Catholics and Muslims Worship Together

I don't think that brother Carson Weber was trying to defend Roman Catholic doctrine, I believe he was taken by Bishop Gregory Aymond of the Austin Diocese, a kind of 'hero figure' for the up and rising star. Carson's post kind of hints at this idea.

Cool! I personally know Bishop Aymond from when I was a parishioner in his
diocese, and I was graced with the opportunity to see him again this past
March when he flew up to Columbus, Ohio to ordain one of my friends as a
transitional deacon (meaning that he'll be ordained as a presbyter/priest in one
more year after he serves a year as a deacon).

Here's a picture of my friend Ken, Bishop Gregory Aymond, and me from
about 4 years back after a Pro-Life Mass in a Hispanic Catholic Church in
downtown Austin:

http://carson.boerne.com/profile/bishop2.jpg

Unfortunately, bishops do not always do the correct thing, as in the case of the Episcopalian bishop who was elected to high office even though he is a practicing homosexual. In this case
Reverend Aymond said in effect, as noted in the article, just 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Frankly, that's about all the Gospel the Muslims received that day. No one can love their neighbor, from the heart, without receiving Christ as personal Savior. I'm rather sure that that message was not on his lips that day.

 

I didn't know you were more Catholic than the Pope? Cool! That's amazing.. I thought that was an impossible feat, but you've apparently gone and done it.

Ummmmmm...got the old "smarty pants machine" working at top speed I see. Nice retort. Full of good answers to my objections.

If both worship the one true God and if that is my equation, then it is appropriate, and you shouldn't be stunned.

Go tell any Muslim you meet on the street that Jesus and the Father are one and see if you get agreement. Notice the word "true" in that statement above. There are thousands of people worshipping "god", but is that "god" they worship the same as the True and Living God of the Christian Scriptures?

"For the time is coming and now is, that the Father seeketh those to worship Him in spirit and in truth"

"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.

Yes, the plan of salvation includes all of mankind, for Christ's death was for all who would ever live, and not just some "elect class" and the rest be damned.

In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

Suppose we look to the words of Jesus rather than the machinations of John Paul II.

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Where are the works of Abraham in the lives of the Mohammedans? They seek to KILL Christians.

I'm just being a Catholic, Ed, and I certainly won't apologize for it.

Ummmmm.....fine. I'm just being Catholic, too. And I won't apologize either. When I was catechized into the Church, I was told that Scripture had a high place of influence upon us as Catholics. I was shown places in the catechsim which speak to the honor and regard we are to have for Scripture.

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "the Old Covenant has never been revoked" (paragraph 121). This is actually drawn from a homily our Holy Father gave on Nov. 17, 1980 in Mainz, Germany.

I do hope, in light of Hebrews 8:13, that he was kidding, right?

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The Old Covenant cannot be revoked because it points the Jewish people to Christ.

Not what Scripture says.

To revoke this Covenant would be to undermine and destroy the only path open to them as a people to encounter the Messiah who is Christ Jesus.

Not what Scipture says.

The Latin rite only makes it harder to reach out to Protestants

I would suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree by targeting "the Latin rite"; your argument lies with our Holy Father and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which is composed of 22 equal rites.

Tell that to the dozen or more Latin riters, or should I say X Latin riters whom we have at St. Ann's. They will go back when the rite gets well. Maybe you need the influence of some Traditionalist Latin Rite Catholics also. I find myself continually in sympathy with them and in horror at how the Novus Ordo priests and bishops are wrecking the Latin rite and turning the beauty of God into a entertainment palace.

PS....I'm going to a Catholic site and ask if "Lumen Gentium" has the same authority and infallibility as an "ex cathedra" definition. I think you are blowin' smoke in my ear!!

 

Hi Brother Ed,

Ummmmmm...got the old "smarty pants machine" working at top speed I see. Nice retort. Full of good answers to my objections.

What? Do you expect for my posts to be boooring? I would hope not.. I know you like a good fight, and I'm just feeding your appetite - open wide!

Suppose we look to the words of Jesus rather than the machinations of John Paul II.

Suppose we look to the Prime Minister of Jesus' Kingdom to whom Jesus has given his own personal authority to stand in his place as his Vicar on Earth.

I'm going to a Catholic site and ask if "Lumen Gentium" has the same authority and infallibility as an "ex cathedra" definition. I think you are blowin' smoke in my ear!!

The infallibility of the statement can be debated, but the authority of it is clear. As Catholics, we must adhere with a religious submission of intellect and will to any given doctrine taught by the Pope or the Bishops together in an ecumenical council, even if it is not pronounced definitively.

Catholics need not have the stamp of "infallibility" to submit to authority. You can find all of this in the Code of Canon Law (1983).

I do hope, in light of Hebrews 8:13, that he was kidding, right?

It's interesting that you think you can be a faithful Catholic and reject what the Catechism teaches; is there an SSPX counterpart in your Eastern rite? I think you'd fit right in.

 

Excuse my interruption but where in scriptures are we told to do this?

When I read the Scriptures I see throughout that we are to go to the throne of God directly, and to do so in the name of Jesus the beloved Son of God. I see nothing in scripture that directs us to go to another human.

 

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.


By virtue of giving His life in my place, Jesus is my final authority. I don't need a "Holy" Council of men to tell me what His word says.

Commentaries are good...but ultimately I have the right AND the responsibility to discover the truth in His written word for myself.

 

Right ON Yod!

 

The Hebrew people were used to priests representing them in the Temple under the Old Covenant. But under the new covenant God through the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of a new and living way to God. The Reformers called it the Priesthood of the Believers. Now for the Scripture that is unusual in these circles. 'Let us, therefore, come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.' [Hebrews 4:16] The Old Testament High Priests have long ago been retired from the vanished covenant. [Hebrews 8:13] Under the New Covenant middle management is unemployed. While the Catholic church should have ministers or elders, a formal priesthood is not necessary any more. Under this New Covenant 'the Lord is our {direct} Helper, and {we} will not fear what man shall do unto {us}. [Hebrews 13:6]

The writer of the beautiful Book of Hebrews does not disagree with the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 2:5 where God speaking through converted Saul says, 'For there is one God, and {now} One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' Neither does the youngest apostle disagree with either the writer of Hebrews or the Apostle Paul where John says, ' . . . we have an Advocate with the Father {and it is not Mary or the saints} it is Jesus Christ the righteous {One}. Do I hear a loud Amen?! The Lord's Name be praised.

 

Who has the legal right to minister as a priest under the New Covenant? 'For this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament.' [Hebrews 9:15] Why? Because Jesus died [vs.15] and He calls us ' to receive the promise of eternal inheritance.' [Hebrews 9:15] Who is the new High Priest {on the block} Who ministers over the House of God? [Hebrews 10:21] Jesus, the One who died [Hebrews 9:15b] and is now ascended to the right hand of God. [Hebrews 1:3] He, only, has exclusive legal and spiritual credentials, because only He has purged our sins, not in the blood of a lamb, but in His own blood shed on the Cross of Calvary. Who is elevated as High Priest? Jesus who has been glorified to a position of Majesty on high.

All saints and angels are called to worship the Lamb of God forever, the One Who is seated in resplendent glory.

 

Once again you show a complete disregard for type/fulfillments from the OT to the NT.

A high priest does not offer offerings for the personal sins of men. He offers YOM KIPPUR for the corporate nation of believers. In the OT, this was the Jewish nation. In the NT, this is the Church.

In the OT, the offerings of the blood of animals could not take away the sins of the people permanently, thus failing to keep the covenant with God and leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In the NT, the Blood of Christ is effacacious to ever intercede for the nation which is the Church, thus assuring that the sins of the Church will be forgiven and the covenant between God and the Church will go on eternally.

Honest to Pete, do you guys EVER do typology?

 

What? Do you expect for my posts to be boooring? I would hope not.. I know you like a good fight, and I'm just feeding your appetite - open wide!

Okay.......aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

(PS -- I don't like a good fight just for the sake of being nasty.....I think that TRUTH is worth defending, even if I am not always irenic about it!!)

The infallibility of the statement can be debated, but the authority of it is clear. As Catholics, we must adhere with a religious submission of intellect and will to any given doctrine taught by the Pope or the Bishops together in an ecumenical council, even if it is not pronounced definitively.

Oh.....THERE'S the rub, my friend. If that is so, then the pope and the later councils have CONTRADICTED THE STATEMENTS OF EARLIER COUNCILS, haven't they? That puts them in a most odd position, I would say, based upon your insistence that "Catholics must adhere to with a religious submission of intellect and will to any given doctrine taught by the pope or the bishops together in an eccumenical council." Or do modern popes and bishops get a pass on that requirement? Hmmmmmmm???

It's interesting that you think you can be a faithful Catholic and reject what the Catechism teaches; is there an SSPX counterpart in your Eastern rite? I think you'd fit right in.

Okay, Carson. Suppose you tell me what I am supposed to do when the pronouncements of a council contradict the statements of Scripture??

I think this is a really, really GOOD question:

WHICH ONE carries more weight and authority, the bishops in council or the Holy Scriptures??

I assume you read Heb. 8: 13 which says that the Old Covenant is (at the time of St. Paul's writing of Hebrews) about to pass away.

Now, sir, WHOM do I believe regarding this?

Cordially in Christ through the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed -- SSPX Eastern Command Headquarters Harrisburg PA

You know, you Novus Ordo defenders amaze me. The one thing I constantly see in observing debates between Novus Ordo defenders and Traditionalists is that you guys flex the rules worse than Protestants!!! For instance, you claim above that "good Catholics" must be subject to the decrees of councils, yet when Traditionalists bring forth past councicular decisions which show that Vatican II documents are null and invalid you suddenly change the rules and claim that we are being rebellious to the current pope and his bishops. We are not. We are being faithful to traditional Catholicism and not the liturgical heresies written by a member of the Masonic order and 6 Protestant "ministers" (WHAT, pray tell, were they even DOING THERE???)

I don't study these arguments in depth, I'm far too busy trying to make a living, but from the little I have seen, my sympathies are indeed with the "Trads". The arguments of Novus Ordo defenders are just plain flimsy in my opinion.

 

Catholic Convert,

Ray is saying, 'Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of the Book of Hebrews. I know it is a deep book but study it more before you make commentary for the rest of the learners. Perhaps you were hurrying to get on to the later post that you wrote.

Once again you show a complete disregard for type/fulfillments from the
OT to the NT.

Ray-I studied typology in Bible College and also in the doctoral program. Nice try.

A high priest does not offer offerings for the personal sins of men. He offers
YOM KIPPUR for the corporate nation of believers.

Ray-Come on now, brother. You and I both know that the individual congregant had to bring a dove or a lamb to the multiple priests at the altar of sacrifice, to be in obedience to Almight God. They would not have spent the money for their animal sacrifices if it were for the state/nation. In fact, it was for their own sins and the sins of their family.

In the OT, this was the Jewish nation. In the NT, this is the Church.

Sorry, Ray is saying I don't understand your above point.

In the OT, the offerings of the blood of animals could not take away the
sins of the people permanently,

Ray-If you are believing the above statement, then under the better covenant, [Heb. 8:6] Jesus has taken away all of our sins as believers, past, present, and future. In this era this is true.

Ray--When the bearer of the lamb presented the lamb to the priest it was killed. Once a year the High Priest would go into the Most Holy Place to make an atonement for the sins of those who obeyed God by their above presentation. [Hebrews 9:7] When God saw their obedience to Himself He applied the atonement of Jesus as a covering for their sins. Thus at their death they went to Abraham's bosom, a place similar to Heaven.

' . . . thus failing to keep the covenant with God and leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Ray-If you mean that those who did not bring the sacrifice eventually brought about the Destruction in 70 A.D. and their ultimate damnation in Hell, then I would say yes I agree with you 100%.

In the NT, the Blood of Christ is effacacious to ever intercede for the nation which is the Church, thus assuring that the sins of the Church will be forgiven and the covenant between God and the Church will go on eternally.

Ray-The blood of Christ was effacacious to the O.T. believers as well as all who will believe and trust in Him now as Savior. The church are only those who have come into the faith since the Day of Pentecost and this group called the church will discontinue at the coming of our Lord for the church. [I Thess. 4:17]

I agree with you that the benefits of the old and new covenants will continue forever. This also includes that all who receive Christ in our era will be saved forever. [Hebrews 7:25] And thus, if Christ did not mean what He is saying in 7:25 then once we are truly saved we remain His forever. Anything else telegraphs thaf we are saved only as we are 'good boys and good girls,' which is actually working for our salvation. If this is true then Christ has died in vain, because our salvation would be contingent on our perfect behavior.

Christ alone saves. [I Timothy 2:5] And it is grace that comes from Him that secures us in His love forever. [Ephesians 2:8-10]

Regards,
Ray

 

Brother Ed, you're right on in your assessment of the so-called "Novus Ordo". Protestants often diverge from Tradition at different points, but at least the conservative ones recognize that the most important part of Tradition--Holy Scripture--cannot be changed. This pope with his alleged "infallibility" can contradict both the Traditional interpretation of Scripture and the decisions of previous councils, and this is defended by calling it "development of doctrine". In this respect, is the Pope really any different than the Mormon Presidents (or "Prophets") who can contradict earlier Mormon belief with new "revelations"? Or is he really different than the individual Protestant that Catholics criticize for interpreting the Bible for himself without the context Church Tradition? Sorry, but the pope is subject to the truth just like the rest of us.

 

Doubting Thomas,

You said, 'Or is he really different than the individual Protestant that Catholics criticize for interpreting the Bible for himself without the context Church Tradition? Sorry, but the pope is subject to the truth just like the rest of us.

Ray is saying, 'Any context other than the one coming from the written Word which was from the Living Word, Jesus Christ, is in fact the philosophy of ecclesiatical men and of no value. [Colossians 2:8] Christ and His Words to us are our only authority. When we begin to accept the 'context of church tradition' we have a fluxuating standard for truth.

If the popes were fully subject to God's truth there would have never been any Johnny come lately, add on theology such as the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, Purgatory, and praying to dead in their graves, saints. These inclusions have lead to apostasy within your fold.

 

DT is saying "Without the Tradition of the Church we wouldn't even know what books are IN the Bible."

DT is also saying "Without the Tradition (which is not subjective) the early Christians would not have none how to decide what was heresy, as the heretics also appealed to Scripture, before and after the NT canon was more or less "fixed" in AD 367."

DT is also also saying "Without Scripture, Tradition (big 'T'), and Church (guided by the Holy Spirit) acting together we wouldn't be able to differentiate the truth of God from the traditions (little 't') of men".

For a good Baptist perspective on this, see Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism by D.H.Williams.

God Bless.

 

not to mention transubstantiation, Easter, and Christmas....

 

I'm confused about who is writing what but that is correct that Yom Kippur is for the sins of the nation. (Passover is for the individual)

However, it points to the day that all ISRAEL will be saved....when they look upon Him whom they've pierced.

It has nothing to do with the church.

 

Well, I already know that statement was incorrect, but just to verify, I went to my neighbor (a Muslim) and asked him if this is the case. I think he's still laughing.

You forget that the God of Muhammed was the of Abrahem and Ishmael.

 

Ray -- I hope you will go back to Meyerstown and demand a refund. They sure didn't teach you much, did they? Even another Baptist on this thread acknowledges what I just said -- the high priest only offers YOM KIPPUR.

Yod -- The doctrines of the Church are without error, but the administrative practices, such as declaring that Jews do not need conversion, can be in error. There is a difference between the two.

Doctrine develops. Remember that the Lord symbolized the kingdom of God by the parable of a mustard seed. Tiny and insignificant at first, it GROWS. Growth means change, developement, and increase. The Church did not spring from the ground fully developed and with all Her doctrines in place. Not only that, but the doctrines had to be defended and that defense published for all Christendom to believe.

Christmas and Easter are family feasts in which we remember what our Lord did for us. We also have feast days for the other family members, and other significant events in the life of the family which is the Church. Last week, for instance, we celebrated the Feast of the Transfiguration from Matthew 17. We remembered wtih joy this proof of Christ's divinity.

 

but the promised seed came through Isaac & Jacob which they refuse...so it isn't the same God.

Hagar was told by the Lord to serve Sarah. Go ask your muslim neighbor about those points and see if he believes in the same God of Abraham.