Catholic Exchange

Satan’s Ecumenism

I should know this from my catechism and from Scripture, but I still find myself amazed by it.  What I mean is this: the behavior of theological liberals such as the Episcopal Church never quite goes where you think it will.  Here is an organization completely dominated by all the typical tropes of liberal Protestantism.  From the hand-wringing about the Perils of Christianist Theocracy to pro-abort claptrap to the enthusiasm for gay marriage to theologians who routinely deny, not just the deity of Christ, but some of the most basic tenets of monotheism, the Episcopal Church has made itself a sort of living parody of goddess-worshipping trendiness.  It takes the lead in every attempt by religious liberalism to create a kingdom of the Imperial Autonomous Self and call it the will of God (or the Goddess, or Whoever).

But then, just when you figure they will zig, they zag.  Result: you open the paper one fine morning to find the Episcopal Church in Washington, DC has decided to have a fawning fete for Mohammed Khatami, the former president of Iran, at the National Cathedral.  Understand, we're not talking "respectful dialogue".  That I can buy.  The Christian world has to talk to the Muslim world sooner or later or we will be sharing a burnt cinder for a planet.  But this was not a conversation (in no small part because the Episcopal Church has nothing to say).  This was a groveling, lickspittle, giggling schoolgirl, spaniel-like, isn't-he-just-a-dreamboat? celebration of a man who has headed one of the most brutal Islamic regimes on the planet.  And he was wined, cheesed and doted on by damp-handed, balding men and wealthy women in power suits who support NARAL, react to the words "Religious Right" like salted slugs, and pray for the day when Hillary Clinton can lead our nation back to a land flowing with condoms and NOW membership fund drives. 

What can account for this bizarre and fashionable tendency of religious liberals to bow, scrape and crawl before a Foaming Bronze Age Islamic Thug?  After all, we're talking about an organization that routinely produces battalions of fainting Victorian Lady Novelists who dissolve in tears and declare they cannot breathe in the presence of those who suggest gay marriage is not exactly what the Good Lord had in mind.  We're talking about people who don't see what the problem is if, by "God", you mean "Mother Ocean" or "My Personal Truth of the Moment".  How is it that these people, who act as though fellow Episcopalians — those who reject homosexual practice and abortion and who say "Jesus is Lord" — are something that just crawled out of the sewer, will suddenly fall all over themselves to hang on the words of a man who enthusiastically endorses hanging homosexuals and imposing the chador on every woman in the world?  How is it that people who hyperventilate about Dr. James Dobson's imminent imposition of theocracy on the United States swoon with admiration of a man who actually ruled a theocracy on the cutting edge of 9th Century thought?

Looked at from the perspective of politics, money, culture, feminism and all the other earthly angles, I can make no sense of it. But looked at from the perspective of revelation, I begin to wonder again if the old saint didn't know what he was talking about when he said, "For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens" (Ephesians 6:12). Viewed from that perspective, the common cause is startlingly clear: so long as you are an enemy of Christ, we can deal.

Interestingly, the gospels take note that this phenomenon attended the First Coming of Christ.  Repeatedly, throughout his ministry, Christ created friendships between the unlikeliest of people.  He was, after all, in the business of reconciling people, not simply with the Father, but with each other.  And so, there was never a more eccentric band of unlikely friends than the apostles.  Not a few contemporaries must have wondered, "Matthew the Tax Collector is buddies with Simon the Zealot?  What's up with that?"  This reconciling power of the gospel also plays out in other curious ways.  Under the Old Covenant, Saul was the mortal foe of the house of David.  Under the new, Saul (also called Paul) is tamed and becomes the servant of the Son of David.  Even today, after Germany nearly annihilated the Polish people, Christ creates the beautiful friendships between a German bishop named Ratzinger and a Polish bishop named Woytila.

 But in addition, the biblical account shows another side to this power of the gospel to reconcile: enemies of Jesus are joined in a sort of hellish parody of friendship in their mutual enmity to him. The Devil is the Ape of God.  And so we see scenes like this repeatedly as mortal foes drop all their quarrels in their lust to kill him:

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand. And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mark 3:1-6)

And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then, arraying him in gorgeous apparel, he sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other. (Luke 23:11-12)

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." (John 19:14-15)

In every case, you find people making alliances that are utterly inexplicable via normal human "follow the money" analyses.  But when you look at it from the perspective of Paul, things fall into place.  It would appear that the real war taking place is not a culture war, but a spiritual war.  I have a notion that as history progresses toward the Parousia, we shall see more such strange bedfellows.  I am inclined to think that what took place during the First Coming will take place again as we approach the Second.  Weird and unexpected alliances that make no sense except that irreconcilable parties put aside their differences in order to attack Christ and his Church.  It should be interesting!  Perhaps one of the consolations of the martyrs will be to laugh at how their persecutors make self-contradictory fools of themselves.  We shall see.

(This piece was first published in the National Catholic Register.)

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thoroughly enjoyed this article and agreed with it somewhat immensely.  Thank God for the Catholic Church and our strong Popes.  Your articles are so great to read – I'm sure you're constantly compared with Michael Moore but with a conscience.  I'm writing from New Zealand (the Antipodes) and hopefully the new home of the America's Cup.

     

    Many many many blessings on your great work.

    Bernieanne 

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    My mother is one of those liberal Episcopalians.  It's so frustrating.  It's all about moral relativism, as the author says:  "my personal truth of the moment". 

    I have serious concerns about ecumenism.  Ideally, it would be a good thing, but it gets so abused.  The Charismatic movement in my area, for example, is a Protestant want-to-be movement (I realize that this isn't the case with the Charismatic movement in other parts of the country). 

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Excellent and so true.  Recall one more thing Christ said – If you are not for Me your are against Me.  This seems to be exactly waht He meant.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Perhaps a blessing that will come from the Episcopal Church's evil wackiness is that Episcopals of good will see the light and return home to Christ's Church….we've been keeping their pews warm for 500 years!

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark, thanks again for an informative article. I was not aware of this meeting. Also Bernieanne, you may have to visit Italy if you want to see the America's Cup anytime before the next Cup race.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't know that I would characterize the Episcopal Church's swoon over an Iranian Shiite radical politician as "ecumanism." I think rather it is something closer to the Israeli adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In this case the Episcopal Church's perceived enemy (public enemy number 1?) is the current Bush adminstration (and it's evangelical, so-called radical right fundamentalist wing) which they blame for most, if not all, of the world's problems: Iraq war, global warming, corporate imperialism, etc., etc. They love the fact that Khatami represents a regime that can publicly taunt, verbally abuse and threaten an American president and his (in their eyes) totally despised adminstration, and watch President Bush bluster and threaten, all the while looking on helplessly as Iran labors overtime to become yet the latest nation to acquire nuclear weapons capability. You have to wonder what they are going to say if ever Iran does "go nuclear" and openly threatens Israel (or anybody else, for that matter) with nuclear annihiliation (never mind "the great Satan" America). Today those threats are so much bluster. What are the fawning Episcopalians going to say then? Oh, I know—demand the U.S. pressure Israel to make whatever concessions Hamas & Hezbolah demand.

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thank you for your insight. As a former Episcopalian, my faith was almost destroyed by liberal theology, which seems to be an ever present danger in Protestantism's tendency to "spiritualize" and reduce everything to a mental concept, as well as to reject any authority other than the individual's own biases. The result: a divided and watered down faith, always attacking the parent church against whom they are in rebellion.  I pray that all protestants will ponder St. Paul's observation "The world through it's wisdom did not find God", and return home.  Thank you and all faithful Catholics for your faithfulness to the living scriptures, liturgy and the traditions of the apostles.

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    vintage Shea, and why he is among the best commentators on the web, in any venue, today. The ignorance of Islam, its history, leadership, and theology, among liberals, especially among liberals who may very well be elected to leadership in this country is appalling and potentially deadly.

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I can’t remember the last time I saw “lickspittle” in print. What a great word!

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    GOLD STAR!!!

    Best!motsfo

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    My first post on CE. I visit it every day and have been greatly enriched by the content. I felt moved to register and comment on this particular article. I felt the critique of some within this Christian denomination is somewhat mean-spirited. As a practicing Catholic I respect that CE is Catholic first and foremost, and politically conservative for the most part.  However I have not seen the type of "polarized" terminology used as much. Is the Episcopal Church being swayed by our secular, subjectivist culture? Absolutely. However, To a kin them to "enimies of Christ's Church", and parallel to an apocalyptic cohort of satan, a bit dramatic. maybe that was the point, and I just missed it.

     

    Christ's Truth flows through the Catholic Church, but if some profess Christ as their Lord and Savior and have the Scriptures, then the Catechism seems to indicate that they are able to receive  Christ's Redemption, and are part of what the "old saint" has called, "the One Body of Christ."  I would prefer to point out the dramatic errors in their faith with a spirit of Love. I am glad to be on CE, thanks for the opportunity.

     

    Praise Be to the Master.

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The poor Episcopalians.  Started by a "glorious" King who wanted a son enough to sell his soul, ending by glorifying homosexual sins.  Confused sexual morality slowly grinds to a halt, looking for peace outside itself.

    Please dear Episcopal brothers end this confusing bumbling and join a real church.  It will not be good to watch our wayward brothers and sisters teeter and fall over without even a LifeCall of "I've fallen, and I can't get up."

    Although I have to disagree with Mr. Shea on the point that he feels this is a sign of the end times.  This is just a sign that almost-the-truth is simply not that attractive in the long term. 

    GK – God is good!

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Zephyr:

    You’ll probably find your answer in paragraph two:

    “Understand, we’re not talking “respectful dialogue”. That I can buy. The Christian world has to talk to the Muslim world sooner or later or we will be sharing a burnt cinder for a planet. But this was not a conversation (in no small part because the Episcopal Church has nothing to say). This was a groveling, lickspittle, giggling schoolgirl, spaniel-like, isn’t-he-just-a-dreamboat? celebration of a man who has headed one of the most brutal Islamic regimes on the planet.

    Whether Khatama professes to worship the “one, merciful God” is not the point of the article. The point is the cognative dissonance of the Episcopalians.
    At least that’s how I took the article.
    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Just a thought Mark,

    I was under the impression from reading your article Monotheism 101, that Mohammed Khatama worships the same God we do. Referencing your article: 

    "Muslims"…"hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God." (CCC 841)

    "only the most extreme Reactionary Dissenter would conclude from this that these fellow monotheists worship "another god". Mark Shea

    These statements seem contradictory to your article as one could replace Khatama's name with any number of Muslim leaders (in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc. where Christians are persecuted) with the same effect. In keeping with your premise in this article, I personally don't believe they worship the same God because they DENY Christ is God.

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    We have life because the soul animates the body.

    Christ is the head of the head of the mystical body, we the faithful are the body, we are the Church.

    A body needs a soul to animate it, to give it life.

    The soul of the mystical body of Christ, is the Holy Spirit of course.

    My conclusion:  The word 'church' is often misused.

    There is only one Church, the Catholic Church, the mystical body of Christ with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior the head, and Holy Spirit the Church's animating soul.

    All other groups of people that share a common set of ideas are simply groups of people that share common ideas.

    It is not surprising that those who distance themselves from the mystical Body of Christ, from His Church, would fall into serious error.

    All those who have been baptized in the Triune formula are Catholic, many heretical Catholics (albeit material heretics)– but there is only one Church.

     I pray that all those who have strayed from the true faith be reconciled and received back in — for on that day there will be much rejoicing.

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    michaelme wrote "Whether Khatama professes to worship the "one, merciful God" is not the point of the article."

     

    Respectfully, you couldn't be more wrong. That is precisely the point of the article. The main point being the Muslim leader is in concert with  Episcopal leaders and both DENY Christ our Lord.

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mr. Shea is extremely insightful in his comments.  I wish all Christians could see and think as clearly and reasonably.  I fight a losing battle daily trying to make my Christian friends see what I think it is obvious to even the most lost soul, much less the illuminated vision of a child of God.  I don't understand why they don't see the truth; aren't we children of the Truth?  Thank you Mr. Shea for pointing out what I thought was obvious.  I was wrong.  I pray you will continue to enlighten. 

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Zephyr:

    I though Monotheism 102 addressed your concern, however, by expressing an “imperfect” knowledge of Who God Is. By your definition (denial of Christ our Lord), it would seem that one may also assert that Jews worship a “different God”

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If the one God that we all adore can deny His Son and declare that He has no son; then yes, we worship the same God.

     

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    These statements seem contradictory

    No doubt they do.  And yet, since I deliberately posted these articles back to back, it should be obvious that I do not think they are.  Why do you suppose that is?

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "No doubt they do.  And yet, since I deliberately posted these articles back to back, it should be obvious that I do not think they are.  Why do you suppose that is?"

    I think it's because you wish to justify every bit of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially because your intuition tells you otherwise in this case. You first read what the Catechism said about this topic, then came up with an argument to defend the assertion best you could. Today, you wrote down what your intuition is really telling you. But uh, you need to explain that, not me.

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    That's a fascinating, though entirely fictional, piece of psychologizing.  I suggest you try again.

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I love your love for the Catholic Church, but here's breaking news, Muslims don't worship the same God we do. If they did, republican and democratic principles would eventually permeate the various tribe's treatment of outsiders. Especially Christians. Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. I suggest you check out VOM magazine and see what's really going on in every Muslim country. 

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I love your love for the Catholic Church, but here's breaking news, Muslims don't worship the same God we do.

    You love my love for the Catholic Church, you just don't like it when the Catholic Church teaches something that conflicts with your politics. 

    If they did, republican and democratic principles would eventually permeate the various tribe's treatment of outsiders.

    Because, as Scripture says, the mark of a true Catholic is belief in democracy and the Republican Party.  News to St. Louis, I'm sure, but an entertaining claim.

    For the umpteenth time, all my original piece was saying is that the law of non-contradiction holds, even when it comes to the enemies of America.  The perfectly Catholic statement, "There is one God–the God of Abraham–and he is merciful and compassionate" does not become false when a Muslim says it.  Heavily politicized Catholics who try to pretend otherwise are simply subjecting their faith to the tribalized political atmosphere of early third millennium America.  If such yahooism had been the rule in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas would have been condemned (and indeed was briefly condemned) by pinheads who would have declared him heterodox for constantly citing the work and thought of the Muslim philosopher Averroes.

    If you love the Catholic faith then why not try learning something from it?

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    i learned that the Muslim thinks God has no son from the Dome of the Rock. That is what is enscribed around the rotunda.

    God has no son, far be it from God to have a son.

    Doesn't really sound like the God i know. i understand that the humble average Muslim thinks he is worshiping the God of Abraham. Did the God of Abraham say he had no son? Has He been misquoted? Jesus said the only way to God was through Him. Surely Jesus knows what he is saying. Was He misquoted?

    Best!(which is Christ) motsfo

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The God of Abraham was, is and always will be.  Before we knew Jesus, we did not know He was three persons in one God.

    We know God as the Trinity only because of Jesus Christ, true God and true man.  No one knew this before Jesus, even though the book of Genesis says that God will make man in "Our image."

    Some who never held this understanding are our fathers in faith: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Micah, Judas Maccabeus …  All good and holy men.  The God they knew did not tell them that He is 3 persons in one God.  Now they know that He is the Trinity.  But, before their deaths they would have thought you were a mad man had you traveled back in time to let them in on the Holy Spirit and the Son.  Does it make them bad men?  Does it mean they did not believe in the God of Abraham?

    We should understand that the Muslims believe in the same God.  At the same time we should understand that they do not accept what Christ taught as the God-man.  We should not believe that is good or complete, just that it is reality. 

    We should really work to help Muslims understand this and to come into a more complete knowledge of God.  But before we do that, we could use a place to start.  And believing in the One, True God is better than many.  

    Regardless, I think we might be wise to leave the actual condemning of hearts and souls to God.  Because in fact, we only know God as much as Christ and His Church has allowed us to know.  We do not know God completely, yet.  And I would hope that God does not condemn us because there is more that we could know.

    GK – God is good!

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Well said, gk.

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    i'm not condemning at all, and if You asked the Muslim he would say that You do not believe in God because You believe in the Trinity and God is only One. We are opposed to each other, but we must Love. Have to Love, God said so. i do not think Muslims believe in the God i know, but i think they desire Him. May we all come closer to the God who Is.

    Best!motsfo

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Regarding Muslims;

    I don't know how many Muslims the posters on this thread know personally or interact with on a daily basis.  I know a few dozen fairly well and interact with a handful on a daily basis because there is a pretty good-sized international community at my workplace.

    Like many Christians, I find they are Muslim primarily because they were raised Muslim, not out of some lifelong search for religious Truth.

    Most of them, in my experience, are not at all close-minded to hearing about Jesus Christ and "the reason for our hope." But they don't get many people in the US who are very open-minded about discussing it with them.

    Another interesting thing is that they assume nearly everyone they see here is a devout Christian — so they take the hostility, or at least lack of hospitality, as the way believing Christians behave. And it actually pushes them to become more devout Muslims.

    I believe we are throwing up barriers to many good Muslim people who might be willing to enter an open door. This is based on my admittedly limited experience, but the view from my foxhole sees it as pretty widespread.

    PTR!

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I must admit Mark, to having expected a more honest reply from you. I clearly used the lower-case republican principles which means "governance based on popular representation", and you replied as if I had said Republican Party, a completely false argument. Like yourself, I can't explain either why Islam has theological dictators and Christians are third-class citizens, not even allowed freedom of worship and frequently murdered.

    It's kind of an insult to call my deeply held convictions politically calculated, while not even countering the point that Muslims deny Christ. The conviction is made from spiritual discernment, not from expedient calculations on how to deal with Islamic anger at our political elites. Your conviction may actually be the political one, did you think of that?…..You say you agree with the Catholic viewpoint Muslims worship the same God, while your article does the opposite by stating the Iranian leader is opposed to our God. If Christ, The Father and Holy Spirit are not ONE, then we do worship the same God.

    You can call names such as yahoo and pinhead all day long, which some may do when their argument is found lacking. (Or maybe you had a rough day?) The real difference between you and I, is that I believe Christ is infallible, while you think the Catholic Church is as well. I guess I'm here to inform you the Catholic Church is not perfect from top to bottom. But it is the Lord's bride just the same.

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Started by a "glorious" King who wanted a son enough to sell his soul.

    GK – I’m not absolutely certain this is even true, though it makes for good mythology. I’m just getting back from vacation, during which I got through Hilaire Belloc’s Characters of the Reformation (ISBN: 0-89555-466-6). Though I’ve much yet to learn (made obvious by Prof. Belloc’s writing style, which presumes knowledge of which I find myself quite ignorant), I can at least lean on the good professor for some worthwhile thoughts:

     

    Queen Catherine had had great misfortunes in the matter of childbirth; children stillborn or dying immediately after birth, and one or two miscarriages. When therefore it was seen that the child would survive [this is Mary Tudor], it was a matter of great rejoicing to the King and to the whole nation, of which she became a sort of idol. Henry hoped, of course, for a male heir, but as none came he and the nation took it for granted that the little Princess would ultimately become one of those great queens who were so conspicuous a mark of the period, like her grandmother, Isabella of Castille (pg. 95).

    It is interesting that Prof. Belloc points out that the English monarchy passed quite well through a female heir as through a male heir (though a male heir was preferred). Even more interesting is Prof. Belloc’s observation that the French monarchy could pass only through a male heir. That Henry had only Mary as an heir was not a problem. A greater problem was his quarrel with Pope Clement VII and his stand for the submission of the Church to the sovereign (a stand that would be solidified under James I, son of Mary Stuart – and it is this subordination of Church to State which is ultimately at the root of the modern assertion that the Church cannot practice any influence over the State – see prior comments about the Pope’s remarks pertaining to Mexican bishops’ upholding the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament in the face of Mexican political support for abortion).

     

    Prof. Belloc paints a rather different picture of the English Reformation, relating the actions specifically to the characters of twenty-three significant participants in the events. Of Henry VIII, Prof. Belloc concludes primarily that he opposed the Church because he would not submit to the Pope in any matters, whether temporal or spiritual. Interestingly, Prof. Belloc observes the following about the English monarch:

     

    But the… characteristic, most incongruous with such a character but undoubtedly present, was a strong attachment to the religious traditions in which he had been brought up. This was the only fixed thing in him approaching a principle. He destroyed or allowed to be destroyed the monastic institutions which are the bulwark of the Church; he quarreled and broke with the Papacy, which is the principle of unity in the Church (though in his time a principle confused and often debated); but he did have a fixed emotional attachment to the practices of the Faith, and he never got out of what may be called the atmosphere of these practices. He had a constant devotion to the Sacrament of the Altar, and no little of his severity appeared in his treatment of anyone who denied the Real Presence. He insisted on the celibacy of the clergy, on the maintenance of full ritual in the liturgy and all ecclesiastical discipline under the episcopacy, which he formally maintained (pg. 27).

     

    Interestingly, the break with the Pope was the primary reason for Henry VIII’s break with Catholicism (note of warning to Traditionalists who think that the Vatican II Popes are illegitimate: see the modern-day Episcopal Church). This was the cause of the rift, which at the time was not seen as an insurmountable problem. It is what came after the rift that separated the English Church from the Church founded by Christ. The rift itself provided opportunity for England’s avaricious nobles to loot the English monasteries, either by stealing their lands and treasures outright or by purchasing legal title at a fraction of their true value. Subsequent characters cemented the English Reformation primarily because of a fear that any reconciliation with the Catholic Church would bring on pressure to return the ill-gotten gains (despite acquiescence by Pope Clement VII in regard to the wealth remaining in the hands of the looters). Thus, the primary foundation for the separation of the English Church and the Catholic Church is avarice, though the rank-and-file had no part in the pillage (alas that this is almost always the case, for ordinary people know theft when they see it and tend to shrink from it). Even more interestingly: the cap, as it were, on the separation of the English Church, was the kingship usurped by William of Orange (or Willam & Mary fame) which introduce a rather severe Puritanical bent of Calvinism into what remained of English Christendom. The primary goal was to further cement the illegitimate claims to riches of the families of those who originally looted the monasteries. Religiosity itself was likely a secondary issue, but provided the necessary cover to those who needed to stay rich.

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I must admit Mark, to having expected a more honest reply from you. I clearly used the lower-case republican principles which means "governance based on popular representation", and you replied as if I had said Republican Party, a completely false argument. 

    I'm sorry I misunderstood you.  But my point remains: the notion that a modern political ideology is a "fruit of the spirit" is loopy.  The notion that the failure of Muslims to adopt a modern political ideology means, ipso facto, that the Church is wrong to affirm that Islam is right to acknowledge the God of Abraham as the one God (an observation which goes back 1000 years to Pope St. Gregory VII) is loopier.

    Like yourself, I can't explain either why Islam has theological dictators and Christians are third-class citizens, not even allowed freedom of worship and frequently murdered.

    I can explain it: Islam has no concept of the freedom of the human person, so its political institutions naturally reflect this.  When you live in a Master/slave cosmos, you tend to create a Master/slave society.  The fact that Islam has gotten few things right about God (He exists, there's only one of Him, he is merciful and compassionate, he commands we give alms, etc) by no means they have gotten everything right.  Unfortunately, the capacity to make such distinctions seem to be lost among the more tribal Catholics whose contempt for Islam overwhelms their ability to listen to what the Magisterium teaches. 

    It's kind of an insult to call my deeply held convictions politically calculated, while not even countering the point that Muslims deny Christ. 

    Since I already countered it in my article, I feel no obligation to repeat myself for the benefit of those who cannot read.  If rejection of the deity of Christ makes it is impossible to have anything in common with Catholics, then Jews also do not worship the same God we do.  Try selling that to the author of Romans 11.  It is much more sound to say that the other two great monotheisms have a real, but inaccurate knowledge of the one God of Abraham than to pretend they worship "another god".  There is no other God.  There's just the one, whom Jews and Muslims both have imperfect knowledge of.

    The conviction is made from spiritual discernment, not from expedient calculations on how to deal with Islamic anger at our political elites.

    "Spiritual discernment" that ignores the magisterial teaching of the Church and even contradicts it is called "Protestantism". 

    Your conviction may actually be the political one, did you think of that?…..You say you agree with the Catholic viewpoint Muslims worship the same God, while your article does the opposite by stating the Iranian leader is opposed to our God. If Christ, The Father and Holy Spirit are not ONE, then we do worship the same God.

    I'm afraid I can't decode this paragraph.  You appear to be saying that an evil man embodies all of Islam.  This is like saying that Jesuit-educated Heinrich Himmler embodies all of the Catholic faith.  My monotheism articles restrict themselves to an elementary point: when Muslims say the same thing we do, they're right.  When they contradict the Church, they're wrong.  The law of non-contradiction applies even to Muslims.  It's a simple point. 

    You can call names such as yahoo and pinhead all day long, which some may do when their argument is found lacking. (Or maybe you had a rough day?)

    I see you grasped nothing of my point.  Oh well.  Have you ever actually heard of Averroes?  Or St. Thomas?

    The real difference between you and I, is that I believe Christ is infallible, while you think the Catholic Church is as well. I guess I'm here to inform you the Catholic Church is not perfect from top to bottom. But it is the Lord's bride just the same.

    Um, I hate to tell you this, but you are not a Catholic if you reject the infallibility of the Church.  And you are not very well-informed if you think that infallibility is the claim to perfection.  And you seem not to be able to understand basic principles of reason if you think that the claim, "A thing which the Church teaches is not rendered false when a Muslim affirms it too" even depends upon the Church's charism of infallibility in order to be true.  The Church is not exercising the extraordinary magisterium when she points out that anybody who says "There is one God, the God of Abraham" is right, even if they are Muslim.  She is simply exercising common sense.  To acknowledge the truth of that is not to say that everything else Muslims believe and do is automatically right too.  Perhaps if you stopped listening to your "spiritual discernment" and paid attention to some elementary rules of logic you could discover this.

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    GK brought up Hilaire Belloc. Belloc, who was anything but an indifferentist, and whose dislike and scorn of Islam was palpable in his writings, nevertheless referred to 'the great and enduring heresy of Mohammed '. A heresy is a derivative of another faith – in the case of Islam, misunderstood and distorted bits of both Judaism and Catholic Christianity. Thus, we must say that Islam worships the same God, but has many false ideas about him- just like any other heresy.

    "But they deny Christ's divinity! " So did Arianism. "But they make God more like inexorable Fate !" So does double predestination. "But they endorse polygamy !" So did the Mormons, until the political pressure got too intense.

    I'm not denying that the errors are errors, and that they make for nasty results. Neither does Mark.  

     

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Zephyr, you are not being coherent.  Mark said that the religion of Islam itself gives rise to societies that do not respect the dignity of the human person. You then argued as though he had said the opposite.

    I appeal to you to seek greater understanding of what the Church teaches and to be docile to it. If you do not find Mark to be a congenial explainer of these things, that is fine; there are many other people who can help, but you must want to conform your thinking.

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "I'm sorry I misunderstood you.  But my point remains: the notion that a modern political ideology is a "fruit of the spirit" is loopy.  The notion that the failure of Muslims to adopt a modern political ideology means, ipso facto, that the Church is wrong to affirm that Islam is right to acknowledge the God of Abraham as the one God (an observation which goes back 1000 years to Pope St. Gregory VII) is loopier."

    Since you're such a tough guy, I'll reply in language you can understand. You are a complete retard to think a people's religion is not directly related to their perspective on life, how they conduct themselves, their nation's combined values and the development of their society. You should read George Washington's prayer book as you might learn something. I know, he would be classified by you as a unworthy Reactionary Dissenter.

    "I can explain it: Islam has no concept of the freedom of the human person, so its political institutions naturally reflect this.  When you live in a Master/slave cosmos, you tend to create a Master/slave society.  The fact that Islam has gotten few things right about God (He exists, there's only one of Him, he is merciful and compassionate, he commands we give alms, etc) by no means they have gotten everything right.  Unfortunately, the capacity to make such distinctions seem to be lost among the more tribal Catholics whose contempt for Islam overwhelms their ability to listen to what the Magisterium teaches."

    Wrong again. What kind of crap are you teaching our kids? The master/slave dichotomy is a direct result of the teachings of the Quran. Muslims believe it to be the literal word of Allah in case you missed it. Quran 9:29 instructs adherents to "fight back against those who do not believe in GOD". Quran 9:30 says "God condemns….Christians who say Jesus is the Son of God" Do you know what happens to communities Muslims think God has condemned? They're subjugated, that's what. Is that really the God of the Old Testament???? ….If you believe that, then I guess Quran 9:33 doesn't mean anything either when it says: "Allah is the One who sent His messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers (meaning Christians and Jews).

    "I'm afraid I can't decode this paragraph.  You appear to be saying that an evil man embodies all of Islam.  This is like saying that Jesuit-educated Heinrich Himmler embodies all of the Catholic faith."

    You can't decode it because you are a chunkhead. My first post said you can replace Khatami's name with any number of Muslim leaders to the same effect. Of course you conveniently forgot I had said that. There are Khatami's in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia etc. etc. etc. Your Heinrich Himmler comparison would only be valid if there were Himmler's in Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Britain, Norway etc. etc. etc.  

    I'm going to leave it here and suffice to say the Catholic Church was being optimistic with their assertion.  But I will say this, if your coddled, rather large behind tried to live the same openly Catholic life you lead now in Pakistan; the realization of what those followers of Islam believe would quickly be beaten into you. 

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks for that last one, zephyr424! Your elevated discourse is compelling. I am now convinced! Fie on the Magisterium!

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks HsNfpDad,

    I shot from the hip on my condemnation of H8.  Your more subtle understanding of H8 and the money grubbing nobles helps me to see that H8 was fine with Mary his daughter.  Too bad he didn't want to lose an argument and kept it up with the Pope.  I am pig headed as well and need to learn from H8 and you on this point.

    But my main point still stands:

    It will not be good to watch our wayward brothers and sisters teeter and fall over without even a LifeCall of "I've fallen, and I can't get up."

    GK – God is good!

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Zephyr: There are Khatami's in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia etc. etc. etc. Your Heinrich Himmler comparison would only be valid if there were Himmler's in Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Britain, Norway etc. etc. etc.

    There are Himmler's every where too.  Examples:

    Dublin Ireland


    Madison, WI


    Oklahoma

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks Zephyr424,

    The only thing you left out is "So it is written.  So it is done!"

    GK – God is good!

  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    GK – I've never had faith in what you write because although it's clever, it's also not very smart. There's obviously a difference between what I wrote about the Khatami's in the Islamic religion (being actual church leaders) and the single-cell crazies you portray. The analogy to Himmler is invalid because there weren't numerous Jesuit leaders in all the European countries preaching fascism. But I knew the atheist would show himself here to try and prove there are Himmlers everywhere, because the holocaust religion is too deeply ingrained in you. I've always doubted your sincerity and you prove it because anyone who places a pic of an old fallen lady is deceitful.

    Same with Protect the Rock. Guess what? The Rock doesn't need to be protected because God already does. You and GK are atheists. I think the better comparison is between atheists and Islamists, rather than atheists and nazis, because atheist leaders being numerous throughout the world are the actual perps too.

    Quran 9:30 stands as showing the Islamic God is not our God.

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I write: When you live in a Master/slave cosmos, you tend to create a Master/slave society.

    Zeph replies: "Wrong again. What kind of crap are you teaching our kids? The master/slave dichotomy is a direct result of the teachings of the Quran."

    I'm beginning to suspect zeph just doesn't know how to read.  The difference between what zeph does with a text and what a reader does is the difference between what a typist does with a text and what a writer does.

    Me: "2+2=4".  Zeph: "Wrong, Chunkhead!  4=2+2!"

    Devastating rebuttal, Zeph.  Your name-calling clearly demonstrates that your opponents are fools and atheists and the Church is wrong for disagreeing with you.

  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark, ummm……..you do …….realize……..that the Middle-Eastern countries were Christian lands before Muslims conquered them in the Seventh century, correct? So that = 2(Arabs)+2(Islam)=4(Christ's followers subjugated).

     

    This was fun anyway, I enjoyed it. I love most of your articles btw. I don't know the exact context in which it was said Muslims worship the same God. There could be some way it's true, Quran 9:30 notwithstanding. 

  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Zephyr:

    “The master/slave dichotomy is a direct result of the teachings of the Quran. Muslims believe it to be the literal word of Allah in case you missed it. Quran 9:29 instructs adherents to “fight back against those who do not believe in GOD”. Quran 9:30 says “God condemns …. Christians who say Jesus is the Son of God” Do you know what happens to communities Muslims think God has condemned? They’re subjugated, that’s what. Is that really the God of the Old Testament???? ….If you believe that, then I guess Quran 9:33 doesn’t mean anything either when it says: “Allah is the One who sent His messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers (meaning Christians and Jews).”

    Perhaps you need to re-read the al-Tawba. Subjugation in terms of 9:29 means the Jizya tax, so the Muslim is to “fight…until” the tax is paid. While 9:30 is a condemnation, the Jews are no less strong in their words against Christ in certain Talmudic texts. Are you suggesting, then that the Jews no longer worship the God of Abraham? And as for 9:33 the word in most translations is “pagans” or “polytheists” from which Christians and Jews are excluded (or mentioned as distinct from) in earlier suras. What translation are you using that equates “Brothers in the Book” (Christians and Jews) with idolaters in this sura?

    Michael

    “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”

    “The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” – GK Chesterton

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    GK – Henry VIII was a pig-headed, egotistical, power-hungry butcher of a king, though not nearly so much as some who came after. But we have the nobles and the Calvinists to thank for the decimation of Catholic external expressions in England. Henry VIII cannot be blamed for knocking down the external religiosity, but his obstinate defiance of Pope Clement VII did something far worse, perhaps. It gutted the internal order of the Church in England and facilitated the same thing in Scotland. In the English-speaking world, we still fight the sort of bigotry fostered by King Henry VIII: entire elements of society assert that our allegiance to the Pope in matters of faith and morals places us at odds to a proper allegiance to nation and country. Just recall to mind the public bigotry expressed following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban. The cartoons published of the majority justices in bishop’s garb are a particularly poignant expression of the vintage 16th century English Reformation hatred of the Catholic Church. Back then it was the elitist nobles (and not the everyday folk) who promoted this sort of hatred. Today we see exactly the same pattern of elites leading the way in bigoted attacks upon the Church.

    We can trace this back to Henry VIII's defiance, and we should do so with public outrage.

Leave a Reply