First of all, Stavro, your post was not too long and your replies were excellent in their content and ideas. No, we are not going to agree on all of this but I would like to comment on some of your statements.

Even given the problematic origins of Islam, I still opine that at least some Moslems consider themselves to be Abraham's children and consider themselves to worship Abraham's God. They have essentially made their own self-fulfilling prophesy. Yes their worship is distorted . . . highly so. I have just started to read Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet: Islam--History, theology, Imact on the World which is published by Regina Orthodox Press. I am currently reading the first chapter on the origins of the Arabic peoples. The author states that "Mohammad was born into a pagan society but by the end of the 6th Century it was different from the paganism as commonly understood in its proto-monotheistic tendencies." The author also reports some of the information that you had posted earlier. He goes into the pagan origins of the name "Allah" or "al-ilah" the dominant deity--the moon god--among the pagan Arabs. So I do agree with you (I think?) regarding the origin of much of Mohammad's thoughts about God and religion. But I perceive in the author's claims thus far in only an early reading of his book a more nuanced view of Islam than yours. And by nuanced I am not asserting that you are absolutely wrong on all counts! When I finish reading the book, perhaps I'll post a short review. I have skimmed other parts of Trifkovic's book. He is definitely NOT pro-Moslem! Thus far, the book seems to be very well written.

A few comments on selected portions of your latest post:

I still maintain that the Jews worship Yahweh as we do even though their knowledge of Yahweh, as Christianity has witnessed to Him, is incomplete or just plain wrong if you prefer.

Quote

Without opening another subject, muslims are also not saved. I believe that everybody gets the message and gets to hear the Gospel. being captive to one's environment or else is not an excuse.

If by this you mean that one must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God, then I agree. I do not believe in any form of apocatastasis in its ancient understanding or in the understanding of modern day religious indifferentism. Regarding excuses or lack thereof, only God Himself will know the ultimate disposition of the individual Soul, not man, thankfully! Personally, I couldn't handle the knowledge of another one's fate. My spiritual struggle is all that I can handle as it is! Even this fails me without His unmerited Grace.

Quote

Many muslims, about 6 millions in Africa alone, according to AL-Jazeera network, are converting to christianity. Islam, when you get to read more about it, is a brutal, violent and unhuman religion, and anybody who really cares for the truth will reject it, and search for the real God. I am sure God will lead the way of this person seeking after Him to embrace christianity.

Yes, I read the post somewhere on OC.net about the 6 million. I agree with you about Islam's brutality. Christianity has been brutal too, although I recognize that this brutality did not come from Jesus--but from our history as being grafted onto the tree of Jesse (remember the semitic understanding of the God who gave them Caanan?) and due to our own fallen human natures. I sometime wonder how we all didn't end up believing in Calvinism when one examines human behavior over history.

I have not ever talked with an Imam, etc. about his belief in Allah; merely a couple of Moslem "laymen" who lived in the U.S. and spoke English. I must therefore defer to you on this.

Quote

Yes, it is a great gift. But, it is by far easy in the West, I would not call the life of christians in Islamic countries as easy, at all. You have to live in Turkey, Egypt,Iran or Yemen as a christian to know how difficult it is to be christian. It is the christianity in which the Cross is carried each and every day.

I was talking principally about the West though not exclusively. Furthermore I was not talking about the struggle to lead a Christian life, whether a life in the materialist, sex, and consumerism obsessed West or in the areas of the world where Christianity is suppressed, oppressed, and persecuted. This includes the Middle East but also China, Vietnam, Cuba, India, etc. By "easy" I was referring to the movement toward God as Christianity proclaims Him. The movement of a non-Christian to God is quite a different journey from the movement of a cradle Christian who is supposed at least to have some familiarity with and commitment to God. And Moslems have quite an arduous journey to make given their/our mutual histories, and the inhibitions of their culture.

Quote

-I am not advocating mistreatment of the unbelievers

No, of course not. I never thought that you were advocating this.

Quote

But if you imply that we should appease them, then I strongly disagree.

We are not in disagreement here. Irenicism and talking is NOT appeasement, at least not necessarily so. In fact, there is a publication recently released by the Vatican that strongly condemns the oppression of Christians in the Moslem world. So I don't think that the Pope is into appeasement. He is trying to deal with them and we can agree or disagree to varying extents regarding the success of this "management problem." If I can find the publication on the web again, I will post the link.

Quote

Away from the Pope's incident, would it not be easier if the martyrs did not die for the faith or offered incense to the idols, kissed their statues and confessed that they respect the Pagan worshippers faith ? Love the unbelievers, but don't compromise the faith.

Again, I perceive that we are in agreement here. I would say one thing, however, is that one has to explain what "respect" means. In the U.S., for example, the ideology of freedom of religion is sacrosanct and necessary in our society. I would add to this is that I believe in "market principles" when it comes to evangelization in the U.S. So I guess that I have to "respect" Islam in America but I don't have to like it, approve of it, follow it, trust it, appease it, or support it. Futhermore, I would say that it is imcumbent then to evangelize for the Faith through apologetics, catechesis, social action, etc. As far as martyrdom, I would hope that one may at least attempt to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. The Moslems seem to encourage it among their believers with wild abandon. Something is wrong here!

Quote

My concern is more the other christians who don't study Islam and they just believe whatever is presented in the media. (I don't mean you specifically, this is in a general sense). The liberal media wants this big group hug, and we should refuse to do so.

Marvel of marvels! We agree again. That is why I try to read widely though hopefully not too superficially. If I had the time or temperament I would like to learn Arabic and Aramaic and study the semitic cultures of the Middle East in detail and up front. Speaking of Allah, the aforementioned book states that the word itself comes from the Aramaic. If we get started talking about the liberal media, our conversation will inevitably degenerate when I descend to "sailor language" and call the media those no good sons of $%^&*@#!

Quote

You don't have to take an oversimplistic view. Compare the circumstances, the orders and the reasons why the masacres were undertaken in both cases, and come to an educated conclusion. Did Judaism spread with the sword ? Did christianity take the way of wars to spread christianity ? Never. Even the Crusades were not christian wars, they took the Cross as a cover.In the Quran, it is a clear order to kill the christians, Jews and all other non-muslim wherever they are, unless they pay a tribute.

I'm not sure there is total agreement between us here. Then again I'm not sure there is that much disagreement either! Judaism never really spread except among itself--i.e., building babies. Yes, they did take "wives" among the pagan tribes, to God's displeasure because it led them into idolatry and child sacrifice. But Judaism has never been a proseltyzing religion. One also should recognize that the semitic tribes were very barbaric and violent whether they were Hebrews or Arabs. And all too frequently this is how they looked upon their God. I'm not a biblical scholar--I distrust much of modern bible scholarship even though I do not reject it out of hand--but I believe God talks to people in terms that they can understand just as a mom or a dad talks to a young son or daughter in child-like and child-understanding terms. Could Islam ever be tamed say in the U.S.? Frankly, I don't know one way or the other.

One thing that troubles me about our criticism of militant Islam, we are a people that brought the world the holocaust of WWII, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, etc. [pick your favorite issue]! And now 37+ million abortions in the U.S. alone! I am willing to oppose Islam for the sake of my faith and the sake of the West, but I get kinda uncomfortable when I reflect upon the violent history of the West! No, this is not a matter of guilt but of perspective.

Regarding the Crusades, that is another topic which we might disagree on or partially agree/disagree on. The Crusades' history is very complex and is currently subject to a great deal of revisionism, much of which I must admit that I might agree with. Another reading area to add to my list of "To be read." Sorry to annoy Bro. Max (where has he been lately?) but my knowledge of the Crusades pretty much comes from Will and Ariel Durant (and some other books). As you may know, I'm not a fan of the Durants.

Quote

We are told to live in peace with all unbelievers, but without compromising the faith. I didn;t mean to make any slanderous comments about Pope John Paul II or the catholic church. I just wanted to make sure that Islam is understood correctly.

I regretted making my statement almost immediately after I posted it. Thanks to our "overseers" who took away our edit capabilities I couldn't revise it subsequently. [Actually, thanks to those who abused the privilege of having an edit capability!] I did not intend to accuse you of slander, merely to ask you to clarify your statement. I agree with you that Islam is dangerous.

I do not really know one way or the other in the long term whether of not the West can live in peace with Islam. I don't intend to open up the subject of the Crusades again but I am (partially) convinced that the Crusades, as problematic as they were, kept Western Europe ultimately from going Moslem. No, I can't prove it. But the Western European incursion into the Middle East caused the Moslems kingdoms to lose a lot of energy otherwise available for conquest. The purposes were not totally aggressive even if the tactics were. Islam was becoming ascendent while the West was relatively backwards. And the Byzantine East was caught in the middle!

Ultimately, the Crusades were not successful as best as I can tell, at least for Byzantium and for Christians in the Middle East. Islam eventually took Constantinople which never really recovered from 1204. Even without 1204 I'm not all that sure that Constantinople would have prevailed anyway. No! I'm not justifying the 4th Crusade's sack of the city!!!!! Islam was on a steam roller for several centuries. I don't even think that a united West could have prevented the fall of Constantinople, but I can't prove this. I don't think the West at its stage of history could unite in the first place, even under the Papacy as a central unifying organization. This period of history did demonstrate, however, that Islam was very powerful & dangerous to the West and united as a result of the Crusades. And Islam at least in the terrorist sense is uniting again and may become very powerful in its own unique way in the 21st Century.

The timing is also becoming bad for the West. The West is rapidly de-Christianizing IMHO. You might recall that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah rejected Yahweh and fell subsequently to the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively. There is a lesson in here "somewhere" for the West.

Quote

As I told you, I am not praticularly interested in this incident as much as in the dogmas of Pope Infallability, which would be exposed if he acted in a wrong way in any incident concerning the faith.

I don't want to open up another can of worms, but the dogma of Papal Infallibility really has nothing to do with Koran kissing! But perhaps we should leave this "issue" for a resounding cat fight to be fought on OC.net for another day. Meow!

It is now my turn to apologize for a long and prolix post. I must say again, however, that I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion with you and even the discussion in the entire thread on this topic.

One of our esteemed posters expressed some confusion regarding this statement. Lest anyone misconstrue my intentions, I got this from an Anglican friend of mine. Although we should be joyful on the outside during the Great Fast, there is nothing wrong with being miserable on the inside--in my case very, very hungry--for the sake of our souls!

The Pope is the supreme legislative authority in the Roman Catholic Church. Everyone has recourse to him, but he answers only to God, not to a Synod of Bishops or anything like that. You can't force him to retire, much less depose him. Catholics are free to correct me, but that's how I understand the situation, and I don't recall reading anything in the CIC regarding deposition of a Pope, forced retirement, etc.

As far as I understand, this is correct. Which makes for some interesting questions (and perhaps, logically required answers).

- Pope is infallible, but only "ex cathedra"- Pope holds universal and immediate juristiction (source of all ecclessiastical authority)- Pope is judged by no other than God; which means no body can legally depose or otherwise sentence a Pope.

This has an interesting, round about consequence - in effect, I think one would have to conclude this has the practical consequence of making the Pope either infallible in all that he says or does, OR believe that he must be obeyed in falsehood, but this obedience will be blameless on the part of those who fall in and follow (since their obedience, even to an obvious heretic, is more precious than anything else.)

I know men like Robert Bellarmine (a saint and doctor by RC lights) theorized on the possibility of a Pope apostacizing and thus vacating his office, but such a thought means little when no one could actually judge said offender.

This is why I am somewhat confused when Roman Catholics (whether more or less obedient "conservative" types, or more controversial "traditionalist" types who still recognize John Paul II, like the SSPX) say things like "oh, well it's not ex-cathedra". In reality, does that have any practical consequence, that distinction? If I remember what my TAN books reprint of Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma said correctly, even Papal teachings which do not directly invoke the full excercise of Papal authority (the charism of "infallibility" thus being invoked) such teachings cannot be dissented from - they are to be received with docile assent, both internal and exterior. Roman Catholics, both traditionalist or otherwise "conservative", should keep in mind that the "it's not ex-cathedra" line of reasoning is also a favourite of their more flakey liberals (for example, they'll use this line of reasoning to ignore Papal documents like Humanae Vitae.)

The matter of John Paul II kissing the Koran or otherwise doing strange things like this, obviously doesn't fit within the realm of "magisterial teaching" as Catholicism understands it. However, it is related, since the issue of ecclessial discipline is very much tied to the matter of authority, which in turn relates to "the magisterium." Also, being the "supreme teacher" in the RCC, I think it's fair to ask whether the mindset from which strange acts like this flow, is the same mindset involved in this Pope's religious teaching in general.

Fr.Johannes Dormann has written an interesting series, titled Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi. They're not the easiest books to read (can come off as being very dry), but I think they make it fairly easy to discern that strange/scandalous things (like the example that started this thread) in the Pontificate of John Paul II do not simply come out of a vacuum, but are very much manifestations of his mindset in general.

There are precedents for the deposition of a pope. The last time it happened was at the Council of Constance, which ended the Great Western Schism early in the 15th century.

The examples you've provided here certainly give precedent within the post schism, Latin tradition for such a deposition. However, I think such a line of argument would have to assume something that is not the case - namely, that the RCC's history since the schism (and certainly before hand) is a consistant one, that has not being continually undergoing essential evolution/change in doctrinal positions.

The RCC of the Council of Constance, simply doesn't exist anymore - the Popes have now firmly cemented their claims to power, and elaborated them in ways that did not exist back then. Today's "truth" is not "yesterdays". Hence, the essentially "modernistic" nature of Roman Catholicism. It wasn't Vatican II which transformed Catholicism into an ever evolving, dialectical "becoming"; that's a long term problem, which is perhaps the essence of what drove a wedge between Rome (and it's adherants) and the Orthodox Churches in the first place.

So he kissed the Koran. Big deal! We don't need to justify it. The EP used to be appointed by the Sultan.

Ok...and this comparable to the curious deeds of a certain free Roman Catholic ecclesiastical leader in what compelling ways?

Quote

Remember you guys wanted the turban not the mitre.

Mmmm, I think given the option, the Orthodox would undoubtedly have chosen neither.

The price of receiving assistance from the "magnanimous" Popes apostacy - and even those who were willing to sell their souls for temporal "salvation" were to find out they help they did receive was never of such consequence as to prevent the ascendency of the Mohammedans in the east.

The famous saying, I as I recall hearing it was "better the turban than the mitre" - it was the lesser of two evils. Though martyred, and treated as second class citizens in their own lands, the Orthodox were able to remain just that - Orthodox.

Peace JBC,I enjoyed reading your post very much, and I think we agree on most of the issues which were the subject of our posts. My following comments are just some reflections, without disagreements, on some points:

Quote

The Sword of the Prophet: Islam--History, theology, Imact on the World which is published by Regina Orthodox Press. I am currently reading the first chapter on the origins of the Arabic peoples. The author states that "Mohammad was born into a pagan society but by the end of the 6th Century it was different from the paganism as commonly understood in its proto-monotheistic tendencies."

That is what is universally perceived. However, the sources for this statement are from Islamic sources,and Western scholars usually rely on islamic sources as authoritive without further invistigating the issue from other sources.

It is a complicated issue. Many arabic books written by muslims, who during their research apostated, make a strong link between Muhamed and Christian Heresies. In any case, it is a good point of research but of little importance to the current state of affairs.

Quote

In the U.S., for example, the ideology of freedom of religion is sacrosanct and necessary in our society. I would add to this is that I believe in "market principles" when it comes to evangelization in the U.S. So I guess that I have to "respect" Islam in America

I agree on the concept. But for every rule, there is an exception. Islam, by nature, is very different. Islam exists as a religion and a state, and it has been exercised as such since Muhamed's time till the fall of the Ottman Empire. In addition, Muslims themselves do not reciprocate the same courtesy to the other religions; meaning, that once they are in power, they will oppress the other religions as much as they can. They never did otherwise. We tend to assume that history does not repeat itself, because we are far so civilized than to allow such thing.Well, under Islam, you don't have a choice. We are judging Islam by our own measures, by christian values and civilized world standards. Do you find any islamic state that is civilized ? I fear the islamisation of the West. Muslims make babies at rates nobody can keep up with, and they will use democracy to end democracy. I have been laughed at many times when I talked to American friends about it. They can't perceive it that a free country like the USA for example can be a dictatorship. They overlook the fact that muslims' first allegiance is to Islam, not to the state they are citizens of. If this happens, then we need a divine intervention because Islam erradicates the very character of the country. Look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey (yes, former Byzantine Empire) which were once a flourishing christian culture.Can point out a state having a population of muslims, in which muslims are not reason of trouble ?

Quote

And now 37+ million abortions in the U.S. alone!

As great as the USA is, I don't regard it as a christian country. I am not sure that there is something like a christian country or a definition for that, as politics has nothing to do with christianity.

Quote

Thanks to our "overseers" who took away our edit capabilities I couldn't revise it subsequently. [Actually, thanks to those who abused the privilege of having an edit capability!]

Yeah, I missed this "edit privilages" during some other discussions in another section.

Quote

don't intend to open up the subject of the Crusades again but I am (partially) convinced that the Crusades, as problematic as they were, kept Western Europe ultimately from going Moslem. No, I can't prove it. But the Western European incursion into the Middle East caused the Moslems kingdoms to lose a lot of energy otherwise available for conquest. The purposes were not totally aggressive even if the tactics were. Islam was becoming ascendent while the West was relatively backwards. And the Byzantine East was caught in the middle!

It is a good point, which I never realized before. At the time of the crusades beginning, the islamic world was in a state of disarray. Abassians in Baghdad were very weak, Fatimites in Cairo were also becoming weak, and it was a good time to strike "from a politicial point of view" and erase Islam. However, I am not sure Europe was also powerful, or at least united.

The problem is that they took the Cross as their symbol and they raised a religious war, thus tarnishing the Sign of the Cross with such claims. Maybe that is why they failed.

As far as Islam and Europe, the closest Islam went to capture Europe was in 732 a.d.. Charles Martel emerged as an unexpected hero in the Battle of Tours. I personally believe God intervened here. Outnumbered against a very powerful enemy, Europe was at stake as CHarles Martel was the last stronghold of the christian World. He scored an unexpected victory. I am surprised that there are no movies to glorify this man who had an gigantic influence on civilization.....

Whether the world will unite again against Islam, I don't know. In any case, for some reason, Evil is almost always the winner.

Quote

The timing is also becoming bad for the West. The West is rapidly de-Christianizing IMHO. You might recall that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah rejected Yahweh and fell subsequently to the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively. There is a lesson in here "somewhere" for the West.

Totally agree. Islam would be a very lucky heir, and a very cruel one too, to a civilization Islam contributed nothing to. Actually, this is the view muslims hold. God made the West flourish so much, in order to strike the infidels (the West) down and give it to Muslims. The strategy is to immigrate, keep a low profile, make babies, make babies, make babies, and then, make babies, give birth to babies, form babies and be a majority.

Away from Islam, I think the apostacy in the West has its roots partially in the so-called "Reformation". Let us leave it at this, without investigating more.

Quote

Ultimately, the Crusades were not successful as best as I can tell, at least for Byzantium and for Christians in the Middle East.

I agree. In fact, the last crusades were targeted at Egypt. I think it was Luis IX, King of France who invaded North Egypt. He committed masacres against christians as well as muslims, thus affirming the belief the Copts realized many years before that it does not really differ under which occupation they would live. Note that between Chalcedon and the Islamic Conquest, it was not a rosy picture in Egypt and in Syria as well.

Quote

I don't want to open up another can of worms, but the dogma of Papal Infallibility really has nothing to do with Koran kissing! But perhaps we should leave this "issue" for a resounding cat fight to be fought on OC.net for another day. Meow!

Meow Meow !! I wasn't actually gonna discuss it, I just wanted to hint at it as it is for me the reason of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics. The other dogmatic differences, like the Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception are more or less Papal doctrines, according to the Doctrinal Development Theory. Once the basis of their acceptance is reviewed,namely Papal Infallability, everything else will "or might" fall in place.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

It is a complicated issue. Many arabic books written by muslims, who during their research apostated, make a strong link between Muhamed and Christian Heresies. In any case, it is a good point of research but of little importance to the current state of affairs.

I agree on the concept. But for every rule, there is an exception. Islam, by nature, is very different. Islam exists as a religion and a state, and it has been exercised as such since Muhamed's time till the fall of the Ottman Empire.

The author of the book cited Ibn Warraq, author of The Quest for the Historical Muhammad for the statements that I posted. Ibn Warraq is (now) an atheist and rejects Islam as dangerous, among other things. His books are on my "to be read list" . . . way, way down on a long, long list! Oh, my!

Quote

In addition, Muslims themselves do not reciprocate the same courtesy to the other religions; meaning, that once they are in power, they will oppress the other religions as much as they can. . . .

Please understand that when I said "respect" I did not mean "respect & trust." I don't trust them. I'm not a trusting sort of guy by nature!

Quote

I fear the islamisation of the West. Muslims make babies at rates nobody can keep up with, and they will use democracy to end democracy.

I have been laughed at many times when I talked to American friends about it. They can't perceive it that a free country like the USA for example can be a dictatorship. They overlook the fact that muslims' first allegiance is to Islam, not to the state they are citizens of.

I can assure you that I am NOT laughing! I also read in a past issue of the National Catholic Register a statement made by an Italian Curial Cardinal urging Italians to make babies and to allow immigration only from Catholic countries. Italy has experienced an explosive growth in its Moslem population through immigration. His comments were vigorously condemned in the secular press. The fools!

Regarding the Crusades . . . yes, the West was divided and never truly united even under a strong Medieval Papacy.

Quote

As far as Islam and Europe, the closest Islam went to capture Europe was in 732 a.d.. Charles Martel emerged as an unexpected hero in the Battle of Tours. I personally believe God intervened here. Outnumbered against a very powerful enemy, Europe was at stake as CHarles Martel was the last stronghold of the christian World. He scored an unexpected victory.

Yes, I tend to agree about the Divine intervention at Tours. Catholics have also considered the Battle of Lepanto the result of Divine intervention through Our Lady of the Rosary. The Catholic coalition of forces were quarrelsome and barely united.

However, the last time Islam came closest to capturing Europe (possibly) was in the 1680's. A coalition of forces led by King (St.) Stephen of Hungary stopped the Turks at the gates of Vienna.

Quote

I am surprised that there are no movies to glorify this man who had an gigantic influence on civilization.....

That's because the modern world is interested in sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll!!!!

I also read in a past issue of the National Catholic Register a statement made by an Italian Curial Cardinal urging Italians to make babies and to allow immigration only from Catholic countries. Italy has experienced an explosive growth in its Moslem population through immigration. His comments were vigorously condemned in the secular press. The fools!

Actually he didn't say "make babies." Please excuse the error. Nonetheless, Italy's average no. of children per family is 1.2 or 1.3, below replacement level so I guess they should be making the bambinos!

"Catholics have also considered the Battle of Lepanto the result of Divine intervention through Our Lady of the Rosary. The Catholic coalition of forces were quarrelsome and barely united."

That is interesting....do you have any links for further readings ? I have been searching for a good, detailed book on the Battle of Tours for a looooooooong time now, and could not find....any suggestions ? Thank you in advance.

and I hope Italy will start making Bambinos ..... it is a charming country, and being the soccer fan that I am, I wish they bring more Baggios, Del Pieros, Fieris to the delight of soccer fans.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

That is interesting....do you have any links for further readings ? I have been searching for a good, detailed book on the Battle of Tours for a looooooooong time now, and could not find....any suggestions ? Thank you in advance.

No, unfortunately, I don't have much. Tan Books publishes a biography of Pope St. Pius V and has a brief account of the Battle of Lepanto:

Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: His Life, Times and Miracles

There is also a secular history of various battles throughout Western history:

Victor Davis Hanson, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, New York, Doubleday, cy2001.

I have not (yet) read this book but Lepanto is one of the battles discussed.

It has articles on "Lepanto" & "Charles Martel" but not a whole lot of detail on Tours. I believe the actual battle that turned back the Moors was the Battle of Poitiers.

I too would desire to read a lengthy account of Tours/Poitiers and Lepanto. Lepanto was not the big victory that most people proclaim. The Turkish fleet was still very powerful and in a subsequent year came out to challenge the Christian fleet but the challenge was not taken up.

I still wonder about the fate of the whole World if it wasn't for Charles Martel incredible victory. I don't believe in military or political saints, and I don't think he was a saint, but a man of greatest influence on history of mankind.

Maybe "brother" Mel Gibson should entertain the thought of producing a movie about The Battle of Tours/Poitiers.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Maybe "brother" Mel Gibson should entertain the thought of producing a movie about The Battle of Tours/Poitiers.

Funny that you have mentioned this! In my latest National Catholic Register, some Catholic group has publically called for Mel to make a movie of St. Francis of Assissi. I'm not one for commercializing religion and religious subjects, but if the Passion can spin off some decent films on religious subjects--not that trash that passes for religious films on commercial TV (like that Judas "joke")--then maybe it would be a good thing.

Too early to tell yet if this would be a good idea. I too wouldn't mind a rousing "war flick" about the rescue of European Civilization. Also a movie about the "Battle of Vienna" in the 1680's would be good too. Might anger the Turks though! Good!

If religious movies are directed under christian historian or at least fair secular scholars revision and without any extra flavor like the 50's and 60's screen hits, I think it will be great. It is at least benefitting for the spirit and it gives a great account of the true christianity.

I remember a movie about St.Paul and St.Peter, which I watched back home on smuggled tapes but I can;t seem to find it anywhere. It was a good movie.How great would be for christians, evangelizers specially, to see the "passion" and love this great Saint had for the Lord Christ.

What about the life of St.George ?

And there are other great accounts in the history of the Churches in the East, which is not known to the West because of lack of publicity.

I don't see why the christian movies won't continue. It had made a great profit, so at least financially, it is feasible.

If it angers muslims, then the following quote by St.John Chrysostom is right on target :" Sick people are injured by healthy food".

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

The different Semitic names also share the same root, the letters 'alef', 'lam', and 'ha'--all consonants, in conformity with Semitic alphabetical systems that do not rest on vowels. They are the same.

Can a loyal Catholic ever criticize the Pope? Can it ever be his duty to voice such criticism publicly? These agonizing questions have been presenting themselves increasingly in recent years to a good number of Catholics who, like myself, do not consider themselves in any way dissenters. We accept all the authentic teachings of the Magisterium, including those since Vatican Council II, but feel deeply troubled by the policy and practice of the present pontiff in regard to non-Christian religions.

As a priest who teaches theology at a pontifical university, I am dismayed at the January 24 inter-religious peace gathering in Assisi. It is well-known that before the first such gathering in 1986 (which played no small part in provoking the rupture between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy See in 1988), a number of cardinals privately warned John Paul II of the imprudence of such an innovation - utterly unheard of in 2,000 years of Church history. Their concern was shared by thousands of faithful priests, religious and Catholic laity. Perhaps if we had publicly voiced that concern, instead of remaining silent out of fear and human respect, His Holiness might have felt the need for greater restraint in the next millennium.

Despite certain precautionary nuances against syncretism (the Assisi meetings were officially described as not being a case of "coming to pray together," but as "coming together to pray"), the practical effect in the minds of millions of observers worldwide can only have been to create or reinforce the impression that the Roman Catholic Church now endorses what Pope Pius XI described as "the view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy." But while vast numbers of Catholics now see nothing much wrong with that view, Pius XI declared that those who support and promote it are "lapsing gradually into naturalism and atheism" and therefore are "totally falling away from the religion revealed by God" (cf. Mortalium Animos, 1928).

What other impression than a verdict of "more-or-less-good-and-praiseworthy" is left when the Roman pontiff invites Jewish, Islamic, pantheistic and polytheistic religious leaders to come and practice their respective forms of worship inside Catholic churches and religious houses, offering to each group space and facilities for that purpose? How does such an invitation escape the charge of formal cooperation in the objectively sinful practice of pagan worship? How will it in any way help to persuade those invited non-Christians, and their millions of followers, that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour?

Is Assisi really justified by Vatican II's cautious recognition in Nostra Aetate that non-Christian religions "often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men" or by its call for "prudent...discussion and collaboration with members of other religions"? Are such gatherings (not to mention such unheard-of gestures as the Pope's public kissing of the Koran on May 14, 1999) apt to give any practical reflection to the Catholic truth that the "belief" of non-Christians is not the theological virtue of faith - recently confirmed as definitive by John Paul II in Dominus Jesus?

I offer these comments, not in a spirit of defiance, but as a loyal son of the Holy Father who prays for him daily, who assents to all his formal teachings as Vicar of Christ, but who also grieves for the scandal and confusion caused by radically innovative practices which do not seem to reflect those teachings.

Fr. Brian W Harrison, O.S., S.T.D. Ponce, Puerto Rico

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

No, I am not saying that most Roman Catholics view favorably the Pope's kissing the Koran and/or the prayer meetings with pagans at Assisi.

It just that Catholics in general are not THAT alarmed about the Pope's showing respect for all religious beliefs. After all, this is the thrust of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the "orther" hallmark of Pope John Paul II"s pontificate aside from ecumenical dialogue with other Chrisitans, most especially with the Orthodox!

To me, at least, the interreligious gathering at Assisi for prayers for world peace is a non-issue and the event bodes well for religious tolerance.

I like to think that the evangelization efforts of the Catholic Church in Muslim Indonesia and sub-Saharan Africa are in a great way aided by our adherence to the peaceful accommodation of local religious customs and beliefs, and not the coercive way, as practised in the olden days, of preaching the Gospels.

I could be wrong but the success of the Catholic Church in traditionally Muslim countries speaks volumes.

No, I am not saying that most Roman Catholics view favorably the Pope's kissing the Koran and/or the prayer meetings with pagans at Assisi.

It just that Catholics in general are not THAT alarmed about the Pope's showing respect for all religious beliefs. After all, this is the thrust of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the "orther" hallmark of Pope John Paul II"s pontificate aside from ecumenical dialogue with other Chrisitans, most especially with the Orthodox!

To me, at least, the interreligious gathering at Assisi for prayers for world peace is a non-issue and the event bodes well for religious tolerance.

I like to think that the evangelization efforts of the Catholic Church in Muslim Indonesia and sub-Saharan Africa are in a great way aided by our adherence to the peaceful accommodation of local religious customs and beliefs, and not the coercive way, as practised in the olden days, of preaching the Gospels.

I could be wrong but the success of the Catholic Church in traditionally Muslim countries speaks volumes.

Amado

Are apparent evangelistic successes worth any price, even the betrayal of the Apostolic Tradition and - from the Roman Catholic perspective - the betrayal of the statements and policies of previous popes?

Tolerance in religion means not harming others although we disagree with them.

It does not mean promoting their beliefs, providing a platform for them, and making it appear as if Christianity were just one more religious alternative among other valid choices.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

The man kissed a book that denies that Jesus is the Son of God and then does not publicly repent or ask for the forgiveness of his flock.

Disgusting.

Apparently that is just the tip of the ecumenical iceberg, Tom.

Pope John Paul II is also supposed to have done the following:

recited psalms with Jews while visiting the synagogue of Rome (April 13, 1986)

invited Catholics and Jews to prepare together for the coming of the Messiah (June 24, 1986)

engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo (February 4, 1993)

took part in Animist rites in the “Sacred Forest” in Togo (August 8, 1985)

had the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of Shiva in Bombay (February 2, 1986)

and invited representatives of the “main religions” to Assisi to pray for peace (October 27, 1986, and January 24, 2002).

Here is another excerpt from the article at the link I posted above:

Quote

For example, during prayer with an African Animist on August 8, 1985, John Paul writes: "The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists." In 1986, in New Delhi, India, John Paul stated: "Collaboration between all religions is necessary for the good of mankind. Today, as Hindus, Buddhists, Jansenists, and Christians, we unite to proclaim the truth about man" (La Croix, Feb 4, 1986). In his 1991 encyclical Centissimus Annus (60, 3), John Paul states: "I am convinced that the various religions, now and in the future, will have a preeminent role in preserving peace and in building a society worthy of man." In 62, 3 he writes: "...the Church will be faithful in making man's way her own." On April 19, 1998, during the homily of a con-celebrated Mass, in front of Indian women offering incense and flowers, John Paul said: "We would like to listen to what the spirit is saying to the Churches, so that they can proclaim Christ in the context of Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and all those ways of thinking and living which were already rooted in Asia before the preaching of the Gospel arrived there" (L' Osservatore Romano, April 22, 1998). At the same meeting, John Paul stated: "Gandhi taught us that if all men and women, whatever the differences among them, embrace the truth, in the respect and dignity unique to every human being, a New World Order, a civilization of love can be attained." On January 21, 1995, in a meeting with Buddhists, John Paul stated: "This meeting signified togetherness. We are together; it is necessary to be together; not to be together is dangerous" (Man of the Millennium, p. 149). On November 17, 1999, in his general audience, John Paul stated: "It was important to reaffirm the lively desire of the Church for a fruitful dialogue among the believers of all religions" (The Catholic World Report, "Dialogue and evangelization," Jan. 2000, p. 9) (emphasis mine). "I love all religions...If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God..." (Interview with Mother Teresa, 1989). In February 2000, John Paul stated: "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam" (General Audience Address, May 5, 1999).

Note that last quote especially.

Quote

Pope John Paul II: "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam."

If it is accurate, what can such a prayer possibly mean but betrayal?

May God destroy Islam and bring those deceived by it to Christ.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

"Whether we are Christians, Moslems or Jews, we are children of God and our efforts as peacemakers will be blessed and rewarded by the one God whom we share as common Creator." (Remarks by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew "New Leadership and the Promise of Peace," October 15, 2000).

"Whether we are Christians, Moslems or Jews, we are children of God and our efforts as peacemakers will be blessed and rewarded by the one God whom we share as common Creator." (Remarks by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew "New Leadership and the Promise of Peace," October 15, 2000).

I found the first article somewhat troubling, although it did not really contain the sort of blatantly pluralistic remarks attributed to JPII.

This one was particularly bothersome, however:

Quote

Patriarch Bartholomew: "... upon all men and women of all ages, religions, races, creeds, and nations of our planet Earth peace and goodwill, beseeching our great and loving God that He grant to all of us the wisdom to truly see one another as we have been created, namely as brothers, sisters, and children of the Lord." (The Orthodox Observer July-August, 2001, p.9).

The second article spoke of a meeting between SCOBA and SCOOCH, bishops of Non-Chalcedonian groups comprising the latter.

Genuine dialogue with other Christians, minus doctrinal compromise, is a good thing, a thing I don't think any Orthodox Christian would criticize.

In the real world even dialogue with non-Christians is sometimes necessary in order to avoid intolerance, conflict, and violence.

But there is a world of difference between dialogue and fraternization, between communication and prostitution, between refraining from spitting on the Koran and bowing to and kissing it.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2004, 01:03:30 PM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Do Zoroastrians count as monotheists are diotheists? They believe that Ahura Mazda will triumph but that evil is the creation of Angrha Mainyu, thus raising the status of their evil one to co-creator with their lord. It seems they are diotheists to me.

Do Zoroastrians count as monotheists are diotheists? They believe that Ahura Mazda will triumph but that evil is the creation of Angrha Mainyu, thus raising the status of their evil one to co-creator with their lord. It seems they are diotheists to me.

Well, then we are diothiests too. Think of Angrha Mainyu as more like Satan or the serpent in the garden; he isn't a god.

Did you get those other "attributions" from the 101 heresies of John Paul II? If so, not really a credible source.

Logged

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be

Did you get those other "attributions" from the 101 heresies of John Paul II? If so, not really a credible source.

No, I did not. I guess that is the title of a book. Anyway, I've never heard of it.

If you are speaking of the Pope's questionable ecumenical activities, I would be glad to see some credible evidence that shows he did none of those things.

If you are speaking of the quotes from JPII, those came from the article by Robert Sungenis at the link I posted.

If you or anyone else thinks that my purpose in starting this thread was to attack JPII and/or the papacy, you're way off base. I respect the papal office, even if I am critical of some of JPII's actions as its present occupant.

When I started this thread I was hoping someone would provide a good explanation of these things. I was also hoping someone could show me how RCs can be critical of the actions of a specific pope without rejecting the papacy itself as a divine institution.

The responses have been as predictably defensive as they have been disappointing.

What happens when the RCC is subjected to a really bad egg as pope, like another Alexander Borgia?

Will everyone still be making excuses for him?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

When I started this thread I was hoping someone would provide a good explanation of these things. I was also hoping someone could show me how RCs can be critical of the actions of a specific pope without rejecting the papacy itself as a divine institution.

The responses have been as predictably defensive as they have been disappointing.

What happens when the RCC is subjected to a really bad egg as pope, like another Alexander Borgia?

Will everyone still be making excuses for him?

As (yet) a Baptist inquirer, I would like some good answers to this as well.

So far, I've read WTTE that "it's no big deal" or that "it wasn't ex cathedra". Like Linus, I don't find those answers convincing. For can a pope really make such syncretic comments and perform such blasphemous gestures and it have no bearing on his fitness to be the "successor of St. Peter"? There have been anti-Popes in the past, why is JPII not considered one for suc statements and actions?

(And out of curiosity, just how many "ex cathedra" statements have been made in the past and where are these pronouncements officially listed?)