah bianvtanot.
> O eim hanibareim deevero lhem: hem omreim shalom"
> Shabatai Zvi
> http://www.hebron.com
George
-- =
May the peace of God be with you;
Mt 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if
it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
Carolyn Wright wrote:
>
> The resurection of the dead was believed in the early church as noted in
> the book of Second Maccabees 12:38---45...... " He then took up a
> collection among all his soldiers amounting to two thousand silver drachmas
> which he sent ot Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing
> this, he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the
> resurrection of the dead in view for if her were not expecting the fallen
> to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in
> death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits
> those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
> Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this
> sin."
>
> Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote in article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970727...@hermes.ulaval.ca>...
> >
> >
> > > Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12.,
> people
> > > need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
> > > traditions.
> >
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724
> > Quebec City, Canada Email: sfo...@bigfoot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, web-site, religion,
> > cause, or get-rich-quick scheme. I don't do business with spammers.
> >
> >
You protestant jokers obviously dont believe in the eternality of the
soul and life after death. We (Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox)
don't pray to the dead, you imbecile. We pray to that which lives on
with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in heaven, or
wherever the afterlife is. And we pray that the Blessed Mother of God
intercedes for you, too.
Al
--
| "This is the Faith of the Apostles,
||||| this is the Faith of the Fathers,
| this is the Faith of the Orthodox,
||||||||||| this is the Faith which has
| established the Universe!"
\ |
\| (The statement of the 7th Ecumenical
|\ Council, affirming the truths of the
| \ Holy Orthodox Faith, 787 A.D.)
zamani zambri
The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never true.
Sometimes some emperor would make the Pope bend backwards to satisfy his
needs. Besides, howabout the time when the Papacy was plit to Avignon and
Rome, who was speaking with the Spirit of God then when they disagree?
Zamani
ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk
Oh, for heavn's sake: how many times does it have to be said? No one,
no, I'll qualify that, because some joker somewhere is sure to have
said it, let's try again: the Church has never maintained that the
individual man who is the pope is infallible in the ordinary way of
things. A pope can be wrong about the time of day, he can be wrong
about aspects of theology. BUT, and here it comes, the idea of
infallibility is that the Spirit will protect the church from making a
grave error on the subjects of faith and morals, and that this
protection resides in the teaching authority of the pope.
All bishops are preachers and teachers by virtue of their ordination:
all others take their authority from them. In certain, specificed and
very rarely invoked cases, the Lord will protect the church from going
against the Divine Will, for the sake of all those who are members of
the church.
Oddly enough, a little bit of historical digging will tell you where
the succession of Peter went during the Avignon time; just trace it.
I'm not saying that every pope has been wonderful: history forbids.
But then, that's more or less the whole point: the infallibility is
given to the CHURCH, and exercidsed through the office of the pope,
not to Karol Wotija, or G. Roncalli or whomever.
Peter M. Dyga
zamani zambri (zza...@scudc.scu.edu) wrote:
: The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never true.
Wrong again. Peter infallible in Acts 10, again in Acts 15, again in 1
Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the infallibility
of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
Now, if you don't understand the true meaning of infalliblity, fine, ask
for help with humility. But if you want to beat your chest, pumped up
with pride, despite the fact that you may have been corrected numerous
times regarding the Catholic understanding of infalliblity, that's fine
too, but don't go around spewing your anti-Catholic, bigoted diatribes.
: Sometimes some emperor would make the Pope bend backwards to satisfy his
: needs. Besides, howabout the time when the Papacy was plit to Avignon and
: Rome, who was speaking with the Spirit of God then when they disagree?
There has never been two legitimate popes, but often times others who
claimed they were pope. I'm sure you can understand power strugles. Have
you ever seen one of those split your protestant congregation? I thought
you might be able to understand. ;-)
: Zamani
--
Peter M. Dyga
afn0...@afn.org
Johan van Zyl
Who burnt who at the stake when he tried to convince the world was round?
Was it not the infallible RC Church/ Pope?
Peter M. Dyga <afn0...@afn.org> wrote in article
<5rspp3$hnk$1...@maya.ece.ufl.edu>...
ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk
On 1 Aug 1997 14:17:54 GMT, "Johan van Zyl" <j...@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>Who burnt who at the stake when he tried to convince the world was round?
>Was it not the infallible RC Church/ Pope?
>
Actually, a lot of the burning at the stake that went on in Europe was
in the witchtrials. And most of those deaths, at least most of the
documented one, (and it is only fair to say that a LOT of the
documents are missing) were not in the Catholic countries of Europe.
William Barwell
In article <01bc9e85$6c4a9f40$200419c4@johan>,
Johan van Zyl <j...@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>Who burnt who at the stake when he tried to convince the world was round?
>Was it not the infallible RC Church/ Pope?
>
><5rspp3$hnk$1...@maya.ece.ufl.edu>...
>> zamani zambri (zza...@scudc.scu.edu) wrote:
>> : The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never
>true.
>>
>> Wrong again. Peter infallible in Acts 10, again in Acts 15, again in 1
>> Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the infallibility
>> of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
>>
>> Now, if you don't understand the true meaning of infalliblity, fine, ask
>> for help with humility. But if you want to beat your chest, pumped up
>> with pride, despite the fact that you may have been corrected numerous
>> times regarding the Catholic understanding of infalliblity, that's fine
>> too, but don't go around spewing your anti-Catholic, bigoted diatribes.
>>
Papal infalibility became a Catholic dogma only in 1870.
Until then, the infalibilty of the Pope was denied, not least, by many
Popes.
Before you bloviate any further about things which you know zip, nada,
zero, you should do some research.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Suzanne Fortin
On 1 Aug 1997, Johan van Zyl wrote:
> Who burnt who at the stake when he tried to convince the world was round?
> Was it not the infallible RC Church/ Pope?
No. Nobody was ever burned for trying to convince people the world was
round. And even if bishops or a pope tried to have someone burned for
teaching any article, false or true, it matters little because the pope
nor the bishops are infallible for their *actions*. There have been evil
popes, but that doesn't change the fact that the doctrine which has been
handed down to us is infallibly true. Infallibility only pertains to
*doctrine* which has been *declared infallible*. Theological opinions,
the pope's opinions, the opinions of bishops are not infallibile.
So, no matter how many evil acts performed in the name of the Church
which you name, it does not change the fact that the *doctrine* is
infallible, not the people.
Suzanne Fortin Quebec City, Canada EMAIL: sfo...@bigfoot.com
Minerva's Catholic message board
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724/b.htm
Ask a question Make a comment Post a prayer request
Catholics and Non-Catholics welcome!
DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, web-site, religion,
cause, or get-rich-quick scheme. I don't do business with spammers.
> Peter M. Dyga <afn0...@afn.org> wrote in article
> <5rspp3$hnk$1...@maya.ece.ufl.edu>...
> > zamani zambri (zza...@scudc.scu.edu) wrote:
> > : The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never
> true.
> >
> > Wrong again. Peter infallible in Acts 10, again in Acts 15, again in 1
> > Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the infallibility
> > of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
> >
> > Now, if you don't understand the true meaning of infalliblity, fine, ask
> > for help with humility. But if you want to beat your chest, pumped up
> > with pride, despite the fact that you may have been corrected numerous
> > times regarding the Catholic understanding of infalliblity, that's fine
> > too, but don't go around spewing your anti-Catholic, bigoted diatribes.
> >
Evan Kalenik
Peter M. Dyga wrote:
> zamani zambri (zza...@scudc.scu.edu) wrote:
> : The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never
> true.
>
> Wrong again. Peter infallible in Acts 10, again in Acts 15, again in
> 1
> Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the
> infallibility
> of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
Except, of course, St. Peter was never the pope of Rome. By your
definition, the writings of your Roman Catholic historian Raymond Brown,
who stated that we know little if anything about what St. Peter did in
Rome, except that he died there, which had all your "approvals" is not
even a Christian, much less a Roman Catholic?
Please don't confuse St. Peter with later popes. Popes are bishops, St.
Peter was an Apostle. There is a difference.
Evan
Unknown
"Johan van Zyl" <j...@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>Who burnt who at the stake when he tried to convince the world was round?
>Was it not the infallible RC Church/ Pope?
>
Okay, Johan, I'll bite. WHO was burnt
at the stake by the Church for trying
to convince people the world was
round?
Len
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
Peter M. Dyga wrote:
>
> zamani zambri (zza...@scudc.scu.edu) wrote:
> : The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never true.
>
> Wrong again. Peter infallible in Acts 10, again in Acts 15, again in 1
> Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the infallibility
> of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
To call Peter the first "pope" (pope as a title) is stretching the
truth. In effect, Peter was the first Bishop of the church he and St.
Paul founded at Rome. This after Peter founded the Church at Antioch and
was its first bishop (for 2-1/2 years). The successors to Peter
originally were called bishop, and within a short time, Patriarch, since
Rome was one of the first five patriarchates of the One, Holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church. The other four Patriarchates were in the east and
are now within the dogmatically unified Eastern Orthodox Church. It was
quite a few centuries before the word "pope" was used as a title to the
successors of Peter.
By the way, Orthdoxy has at least one Patriarch who uses the same
title...Pope Shenouda of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Your citations from Acts of the Apostles may, indeed, "prove" Peter's
infallibility. Just the same, infallibility didn't concern anyone in the
church for well over 1,200 years. The doctrine of the pope's
infallibility is relatively new considering the age of the church.
Whether or not the pope is infallible is not under question in my
remarks. I could care less whether Catholics believe it or not. God
bless them and I love them all since they are my Christian brothers and
sisters. I'm just putting an historical perspective on the infallible
issue.
>
> Now, if you don't understand the true meaning of infalliblity, fine, ask
> for help with humility. But if you want to beat your chest, pumped up
> with pride, despite the fact that you may have been corrected numerous
> times regarding the Catholic understanding of infalliblity, that's fine
> too, but don't go around spewing your anti-Catholic, bigoted diatribes.
>
> : Sometimes some emperor would make the Pope bend backwards to satisfy his
> : needs. Besides, howabout the time when the Papacy was plit to Avignon and
> : Rome, who was speaking with the Spirit of God then when they disagree?
>
> There has never been two legitimate popes, but often times others who
> claimed they were pope. I'm sure you can understand power strugles. Have
> you ever seen one of those split your protestant congregation? I thought
> you might be able to understand. ;-)
Nothing could be more fractionalized or factionized than Protestantism.
There are more than 2,700 Protestant denominations in the U.S. and, by
count of the U.N., at the end of 1996 there were more than 32,000
Protestant denominations worldwide. Are THEY ALL RIGHT???
Suzanne Fortin
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, zamani zambri wrote:
> The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never true.
> Sometimes some emperor would make the Pope bend backwards to satisfy his
> needs. Besides, howabout the time when the Papacy was plit to Avignon and
> Rome, who was speaking with the Spirit of God then when they disagree?
The pope sins like anyone else. He uses his judgement and makes wrong
decisions like anyone else. He comes under the influence of political
influence like anyone else. Jesus did not promise that the popes would
not sin or make bad decisions. What is implied in his promise to the
Church is that when the pope formulates a definitive doctrine, that
doctrine would be protected from the possibility of error. The
formulation of doctrine, mind you, is not a spontaneous occurrence. The
pope doesn't wake up one morning and decided he's going to define a
doctrine. Usually, defined doctrines are beliefs which have been commonly
held before but are being questioned; the denial of the doctrines would
risk perverting the faith, hence the necessity of defining the doctrine
so that we know exactly in what sense a doctrine is meant to be taken.
When the papacy was split between Rome and Avignon, there was only *one*
pope. Historians have determined which popes were the legitamite
successors; but at the time it wasn't clear because there were so much
information kept from the public that they thought the anti-pope was
pope. But this all goes to show that papal succession was not broken.
Timothy Consodine
Alfred G. Green, Jr. wrote:
>
> Your citations from Acts of the Apostles may, indeed, "prove" Peter's
> infallibility. Just the same, infallibility didn't concern anyone in the
> church for well over 1,200 years. The doctrine of the pope's
> infallibility is relatively new considering the age of the church.
> Whether or not the pope is infallible is not under question in my
> remarks. I could care less whether Catholics believe it or not. God
> bless them and I love them all since they are my Christian brothers and
> sisters. I'm just putting an historical perspective on the infallible
> issue.
The Infallibility of the Church is promised by Christ:
John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with
you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
that I have said to you.
John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by
itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide
in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I
in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do
nothing.
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all
the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he
hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to
come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare
it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he
will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world,
and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou
hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou
didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And
for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in
truth.
Additionally, Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His
church. Holding the keys was a juridical term which meant authority and
jurisdiction. Look at Isaiah 22:
Isaiah 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of
David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none
shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he
will become a throne of honor to his father's house. 24 And they will
hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and
issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build
my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus spoke Aramaic. He gave Peter the name Kepha (most English bibles
render it "Cephas"). Four times in Galatians and four times in 1st
Corinthians St. Paul uses the transliteration of the Aramaic word
'Kepha' when referring to Simon Peter. "Kepha" means a large, massive
stone, the same as the Greek word 'petra.'
Jesus spoke Aramaic - the Aramaic word for small stone or pebble is
'evna' -- the Greek equivalent would be petros, but therein lies a
probelem. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures -- in
Aramaic you can use 'kepha' in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek
you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing
gender endings (o and a / masculine & feminine). The Greek word 'petra'
is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without
any trouble, but you can't use it as Simon's new name, as their language
and culture would not give a man a woman's name.
So Jesus not only conferred upon Peter the authority over the Church,
but also designated him as the center of unity among his brother
bishops:
Luke 22:31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he
might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith
may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,
"Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him,
"Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him,
"Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John,
do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third
time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything;
you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches exactly what the Bible
teaches:
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on
by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share
in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People
of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium,
"unfailingly adheres to this faith."[417]
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of
the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this
Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and
defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing
the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium
is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that
liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's
shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and
morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and
teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he
proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or
morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in
the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise
the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When
the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for
belief as being divinely revealed,"[419] and as the teaching of Christ,
the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."[420]
This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation
itself.[421]
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles,
teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular
way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without
arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a
"definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary
Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation
in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful
"are to adhere to it with religious assent"[422] which, though distinct
from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
417 LG 12; cf. DV 10.
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.
419 DV 10 # 2.
420 LG 25 # 2.
421 Cf. LG 25.
422 LG 25.
Peter Amschel
>Suzanne Fortin Quebec City, Canada EMAIL: sfo...@bigfoot.com
>
> Minerva's Catholic message board
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7724/b.htm
> Ask a question Make a comment Post a prayer request
> Catholics and Non-Catholics welcome!
>
>DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, web-site, religion,
>cause, or get-rich-quick scheme. I don't do business with spammers.
>
Es ce qu 'on peut exchanger quelques messages avec toi?
The Hab
>> : The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never true.
>>
>> Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the infallibility
>> of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
>
>To call Peter the first "pope" (pope as a title) is stretching the
>truth. In effect, Peter was the first Bishop of the church he and St.
>Paul founded at Rome. This after Peter founded the Church at Antioch and
>was its first bishop (for 2-1/2 years). The successors to Peter
>originally were called bishop, and within a short time, Patriarch, since
>Rome was one of the first five patriarchates of the One, Holy, Catholic
>and Apostolic Church. The other four Patriarchates were in the east and
>are now within the dogmatically unified Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Church of Alexandria is not within the "dogmatically unified Eastern
Orthodox Church".
The Hab
Suzanne Fortin
Well, I get a lot of email, and I don't have a lot of time for long
discussions (which is why I prefer ng's less commitment required) but if
you want to email something of a personal nature, go ahead.
Alfred G. Green, Jr.
The OCA website lists only canonical autocephaleous and autonomous
Orthodox Churches. I just copied this from the site:
2.The Church of Alexandria
Greek-Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
POB 1307, 2006 Alexandria, Egypt
tel +20.3.482.2890 (from Alexandria)
tel +20.2.510.3516 (from Cairo)
His Beatitude, PETROS
Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa
3.The Church of Antioch
Greek-Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch
B.P. 0009, Damascus, Syria
tel +963.11.43.14.00, fax +963.11.43.62.11
His Beatitude, IGNATIUS IV
Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of New York and All
North
America *
358 Mountain Rd., Englewood, NJ 07361
phone 1-201-871-1355, fax 201-871-7954
website http://www.antiochian.org
The Most Reverend Metropolitan PHILIP, Archbishop and Primate
The Right Reverend ANTOUN, Titular Bishop of Selefkia
The Right Reverend JOSEPH, Titular Bishop of Katana and
Regional Bishop for
the Western Region
The Right Reverend BASIL, Titular Bishop of Enfeh-al-Khoura
and Regional
Bishop for the Southwest Region
The Right Reverend DEMETRI, Titular Bishop of Jableh and
Regional Bishop for
the Midwest Region
Comment?
Chris Tatman
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 15:28:21 -0700, "Alfred G. Green, Jr."
<agg...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>The Hab wrote:
>>
>> "Alfred G. Green, Jr." <agg...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >Peter M. Dyga wrote:
>> >>
>> >> zamani zambri (zza...@scudc.scu.edu) wrote:
>> >> : The Pope is infallible? History has taught us that this was/is never true.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong again. Peter infallible in Acts 10, again in Acts 15, again in 1
>> >> Peter and 2 Peter. EACH of these accounts demonstrates the infallibility
>> >> of the first pope, neither of which a true Christian would deny.
Peter was not a pope, nor was he infallible. The Holy Spirit is
infallible, but not people. For example when Peter went to Antioch he
was confronted by Paul. It is written about in Galatins 2:11........
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was
clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to
eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back
and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those
who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in
his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led
astray.
Is it possible to be a hypocrite and infallible at the same time?
>> >
>> >To call Peter the first "pope" (pope as a title) is stretching the
>> >truth.
That is a polite way to put it. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 John 3:18
Dear children, let us not love with words
or tongue but with actions and in truth.
Smart1234
>>Praying to the dead is forbidden in the Bible , see Deut.18:10-12.,
people
>>need to stop the false practices of the RC church and their man made
>>traditions.
>
>
Who says their dead?
Rick Howick
I'm afraid your information and Biblical exegesis is faulty. In short,
Peter was indeed the chosen head of the Church, given the "keys to the
kingdom" and the power to "bind and to loose", and told that what he binds
on earth will have been bound in heaven -- that's the standard definition
of infallibility (note: not impecability, Peter was a sinner, like you and
I, but on matters of faith and how we should live it out [morals], he was
given that special power directly from Christ -- If Christ's words are not
good here (e.g. Matthew 16:13ff), then they aren't good anywhere else,
which would not be good for you and me.
I strongly recommend you read "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" by Butler,
Dahlgren and Hess (Queenship Publishing Company, 1996, 1-800-647-9882).
This book is the most complete Biblical exegesis of the Petrine
controversy, and has led (or more likely, been instrumental) to five
confirmed conversions of Protestant or Orthodox pastors to the Catholic
Church -- read only only at your own risk, as the truth is compelling!
Yours most sincerely in Christ,
Rick Howick
----------
> From: Chris Tatman <l...@delete.mail.lightspeed.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic; soc.culture.arabic;
soc.culture.egyptian; soc.culture.pakistan.religion; alt.religion.islam;
alt.religion.christian
> Subject: Re: The Vatican and Christ's Church
> Date: Sunday, August 10, 1997 9:44 AM
Chris Tatman <l...@delete.mail.lightspeed.net> wrote in article
<33eeef4a....@news.lightspeed.net>...
George
But God gave all of his disciples (and followers?) that power to "bind
and to loose" (Matthew 18:18) and that what they shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven.
I would like to know, what made the Orthodox get separated from the
Catholic Church, I have heard things like "The Catholic church changed
in <some council>." If someone knows the exact history of this incident
I would appreciate it if s/he would share his/her knowledge with us.
George
--
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu@uiuc.edu
In <33EEB87A...@hotmail.com>, George <ab...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Reply-To: ab...@hotmail.com
Actually, Christ was speaking to just the Apostles there, not to all
of His disciples. God has never set up worship in such a way that
all of His people undertake the same function. See Numbers 16 and
Corinthians 12 for further details.
>I would like to know, what made the Orthodox get separated from the
>Catholic Church, I have heard things like "The Catholic church changed
>in <some council>." If someone knows the exact history of this incident
>I would appreciate it if s/he would share his/her knowledge with us.
>
>George
>--
>May the peace of God be with you;
>Mt 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if
>it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
The filioque issue was the proximate cause, although there were
deeper problems which this simply highlighted.
The original Nicene Creed, promulgated at the Council of Nicea in the
300's (I forget the exact year and my books are packed up, but I
want to say the 390's) stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the
Father. In 1054, the Pope amended the Creed so that it stated that
the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father AND THE SON. The Eastern
churches didn't necessarily disagree with the wording, but they argued
that the Pope didn't have the authority to change a conciliar creed on
his own - they wanted him to call a council in order to change the
wording. The Pope stated that he didn't need to call a council. He sent
a legate to discuss the issue with the patriarch of Constantinople, I
believe. Unfortunately, the legate and the patriarch had a serious personality
conflict, the patriarch got so incensed at the legate's attitude that he
excommunicated the legate (and, by implication, the Pope). The legate
responded by excommunicating the patriarch. The break-up followed
shortly afterwards.
If you want a fuller explanation, you might check out the Catholic
Encyclopedia on-line. I don't have the URL on me at the moment.
Can anyone help?
Steven Kellmeyer
CHECK OUT http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~kellmeye/welcome.html
CLICK on the words SCRIPTURAL CATHOLICISM
"IT is a very great poverty that a child must die so you may
live as you wish." - Mother Theresa
Evan Kalenik
Rick Howick wrote:
> I'm afraid your information and Biblical exegesis is faulty. In
> short,
> Peter was indeed the chosen head of the Church, given the "keys to the
>
> kingdom" and the power to "bind and to loose", and told that what he
> binds
> on earth will have been bound in heaven -- that's the standard
> definition
> of infallibility (note: not impecability, Peter was a sinner, like you
> and
> I, but on matters of faith and how we should live it out [morals], he
> was
> given that special power directly from Christ -- If Christ's words are
> not
> good here (e.g. Matthew 16:13ff), then they aren't good anywhere else,
>
> which would not be good for you and me.
The problem with the above is that it makes more of the verses than what
the fathers have said about them. St. Peter had a leadership role, a
role that was within the Church. That contrasts with the Roman Catholic
model of having a pope who is over the church.
> I strongly recommend you read "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" by Butler,
> Dahlgren and Hess (Queenship Publishing Company, 1996,
> 1-800-647-9882).
> This book is the most complete Biblical exegesis of the Petrine
> controversy, and has led (or more likely, been instrumental) to five
> confirmed conversions of Protestant or Orthodox pastors to the <Roman>
> Catholic
> Church -- read only only at your own risk, as the truth is compelling!
Or, you may want to read _Journeys to Orthodoxy_ (Thomas Doulis, editor)
or _Coming Home_ (Fr. Peter Gillquist, editor). There you can find 28
accounts of Protestants and Roman Catholics who have come home to the
Orthodox Catholic Church. Read it for nourishment.
Evan
Evan Kalenik
George wrote:
> I would like to know, what made the Orthodox get separated from the
> Catholic Church, I have heard things like "The Catholic church changed
>
> in <some council>." If someone knows the exact history of this
> incident
> I would appreciate it if s/he would share his/her knowledge with us.
There were many factors that lead to the Great Schism of 1054. There
were a number of breaks in the past going back around 700 years before.
There are far too many things that lead up to the Great Schism to list
them all. I would suggest getting a copy of _The Orthodox Church_ by
Timothy Ware (ISBN 0-14-013529-4), since that is most available. It is
published by Penguin Books. Timothy Ware is Bishop Kallistos, a Greek
Orthodox Bishop in England. There are some other books out there, but
that should give you a good start.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Evan