To Budge

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I wished to make this a separate thread, since there were many different issues going on in the other.

You wrote the following [url="http://p094.ezboard.com/fcatholicreformationfrm23.showMessage?topicID=44.topic"]here[/url]:

[quote]This is an essay, a work in progress. It is not finished yet, needs more development and editing, but wanted to post what I have so far. For those who have seen this, its a work on progress so I may have added on to it here.

Preaching the New World Order with the Pope and Theosophist Alice Bailey:

For thirteen years after living as a Cradle Catholic, I was in the Unitarian Universalist church from age 18-30. For those who do not know what Uuism is, the UU church is a creedless extremely liberal church that teaches the tenets of the New Age, Humanism, and Theosophy. Unitarians in religious belief range from out and out atheists to avowed pagans. Check out www.uua.org to understand more. Little did I know as I made my venture back into the Catholic church going to what I knew as “Christian” that the Vatican would support many of the same agendas as the Theosophical Unitarian Universalists. The UU church at its core teaches that all religions lead to god—or an archetype of God.

I have explained Uuism but let me explain the tenets of Theosophy, Theosophists believe that all religions hold truths and that all religions at the core lead to God. Founded in 1890s By Madame Blatvasky, Theosophy forms the under foundation for even the modern new Age movement. The prevailing message of Theosphy which sounds just peachy-keen to the unsaved is that of “unity”. Unity of thought, beliefs and of the world. Religions are taught as being unified in core beliefs “All religions lead to god” and a panthestic notion of god promoted.

While UU I learned at the foot of my very liberal ministers who were World Federation supporterss and one interim minister who was even a signer of the second Humanist Manifesto that the only way peace could come to the world was by all religions coming together for peace and by mankind giving up divisions. I have explained some about Uuism but one main activity of UU services, is the combining of the prayers of many religions from Hindu invocations to what is called the Great Invocation. Our services would include Hindu chants, Buddhist readings and poetry. God was taught as being present in all the worlds great religions and even the lesser ones even non-theistic UUs aspired to a notion of people searching for the same great truths in this array of false religions or an “archetype” of God.

Christianity and Judaism were considered as oppressive religions in Unitarian Universalism that denied the “truths” of other world cultures. I often would hear my Unitarian ministers railing away about how Christianity brought nothing but misery to world. Alice Bailey one of Theosophy’s greatest leaders went on to say that the world's only hope laid in a new universal religion.

Here is what Alice Bailey had to say about the worlds new Universal religion:
Today, slowly, the concept of a world religion and the need for its emergence are widely desired and worked for. The fusion of faiths is now a field for discussion. Workers in the field of religion will formulate the universal platform of the new world religion. It is a work of loving synthesis and will emphasize the unity and the fellowship of the spirit. This group is, in a pronounced sense, a [159] channel for the activities of the Christ, the world Teacher. The platform of the new world religion will be built by many groups, working under the inspiration of the Christ. see note (1)

Like Alice Bailey, The Unitarian Church supports the idea of all religions and even in their case non-religions joining together. One logo for the UU church is a wheel of circles, with each circle containing a symbol for a world religion ranging from a Buddha to the Islam ***** for God. One main UU tenet is that world peace can be achieved once man realizes that the worlds religions all reach for the same thing and share a "UNIVERSAL" commonality.


The Pope too has called for the fusion of faiths also , even having meetings where the workers of religion all stand on the same platform of peace. Here is what the Pope had to say about this very recently.

"The history of relations among Jews, Christians, and Muslims shows both lights and shadows, and unfortunately some sad moments," the Pope said. In today's dangerous world, he continued, there is an "urgent need" for the world's great religions to come together, in light of their "common desire that all men be purified of the hatred and evil that always threaten peace." (2)

Both Alice Bailey, The Unitarian Universalist Church and the Pope desire for the worlds religions to join together as one. The Pope calls for purification of hatred and evil. Bailey for loving synthesis. At the core what is the difference?

The Pope has taught over and over that the Seeds of the Word lie in all religions which is an affront to every born again Christian who realizes the uniqueness of Christ. Stripping down the gospel by portending to witness by praising other religions has been the new agenda. Such beliefs have only strengthened in the Catholic church since the instituting of Vatican II beginning with Nostra Aetate. Within the last 20 years, such meetings such as the one in Assisi where the Pope met with Vooduns, Buddhists, Hindus, Conficians, Muslims and more and sponsered prayers to all these religions false gods in praying for peace have only strengthen the idea in that Catholic church that false religions lead to god even if in a deficient way. Somehow this was supposed to promote the Christian gospel without compromising it. Not one person was told that to earn eternal life they had to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They were instructed instead to pray to their false gods for “peace”. This of course went against Biblical mandates to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Many Catholic apologists often try to quell the concerns of other Catholics and Christians concerned about these actions by saying that interfaithers intend to introduce Jesus after a relationship is established. Such introductions are rare. At most of these meetings proletyzation is outlawed.

Pope John Paul II has eased out and out message of Theosophy with a Christian veneer out into the world. Believing as New Agers do, in a so called cosmic Christ though not openly admitting it, the idea is still there. The Pope has taught that all humanity has possibility of being saved by Christ even those who do not accept Him or the gospel. Now Christians know God can do whatever God desires and we cannot judge the same as God, but this goes totally against the Bible….(add verses) In fact the Pope makes this clear in his encyclical “Guadium et Spes”

“Religious differences reveal themselves as pertaining to another order…It is possible that men not be conscious of their radical unity of religion and of their insertion in the very same divine plan. But despite such divisions, they are included in the single and grand design of God in Jesus Christ, who united Himself in a certain way with every man even if he is not conscious of it” (Guadium Et Spes 22)

Through this idea of a supposed unconscious relationship with Jesus Christ, The Pope promotes basically a panethistic Christ through all religions.

Alice Bailey promoted the same universal religion—saying all were under the same “cosmic Christ” The brotherhood of man, universal brotherhood are inherently Theosophical teachings. Alice Bailey over and over refers to THE CHRIST, in her writings, a figure that will unite all religions in love.

In fact Alice Bailey says of The Christ will do the same thing and repeats the Popes belief that God works through all religions.

:God works in many ways, through many faiths and religious agencies; this is one reason for the elimination of non-essential doctrines. By the emphasizing of the essential doctrines and in their union will the fullness of truth be revealed. This, the new world religion will do and its implementation will proceed apace, after the reappearance of the Christ. (3)

The Unitarian Universalist church promotes the idea of a Cosmic Christ. With metaphysical clubs announcing over to New Age participants that there have been many Christs ranging from Buddha to Jesus. In fact I was among the UUs that once believed this. I saw Jesus Christ as a good prophet with wisdom on the same level as Muhammed and Siddhartha--(Buddha).

While the Bible clearly teaches divisions between those of God--:’Children of God” and those not of God—The Pope includes all in a new Age blend where even false religions are seen as ripe for the taking and pathways to heaven under the Novus Ordo umbrella.

Unity is the highest good in Theosophy and for 100 years the early tenets of what is known in today’s New Age movement clamored for both. Todays its liberal Protestant churches and the Vatican clamoring for the same thing with even one Cardinal stating “Dialogue or die!”

Theosophists believe in total unity, unity of thought, action, belief, everything is one, all religions are one.
Those who refuse are seen as being in the way.

While Catholics point to the Pope’s obvious universalism as a supposed new way that the Pope plans to bring peace and THEN introduce Christ to others, it is obvious within the Popes words that he does believe pathways to God do exsist in other religions. One obvious example of this is documents like Dominus Iesus stating that salvation only exsists in the Catholic church but leaving out the fact the Catholic Church umbrella has is being expanded day by day perhaps one day to include Hindus and Buddhists

Cardinal Arinze’s book…The Solidarity of the World’s Religions shows that the one world religion theme is promoted Vatican Wide. Arinze considered one of the leading candidates for the next Pope writes “With reference to other religions, the Church sees a great difference between them and herself,” Cardinal Arinze said. “The other religions are ex-pressions of the human soul seeking God, with some beautiful insights” Arinze goes on to point out errors in other religions but also speaks of their “treasures”. Rather following then the Bible which speaks of children of darkness and those being led into the ditch by the blind (false religions), The Vatican promotes the Syncretistic religion of the New World Order. While admitting the differences of Christianity, denied is the uniqueness of Christ. They teach over and over that God is to be found in the world’s false religions.

When it comes right down to it, John Paul II and these other leaders are universalists who believe as long as someone is sincere and good they can be saved and that non-Christians can get to heaven without saving faith in Christ. The New World religion will be Interfaithism, that any religion as long as the participant is sincere are all valid pathways to God.

At one point the Pope goes as far to label prayers to false Gods as valid and called by the Holy Spirit
“All authentic prayer is called forth by the Spirit, The “Seeds of the Truth” present and active in the various religion traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who “enlightens every man coming into the world and who became flesh in Christ Jesus. They are together an effect of the spirit of truth operation outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body” and which “blows where it wills”. It gets even better.

At another time the Pope writes: “The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic ex-pressions of prayer. “The Spirits prescence and activity, “ as I wrote in the encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples and cultures and religions

The Pope sums up his Universalist beliefs in this one sentence “It will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.(*4)

(1)216.109.117.135/search/ca...1&.intl=us

(2)POPE SAYS GREAT RELIGIONS MUST UNITE FOR PEACE
Vatican, Jan. 19 (CWNews.com)

(3)216.109.117.135/search/ca...1&.intl=us

(*4) Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue-Congregation for The Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991 n29; L’Ossertavore Romano English Edition, 1 July 1991, p.III).

2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2Cr 11:15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.[/quote]

Since the forum will only allow so many quotations, I will use color coding. Your text will appear in red, mine in blue.

[color="red"]The Pope too has called for the fusion of faiths also , even having meetings where the workers of religion all stand on the same platform of peace. Here is what the Pope had to say about this very recently.

"The history of relations among Jews, Christians, and Muslims shows both lights and shadows, and unfortunately some sad moments," the Pope said. In today's dangerous world, he continued, there is an "urgent need" for the world's great religions to come together, in light of their "common desire that all men be purified of the hatred and evil that always threaten peace."[/color]

[color="blue"]You misquoted the article you were citing (which can be found [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=42971"]here[/url]). As you can see from reading the beginning of it, it begins: "At a 'concert for reconciliation,' held in the Vatican's Paul VI auditorium on January 17, Pope John Paul II said that the world needs the combined witness of Jews, Christians, and Muslims in support of peace."

This is [b]very[/b] different from claiming that all religions need to unite under one universal religion. In fact, this statement accentuates the division among religions. By the kind of "coming together" meant by the pope, a difference between religions is necessarily implied. This statement is no different than saying that any religion should have peace as one of its goals, which is certainly true. No one could claim to be religious while desiring war for the sake of war.

Further, the article states: "Prior to the musical program, Cardinal Walter Kasper -- who was one of the principal organizers of the event, in his capacity as president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity-- saluted Pope John Paul for his efforts to promote inter-religious harmony during the 25 years of his pontificate."

It is clear that had the pope been doing as you suggest, the pope would have been promoting [i]intra-religious harmony[/i], where all religions would be one, but since the article clearly uses the phrase [i]inter-religious harmony[/i], there is a necessary implication that religions are separate and that it is not a part of the pope's promotion to merge them into one.[/color]

[color="red"]Both Alice Bailey, The Unitarian Universalist Church and the Pope desire for the worlds religions to join together as one. The Pope calls for purification of hatred and evil. Bailey for loving synthesis. At the core what is the difference?[/color]

[color="blue"]The difference is precisely this: the word [i]synthesis[/i]. If you believe that it is wrong for the Catholic Church to call for a purification of hatred and evil, then you cannot possibly be a Christian. The difficulty is in Alice Bailey's theology, not the Catholic Church's. She wants a synthesis, by definition, a man-made religion which, somehow, will allegedly cure man of all war and wickednes. As we all know, this is not possible for any man-made religion to accomplish. However, it is a terrible misjudgment to say that because the Catholic Church, which claims to be God-established (and is right in claiming so), is attempting the same mission. We seek to let Christ come to reign in peace, not to set up ourselves. There is an enormous difference in the fact that we confess that our power lies in Christ and not in ourselves. We want His Church to reign and we want the conversion of the world to Him, not to a man-made idealism.[/color]

[color="red"]The Pope has taught over and over that the Seeds of the Word lie in all religions which is an affront to every born again Christian who realizes the uniqueness of Christ. Stripping down the gospel by portending to witness by praising other religions has been the new agenda. Such beliefs have only strengthened in the Catholic church since the instituting of Vatican II beginning with Nostra Aetate.[/color]

[color="blue"]Christ is unique. You are extremely correct. However, you must also realize that there are other religions which preach one God (Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism), that there are other religions which preach the sanctity of human life (Buddhism), etc. When the Church says that there are grains of truth in other religions, it isn't making this up. Does that make those religions equal? No. However, by accentuating those truths and coming to a deeper mutual respect for our common tenets, we can more easily convert them to Christ by showing them the greater depths of truth we hold.[/color]

[color="red"]Within the last 20 years, such meetings such as the one in Assisi where the Pope met with Vooduns, Buddhists, Hindus, Conficians, Muslims and more and sponsered prayers to all these religions false gods in praying for peace have only strengthen the idea in that Catholic church that false religions lead to god even if in a deficient way.[/color]

[color="blue"]Pope John Paul II was a believer in the dignity and rights of mankind. Therefore, he believed that all men have the right to worship as they understand to be best. This does NOT mean that they may worship in a way they do not see to be best, but it means that they must follow their consciences. It does not cover a person who believes the Christian Gospel but decides for other reasons to practice Islam. Furthermore, the quest for truth and worship according to conscience are intrinsically good, since they are the search for God and the worship He deserves given as well as it is able to be given, provided the limitations of the religion of the worshipper. Pope John Paul II's respect for all religions was not a respect for all their tenets, but a respect for the fact that they were honest attempts at seeking the fullness of that truth which we who believe have found in Jesus Christ.[/color]

[color="red"]Not one person was told that to earn eternal life they had to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They were instructed instead to pray to their false gods for “peace”. This of course went against Biblical mandates to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Many Catholic apologists often try to quell the concerns of other Catholics and Christians concerned about these actions by saying that interfaithers intend to introduce Jesus after a relationship is established. Such introductions are rare. At most of these meetings proletyzation is outlawed.[/color]

[color="blue"]I'll tell you what, the next time you get together a worldwide interfaith conference and decide to hold them hostage, remove their right to worship as they understand conscientiously to be best, and to force their conversion, you can go right ahead. However, acknowledging that any prayer meant in good conscience to reach the Lord of Lords, no matter how skewed one's view of Him may be, is a prayer that is heard by the God of mercies (since, afterall, He heard the prayers of Job, who was not a Jew, because Job worshipped as well as he could with what knowledge he had), you cannot try to say that the pope was putting them on an equal footing with Christianity. The claim itself is unfounded. The pope was merely asking them to pray for peace. This is in no way a declaration that all religions are equal. Furthermore, how would you possibly know how much evangelization was going on there?[/color]

[color="red"]The Pope has taught that all humanity has possibility of being saved by Christ even those who do not accept Him or the gospel. Now Christians know God can do whatever God desires and we cannot judge the same as God, but this goes totally against the Bible….(add verses) In fact the Pope makes this clear in his encyclical “Guadium et Spes”

“Religious differences reveal themselves as pertaining to another order…It is possible that men not be conscious of their radical unity of religion and of their insertion in the very same divine plan. But despite such divisions, they are included in the single and grand design of God in Jesus Christ, who united Himself in a certain way with every man even if he is not conscious of it” (Guadium Et Spes 22)[/color]

[color="blue"]You need to add your verses, still. Regardless, I'll answer.

The Catholic Church teaches that in order to be saved, you must be baptized into Christ. However, the Church also teaches that those who do not know Christ may still be saved by Baptism of Desire (which is still a type of Baptism). This is because, through no fault of their own, they were not able to know Christ, and although unable to know Him, they followed the natural law as best they could, desiring to have the good for which their souls yearned, which is God's life in us. This is not against the Bible. You cannot provide a single verse which contradicts it.

As for the quote from GS, are you insinuating that somehow Christ is not united to every man in His humanity? We all share the same nature, and this means that despite divisions, we are all united in some way to Christ.[/color]

[color="red"]Through this idea of a supposed unconscious relationship with Jesus Christ, The Pope promotes basically a panethistic Christ through all religions.[/color]

[color="blue"]No, the pope promotes basically that Christ is related in His human nature to men of every religion; just as you are in some way united in your human nature to all the Muslims, Buddhists, and Pagans of the world.[/color]

[color="red"]God works in many ways, through many faiths and religious agencies; this is one reason for the elimination of non-essential doctrines. By the emphasizing of the essential doctrines and in their union will the fullness of truth be revealed. This, the new world religion will do and its implementation will proceed apace, after the reappearance of the Christ. (3)[/color]

[color="blue"]Your third citation appears to be a broken link, so I can't look at the original.

However, I will say that this is in no way what the pope has said. First, the Catholic Church has [b]NEVER[/b] eliminated a doctrine. Second, there are [b]NO[/b] "non-essential" doctrines.[/color]

[color="red"]The Unitarian Universalist church promotes the idea of a Cosmic Christ. With metaphysical clubs announcing over to New Age participants that there have been many Christs ranging from Buddha to Jesus. In fact I was among the UUs that once believed this. I saw Jesus Christ as a good prophet with wisdom on the same level as Muhammed and Siddhartha--(Buddha).[/color]

[color="blue"]This is completely irrelevant, since the Catholic Church has condemned this idea. It's a heresy.[/color]

[color="red"]While the Bible clearly teaches divisions between those of God--:’Children of God” and those not of God—The Pope includes all in a new Age blend where even false religions are seen as ripe for the taking and pathways to heaven under the Novus Ordo umbrella.[/color]

[color="blue"]The Novus Ordo is the order of the Mass after Vatican II. It has very little, if anything, to do with your point.

Furthermore, the pope never said that false religions were pathways to heaven. All the people in heaven are Catholic.[/color]

[color="red"]One obvious example of this is documents like Dominus Iesus stating that salvation only exsists in the Catholic church but leaving out the fact the Catholic Church umbrella has is being expanded day by day perhaps one day to include Hindus and Buddhists[/color]

[color="blue"]This is just unfounded. Please site proof for the claim that "the Catholic Church umbrella has is being expanded day by day perhaps one day to include Hindus and Buddhists."[/color]

[color="red"]“With reference to other religions, the Church sees a great difference between them and herself,” Cardinal Arinze said. “The other religions are ex-pressions of the human soul seeking God, with some beautiful insights” Arinze goes on to point out errors in other religions but also speaks of their “treasures”. Rather following then the Bible which speaks of children of darkness and those being led into the ditch by the blind (false religions), The Vatican promotes the Syncretistic religion of the New World Order. While admitting the differences of Christianity, denied is the uniqueness of Christ. They teach over and over that God is to be found in the world’s false religions.[/color]

[color="blue"]As I've already said, the things mentioned here are in no way equating all religions; they are simply stating that each religion has some truths (such as a belief in one God), not that each religion is wholly true.[/color]

[color="red"]At one point the Pope goes as far to label prayers to false Gods as valid and called by the Holy Spirit “All authentic prayer is called forth by the Spirit, The “Seeds of the Truth” present and active in the various religion traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who “enlightens every man coming into the world and who became flesh in Christ Jesus. They are together an effect of the spirit of truth operation outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body” and which “blows where it wills”. It gets even better.[/color]

[color="blue"]Who is it that moves first in the relationship between God and a convert? Is it the convert that seeks out God, or God who seeks out the convert? If you say the first, then you believe that God is within man's grasp without His wanting to be. If you say the second, then you must admit that a prayer meant in good conscience, according to the best a person knows, is prompted by God. If a pagan is converting and only knows the god Jupiter, and the One True God calls to him, will he assume it is God or Jupiter? And when he prays, using the name of Jupiter, while trying with his heart to pray to the God he knows is calling him, will God hear him? God hears the prayer of the heart. God knows that even if he uses the name Jupiter, the poor pagan means to pray to Him. That pagan is praying as he best knows and understands. Do you think God will condemn him just because he has not been able to hear the Gospel?[/color]

[color="red"]The Pope sums up his Universalist beliefs in this one sentence “It will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.(*4)[/color]

[color="blue"]The key there is "following the dictates of their own conscience." This phrase necessarily implies that they know no better. So, the situation I gave above applies...would God condemn them for the prayers they make in ignorance of Him, even though it is, in reality, Him whom they seek?[/color]

Edited July 3, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

[quote]
"The history of relations among Jews, Christians, and Muslims shows both lights and shadows, and unfortunately some sad moments," the Pope said. In today's dangerous world, he continued, there is an "urgent need" for the world's great religions to come together, in light of their "common desire that all men be purified of the hatred and evil that always threaten peace."

You misquoted the article you were citing (which can be found here). As you can see from reading the beginning of it, it begins: "At a 'concert for reconciliation,' held in the Vatican's Paul VI auditorium on January 17, Pope John Paul II said that the world needs the combined witness of Jews, Christians, and Muslims in support of peace."[/quote]

No here is the article I was citing, and ANYONE here can go check it. It says what I SAID it says.

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27089"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27089[/url]


I can also find at least 20 articles like it with the same implicit meaning being put forth on different occasions.

[quote]This is very different from claiming that all religions need to unite under one universal religion. In fact, this statement accentuates the division among religions. By the kind of "coming together" meant by the pope, a difference between religions is necessarily implied. This statement is no different than saying that any religion should have peace as one of its goals, which is certainly true. No one could claim to be religious while desiring war for the sake of war.[/quote]

The Bible tells us not to yoke with unbelievers, the Pope preaches gathering together in a common cause. I have seen those in the Vatican preaching even New Age "unity in diversity". What matter these differences if the religions are united? And where does the Bible say that true peace come via Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam? The only true peace is in Jesus Christ, to preach a message that other religions can SUCCESSFULLY JOIN together for peach is WRONG and antithetical to Christianity.

ROME IS SEEKING AFTER THE WORLD's PEACE: NOT THAT OF JESUS CHRIST.

Joh 14:27
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you

Also your conjecture that Rome is not advancing a universalistic religion is wrong. There are plenty of Trads out there and other Christians who know the score. To say Rome is bringing all these religions together but "keeping the differences between" them is Phariseeical hairsplitting. I have studied Assisi quite intensely and well...they make the goals quite directly known. Can you tell me where in Gods Word where Christians were to believe that ALL RELIGIONS could BRING UPON THE EARTH JUSTICE AND PEACE? Where Christians were supposed to SEEK AFTER THE UNITY OF ALL RELIGIONS {The PHATMASS GOOGLE DESCRIPTION} instead of CONVERTING THE WORLD TO JESUS CHRIST?

[quote]

COMMON COMMITMENT TO PEACE AND FAREWELL in Lower Saint Francis’ Square in Assisi. Introductory Monition by Cardinal Francis Arinze, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Reading in various languages of the common commitment to peace [Plurlingual]. Short exhortation by the Holy Father:

Violence never again!
War never again!
Terrorism never again!
[size=6]In God's name,
may all religions bring upon earth
justice and peace,
forgiveness, life and love![/size]
[/quote]

This is DIRECT from the Vatican website, so you cannot quibble with me about what was said or not said. The Pope HIMSELF PRAYED THIS.

To me this dictates he was a total FREEMASON, THEOSOPHIST and UNIVERSALIST. [and his successor is too]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/servizio/documents/viaggi/1141assi/viaggi_santo_padre_1141assi_programma_en.html"]THE POPES UNIVERSALISTIC WORDS RIGHT FROM THE VATICAN[/url]


[img]http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Scarboro_missions_magazine/Issues/2002/September/images/cover.jpg[/img]

Im going to go point by point with you beginning with that one.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Budge

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1016532' date='Jul 3 2006, 08:41 AM']
No here is the article I was citing, and ANYONE here can go check it. It says what I SAID it says.

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27089"]http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27089[/url]
I can also find at least 20 articles like it with the same implicit meaning being put forth on different occasions.[/quote]

Budge, that article has the exact same text. You still took it out of context to give it a meaning the article didn't mean.

[quote]The Bible tells us not to yoke with unbelievers, the Pope preaches gathering together in a common cause. I have seen those in the Vatican preaching even New Age "unity in diversity". What matter these differences if the religions are united?[/quote]

There are two kinds of unity. There is conjunction and there is union. The Church calls for conjunction, that is, for all religions to work together toward common goals. This is very different from union, which would seek to make all religions into one religion.

[quote]And where does the Bible say that true peace come via Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam? The only true peace is in Jesus Christ, to preach a message that other religions can SUCCESSFULLY JOIN together for peach is WRONG and antithetical to Christianity.[/quote]

To preach that all people, no matter what their religion, need to strive for peace is not wrong. In fact, it is very Christian. In pagan Rome, although the soldier martyrs could not compel their leaders to become Christians, they still tried to compel them to being at peace with Christianity. As I've shown, it's very different from saying that all religions should be one to say that all religions should work in conjunction on a common tenet.

[quote]ROME IS SEEKING AFTER THE WORLD's PEACE: NOT THAT OF JESUS CHRIST.[/quote]

First, please don't site Rome alone. When you say "Rome" it actually indicates the Diocese of Rome, not the whole Church.

Second, this statement is simply inflammatory and has nothing but emotion behind it.

[quote]Also your conjecture that Rome is not advancing a universalistic religion is wrong. There are plenty of Trads out there and other Christians who know the score.[/quote]

So you wish to cite as your source those who openly reject what they know to be the Church of Christ because they prefer a different liturgy? That's not honest, Budge. If you want to show "the score," then show it, but not by misquotations and taking things out of context.

[quote]To say Rome is bringing all these religions together but "keeping the differences between" them is Phariseeical hairsplitting.[/quote]

No, it's really not. It's called philosophy. There are two types of union, as I showed above. You can't just call it hairsplitting, attach a loaded word like "Phariseeical" and let it go. By your definition of "Phariseeical," Jesus was a Pharisee for "splitting hairs" about forgiveness, about Scripture interpretation, and about many other things He clarified for the Pharisees.

[quote]I have studied Assisi quite intensely and well...they make the goals quite directly known. Can you tell me where in Gods Word where Christians were to believe that ALL RELIGIONS could BRING UPON THE EARTH JUSTICE AND PEACE?[/quote]

Nowhere did the Scriptures say it, and nowhere did the Church. You still have not provided proof. You have only misconstrued the words of the pope.

[quote]Where Christians were supposed to SEEK AFTER THE UNITY OF ALL RELIGIONS {The PHATMASS GOOGLE DESCRIPTION} instead of CONVERTING THE WORLD TO JESUS CHRIST?[/quote]

Again, you have the wrong definition of unity. The Church always strives to convert the world to Christ. If you don't believe me, go read Catechesi Tradendae, Christifideles Laici, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, et al.



[quote]This is DIRECT from the Vatican website, so you cannot quibble with me about what was said or not said. The Pope HIMSELF PRAYED THIS.

To me this dictates he was a total FREEMASON, THEOSOPHIST and UNIVERSALIST. [and his successor is too]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/servizio/documents/viaggi/1141assi/viaggi_santo_padre_1141assi_programma_en.html"]THE POPES UNIVERSALISTIC WORDS RIGHT FROM THE VATICAN[/url]
[img]http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Scarboro_missions_magazine/Issues/2002/September/images/cover.jpg[/img]

Im going to go point by point with you beginning with that one.
[/quote]

I'm not going to read every link on that page looking to find which line you may have misunderstood. If you want to make your case, you need to quote something.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

[quote]TE

Budge, that article has the exact same text. You still took it out of context to give it a meaning the article didn't mean.[/quote]

You said I had misquoted it, I hadnt.

[quote]There are two kinds of unity. There is conjunction and there is union. The Church calls for conjunction, that is, for all religions to work together toward common goals. This is very different from union, which would seek to make all religions into one religion.[/quote]

I dont see Jesus nor the apostles teaching that a "lesser form of unity" is allowable. One thing I notice about Catholic apologist is their use of subtlety.... they do seek to excuse everything and anything with an endless array of OUT CLAUSES. Look up subtil in Scripture this is NOT a good quality. b]Pro 7:10 And, behold, there met him a woman [with] the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.[/b]

Your claim that conjuction is different from union is just one of those instances to me.

[b]
Main Entry: con·junc·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'j&[ng](k)-sh&n
Function: noun[u]
1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being conjoined[/u] : COMBINATION
2 : occurrence together in time or space : CONCURRENCE
3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in which two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation
4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words
5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its components is true[/b]



[b]1Cr 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.[/b]

and

this..
[b]
2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them,[/b] and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,

Instead of Catholics realizing like Christians that conversion to Jesus Christ brings change from within---the Vatican wants to follow the world's way, preaching peace via the United Nations and G-8 Globalists, rather then peace via Jesus Christ.

The Vatican is not preaching the gospel or even forwarding true peace of Jesus Christ in the midst of unbelievers, it is watering down things to meet them all half way. It is preaching that other religions can bring in peace.

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1016693' date='Jul 3 2006, 01:33 PM']
You said I had misquoted it, I hadnt.
I dont see Jesus nor the apostles teaching that a "lesser form of unity" is allowable.[/quote]

I don't see Jesus saying that we shouldn't get along with our neighbors peacefully. Your own logic fails you.

[quote]One thing I notice about Catholic apologist is their use of subtlety.... they do seek to excuse everything and anything with an endless array of OUT CLAUSES. Look up subtil in Scripture this is NOT a good quality.[/quote]

Beign subtle is not the same as being precise. I'm being precise, and you are using broad misgeneralizations.

[quote]Your claim that conjuction is different from union is just one of those instances to me.

[b]
Main Entry: con·junc·tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'j&[ng](k)-sh&n
Function: noun[u]
1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being conjoined[/u] : COMBINATION
2 : occurrence together in time or space : CONCURRENCE
3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in which two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation
4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words
5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its components is true[/b]
[b]1Cr 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.[/b][/quote]

Maybe Catholic apologists just know the philosophy of language better. Conjunction means "a joining together." If you want to debate me on the meaning and etymology, you can. It's from Latin. Be my guest. There is a difference between conjunction and union. Union effects an ontological state whereby there is inner unity, that is, one-ness. Conjunction effects a collaboration between two separate entities which join together for some purpose or another.

[quote]Instead of Catholics realizing like Christians that conversion to Jesus Christ brings change from within---the Vatican wants to follow the world's way, preaching peace via the United Nations and G-8 Globalists, rather then peace via Jesus Christ.[/quote]

You obviously have not read the works of the saints if you really think that:

1. Catholics aren't Christians, and

2. Catholics aren't in favor of inner peace. I recommend St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Therese of Lisieux, et al.

[quote]The Vatican is not preaching the gospel or even forwarding true peace of Jesus Christ in the midst of unbelievers, it is watering down things to meet them all half way. It is preaching that other religions can bring in peace.[/quote]

Budge, most anti-Catholics are bad at history in a way that gets them to think the Vatican was a warmonger; your history, on the other hand, makes us look like hippies. Take what you will from this: your historical perspective is unique.

[quote]1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.[/quote]

Well, this quote is referring to those who say that we have peace and safety. The Vatican wouldn't be calling for those things if we had them. Therefore, the quote is irrelevant to this argument.

As for your Bible quotes, they are also irrelevant. As I've pointed out, no one is saying that Christ and Belial are buddies. However, as I've also said, those who worship what they believe in good conscience to be God are not to be condemned, but to be evangelized. In the meantime, it is important to recognize what devotion they do have, even if misguided, and to encourage the religious nature of all men, even pagans, while at the same time seeking to steer it toward the One, True God, who is Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

[quote]
I don't see Jesus saying that we shouldn't get along with our neighbors peacefully. Your own logic fails you.[/quote]

[b]Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[/b]


Im going to believe Jesus over you.

Jesus knew there were those who would come to toss the gospel overboard for the sake of "peace".



[quote]Union effects an [b]ontological [/b]state whereby there is inner unity, that is, one-ness. Conjunction effects a collaboration between two separate entities which join together for some purpose or another.[/quote]

Ah that ONTO-ILLOGIC. {I notice that becomes a fav word of Catholic apologists who want to confuse matters}

Are you getting META-PHYSICAL on me?

Main Entry: on·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: än-'tä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
[b]1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being[/b]
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents
- on·tol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

That is part of what I am talking about with the SUBTLE stuff.

Edited July 4, 2006 by Budge

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Budge' post='1016837' date='Jul 3 2006, 06:30 PM']
[b]Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[/b]
Im going to believe Jesus over you.

Jesus knew there were those who would come to toss the gospel overboard for the sake of "peace".
Ah that ONTO-ILLOGIC. {I notice that becomes a fav word of Catholic apologists who want to confuse matters}

Are you getting META-PHYSICAL on me?

Main Entry: on·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: än-'tä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
[b]1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being[/b]
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents
- on·tol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

That is part of what I am talking about with the SUBTLE stuff.
[/quote]


Isaiah 9:6

For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

i'm sorry i believe that Jesus is the Prince of Peace

i also believe that you're reading that verse you qouted out of context

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1016837' date='Jul 3 2006, 07:30 PM']
[b]Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[/b]
Im going to believe Jesus over you.

Jesus knew there were those who would come to toss the gospel overboard for the sake of "peace".
Ah that ONTO-ILLOGIC. {I notice that becomes a fav word of Catholic apologists who want to confuse matters}

Are you getting META-PHYSICAL on me?

Main Entry: on·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: än-'tä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
[b]1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being[/b]
2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents
- on·tol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

That is part of what I am talking about with the SUBTLE stuff.
[/quote]

As Rennie pointed out, the verse you quoted is out of context. Jesus told us to be peaceful and to love our neighbors. "Who is my neighbor?" You know Jesus' answer. Now, it is love to steer someone in the right direction, since that is what we would like others to do with us, but it is not love to condemn them for following their consciences. Rather, the loving response is to applaud them for following their consciences, but then to try to educate their consciences, so that they know better for the future, and so that they may do what is objectively right. Honoring false religions is wrong, but honoring people's good intentions is good. That is what the pope does. If you want to think he could have done it in a more effective way, you can think that, but to say that he was doing anything else is false.

As for "subtle," no. If I were trying to be subtle, I would sneak in a word that was ambiguous so that I could worm my way out of an argument. I haven't used an ambiguous term so far; I've been precise and very careful to use the proper terminology, in order to avoid giving you the chance to think for even a moment that I would be trying to back-pedal when I clarify myself. Clarification goes forward; subtle backpedaling goes backward. I'm clarifying with precise terms. Just because I use precision and philosophy doesn't make me "subtle."

[Budge]

I want the both of you to tell me what Matt 10:34 then MEANS to you.

Do Catholic churches even teach that verse anymore in the era of 'go along to get along"?

Remember when Jesus said even families would be seperated over folks having to go where God led?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1017503' date='Jul 5 2006, 11:53 AM']
I want the both of you to tell me what Matt 10:34 then MEANS to you.

Do Catholic churches even teach that verse anymore in the era of 'go along to get along"?

Remember when Jesus said even families would be seperated over folks having to go where God led?
[/quote]
Again, you have no knowledge of the Scriptures because you have no training in their interpretation. A language distinction has caught you again, namely, that Jesus uses a result clause, meaning that X happens and Y results. Now, there are different kinds of result clauses. One is to say that X happens so that Y will result. Another is to say that X happens in such a way that Y results. You seem to be interpreting the verse according to the first pattern, insinuating that Jesus Christ came for the precise purpose of dividing families. However, we know that anything against the harmony of the human race comes from the evil one. This interpretation, therefore, effectively says that Christ came for evil purposes. However, the second type of result clause fits with what we know about Jesus, namely, that He has come to spread the Gospel and that some will accept it and some will reject. In this way, the second pattern is more fitting, since Christ will come to spread the Gospel (X), and that this act must be done in such a way that all people have the freedom to accept or reject, thus allowing division among mankind (Y).

However, it really doesn't matter what the verse means to me, does it? Afterall, you are trying to say that the Church has a faulty theology, not just me, a little Catholic theology student.

Finally, of course the Church teaches that verse. She proclaims it at Mass in the Gospel readings. She also acknowledges that Christ wills "that all men might come to the knowledge of truth and be saved." Therefore, she judges rightly that it was not Christ's intention to divide families, but that the division of families is a near-necessary reaction to the Gospel, given mankind's fallen nature.

Anyone who thinks that this verse means that Jesus intended a holy war between men is in grave error. Jesus came to bring true peace ("My peace I give to you"), and the Church strives to spread the peace of the Kingdom by first coming to peaceful terms with all mankind and then bringing them into the Kingdom through conversion to the Faith Christ gave the Church, however, Jesus also brought the sword, not that war among men was His intention, but that He recognized it as a near-necessary result of human freedom. If you mean to say that Christ was a warmonger, then you do not know Christian peace in the first place, which is only in Christ Himself.

Taking the verse in context, it is part of Christ's warning to His apostles about what to expect: divisions. Schisms, heresies, apostacies, and worse are not Christ's will, as I'm sure you will agree; Christ's will was peace, and He came to give peace, but His words in the verse mean to point out the approaching danger: with the proclamation of the Truth, in the midst of human freedom, comes war.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Budge,

you should come to the Fish Eater's forum (for traditional Catholics). I'm sure someone would debate you there, and you can see what Catholicism really teaches, and how we are against Universalism, and ecumenicism.

God Bless.

[mod]edited by IcePrincess. Links not faithful to the Church.[/mod]

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1017537' date='Jul 5 2006, 11:41 AM']
Again, you have no knowledge of the Scriptures because you have no training in their interpretation. A language distinction has caught you again, namely, that Jesus uses a result clause, meaning that X happens and Y results. Now, there are different kinds of result clauses. One is to say that X happens so that Y will result. Another is to say that X happens in such a way that Y results. You seem to be interpreting the verse according to the first pattern, insinuating that Jesus Christ came for the precise purpose of dividing families. However, we know that anything against the harmony of the human race comes from the evil one. This interpretation, therefore, effectively says that Christ came for evil purposes. However, the second type of result clause fits with what we know about Jesus, namely, that He has come to spread the Gospel and that some will accept it and some will reject. In this way, the second pattern is more fitting, since Christ will come to spread the Gospel (X), and that this act must be done in such a way that all people have the freedom to accept or reject, thus allowing division among mankind (Y).

However, it really doesn't matter what the verse means to me, does it? Afterall, you are trying to say that the Church has a faulty theology, not just me, a little Catholic theology student.

Finally, of course the Church teaches that verse. She proclaims it at Mass in the Gospel readings. She also acknowledges that Christ wills "that all men might come to the knowledge of truth and be saved." Therefore, she judges rightly that it was not Christ's intention to divide families, but that the division of families is a near-necessary reaction to the Gospel, given mankind's fallen nature.

Anyone who thinks that this verse means that Jesus intended a holy war between men is in grave error. Jesus came to bring true peace ("My peace I give to you"), and the Church strives to spread the peace of the Kingdom by first coming to peaceful terms with all mankind and then bringing them into the Kingdom through conversion to the Faith Christ gave the Church, however, Jesus also brought the sword, not that war among men was His intention, but that He recognized it as a near-necessary result of human freedom. If you mean to say that Christ was a warmonger, then you do not know Christian peace in the first place, which is only in Christ Himself.

Taking the verse in context, it is part of Christ's warning to His apostles about what to expect: divisions. Schisms, heresies, apostacies, and worse are not Christ's will, as I'm sure you will agree; Christ's will was peace, and He came to give peace, but His words in the verse mean to point out the approaching danger: with the proclamation of the Truth, in the midst of human freedom, comes war.
[/quote]


i was gonna say something similar.

he said it way better than how i'm going to say it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1017808' date='Jul 5 2006, 07:30 PM']
Budge,

you should come to the Fish Eater's forum (for traditional Catholics). I'm sure someone would debate you there, and you can see what Catholicism really teaches, and how we are against Universalism, and ecumenicism.

God Bless.

[mod] edite by Iceprincess[/mod]
[/quote]
A position against ecumenism is NOT what Catholicism really teaches.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Budge, rejecting metaphysics and philosophy in general only works to make you and others look foolish. When it comes to apologetics, you should be stepping your game [i]up[/i], not down. If you think that a distinction made by a Catholic apologist is a false distinction, then philosophically prove it to be false, don't just throw your hands up and reject philosophy. Reason and Faith are not opposed to one another, and asserting that they are only shows a lack of both.

[jswranch]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1018254' date='Jul 6 2006, 09:50 AM']Reason and Faith are not opposed to one another, and asserting that they are only shows a lack of both.
[/quote]Amen. One can have reason, another one faith. Christ calls us to have both.


I am thinking about a thread on 'positive pagan influences' we can learn from. One example I found was a Native American tribe who, without a the church/bible/Jesus know abortion is immoral and against nature, fired their rep for attempting to allow it on their reservation.