Would U Pray With A Muslim...

[Budge]

Ive never used the term Romanist here.

Go through my posts, you wont see it in my own writing.

As for Muslims/Islamics...what are you my English teacher?

The English teachers better get out their rules too on all these folks...

[url="http://www.google.com/search?q=Islamics&hl=en&hs=jX9&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&start=0&sa=N"]ISLAMICS, ISLAMICs, ISLAMICS[/url]

What do you think of the term.. mohammedans?

Edited September 8, 2006 by Budge

[CatholicMonarchist3]

[quote]
Is failure to recognize tantamount to conscience rejection? From the Christian perspective, Muslims fail to worship the full understanding of a triune god, but a partial understanding of the triune god. They worship God the Father.[/quote]

That's the problem. We have to deal in absolutes. You're either worshipping God, or you're not. They partially worship God. if I partially drank, I'd eventually die of dehydration, right?

[quote]
The only reason I can guess you equate not being completely right with being damned is your over emphasis of the need for your denomination to be perfect. God's perfect, denominations and people aren't. Humans are inherently incapable of being completely right. I never equated being partially incorrect with damnation, but you have.
[/quote]


The Church is perfect and indefectible. Jesus is married to the Church, meaning He speaks through it. indeed popes have been wrong in the past, yet the Church has never erred. Take those atrocities at Assisi. John Paul II prayed with pagans and heretics, yet the Church still teaches it's wrong. John Paul II never taught it infallibly. And yes, I have. If there's no true Church, and every one is wrong in some way, people are then always going to be in error.

[quote]
I don't even begin to imply there is salvation in Satanism. What a way to paint with the wrong color and misrepresent. Please don't copy Budge. I understand Satanism as being anti-Good which is anti-God. Where did I even hint at striving for anti-Good was salvific? No where, because I never have.
[/quote]
Wait a second, now you're starting to be a denominational judger. Maybe the Satanists come to understand God as Satan? And if they're in complete error, then how can you say Buddhists (who are atheists), Muslims, etc are alright? How do you know they are? Islam is also anti-good. It isn't a religion of Peace, friend. Otherwise Mohammad wouldn't have gone around telling people to either convert or their entire village would be slaughtered. Hmm...sounds real God-like, and it's not even like it was one of it's followers. It was it's founder

[quote]Jesus Christ, Son of God, established a real and human Way of re-establishing, reconciling, aiding a human relationship with God. The Catholic Church has communicated that in human and supernatural way through the ages. Other Churches which are rooted in the fruits of that grace transmit much of that Grace. Churches, being part human as well, also have human limitations.
[/quote]
If the protestants broke away from the Church Jesus founded, didn't they break away from Jesus? And if it didn't quite matter what denomination you are, why did Jesus even bother establishing a Church?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Alexwise the Hobbit' post='1058724' date='Sep 7 2006, 08:10 PM']
That's the problem. We have to deal in absolutes. You're either worshipping God, or you're not. They partially worship God. if I partially drank, I'd eventually die of dehydration, right?
The Church is perfect and indefectible. Jesus is married to the Church, meaning He speaks through it. indeed popes have been wrong in the past, yet the Church has never erred.
Take those atrocities at Assisi. John Paul II prayed with pagans and heretics, yet the Church still teaches it's wrong. John Paul II never taught it infallibly. And yes, I have. If there's no true Church, and every one is wrong in some way, people are then always going to be in error.[/quote]Look at your comments together. Did you just say, "Thank god it's black because it's white."? Humanity has changed the concept of a 'church'. What Jesus established was a Way that was quite at home with gentiles outside the temple and Jews inside the temple. That's not quite the human constructed denomination of the Catholics.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1058709' date='Sep 7 2006, 09:53 PM']Ive never used the term Romanist here.

Go through my posts, you wont see it in my own writing.[/quote]Though I didn't say that you did, your have contributed various posts using the terms "Romanism" and "Romish." It's all the same thing: using a derogatory label to score emotional points.

[quote name='Budge' post='1058709' date='Sep 7 2006, 09:53 PM']As for Muslims/Islamics...what are you my English teacher?[/quote]I guess it's come to that.

The fact that one can google a sequence of letters doesn't mean that it's a word in English. Try the dictionary if you're confused about a term.

[quote name='Budge' post='1058709' date='Sep 7 2006, 09:53 PM']What do you think of the term.. mohammedans?[/quote]Somewhat dated, usually not used by Muslims themselves; but it is a noun.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Mateo el Feo

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Budge' post='1058175' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:39 PM']
When did Jesus or the apostles ever teach to unite with unbelievers and false religions to help "better" the world?
[/quote]

"But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."

Luke 10:33-37

[CatholicMonarchist3]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1058819' date='Sep 7 2006, 11:51 PM']
Look at your comments together. Did you just say, "Thank god it's black because it's white."? Humanity has changed the concept of a 'church'. What Jesus established was a Way that was quite at home with gentiles outside the temple and Jews inside the temple. That's not quite the human constructed denomination of the Catholics.
[/quote]
No, I don't believe I did. Humanity has changed the concept of a Church? How?
If you trace back the popes, you do end up at St. Peter. I also think Ss. Peter and Paul chose the next pope. Jesus also said the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. I guess that means everyone is outside of Jesus' Church. There is absolutely no salvation outside of it. Why did St. Paul care about the Judaisers if it didn't matter? And what about Marcionsim in the early Church? The early Church obviously knew that there is only one true Church, otherwise they wouldn't have fought heresies, right?
And if it wasn't for the "human constructed denomination of the Catholics", you wouldn't have a bible

[Norseman82]

Back to the original question: Cardinal George was asked this question at St. Mary of the Angels (the Opus Dei parish in Chicago) a few years ago, and although he mentioned some ways in which we could possibly pray together - I don't exactly recall those exact scenarios - what I do remember is a stern warning to not turn a church into a mosque, because once that is done you cannot turn it back into a church (that is almost a direct quote). The bottom line is that whenever we interact with non-Christians, we must not compromise our Christianity. Now, some may feel that [i]any[/i] interaction with non-Christians compromises Christianity. Well, I guess I can respect your concerns, although I sure hope that if I get hit by a car and need an ambulance I won't bleed to death if a Christian refuses to accept a cell phone from a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist in order to call 911.













Oh, and for the record, for about a year and a half or so, I actually had a fundamentalist Muslim roommate. We treated each other civilly, including when discussing matters of faith, and respected each other and gave each other our "space".

But I never recall praying with him, despite numerous opportunities.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Norseman82

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Alexwise the Hobbit' post='1058845' date='Sep 7 2006, 10:16 PM']
No, I don't believe I did. Humanity has changed the concept of a Church? How?
If you trace back the popes, you do end up at St. Peter. I also think Ss. Peter and Paul chose the next pope. Jesus also said the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. I guess that means everyone is outside of Jesus' Church. There is absolutely no salvation outside of it. Why did St. Paul care about the Judaisers if it didn't matter? And what about Marcionsim in the early Church? The early Church obviously knew that there is only one true Church, otherwise they wouldn't have fought heresies, right?
And if it wasn't for the "human constructed denomination of the Catholics", you wouldn't have a bible
[/quote]Read a little Church history and see how it has changed. Nothing you posted shows it hasn't. The Church that existed when it decided the Canon of the Bible is not the temporal Church that exists now. Do you really expect me to believe that the Church then would tolerate pedophiles priests, gay priests, and Bishops who not only harbor them, but foster them? Do you really think the Church 1800 years ago would allow the majority of it's congregation to outright disbelieve what it calls the Source and Summit of Grace, the Eucharist? I may have fallen off a turnip truck, but I didn't land on my head.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1058859' date='Sep 8 2006, 12:35 AM']
Read a little Church history and see how it has changed. Nothing you posted shows it hasn't. The Church that existed when it decided the Canon of the Bible is not the temporal Church that exists now. Do you really expect me to believe that the Church then would tolerate pedophiles priests, gay priests, and Bishops who not only harbor them, but foster them? Do you really think the Church 1800 years ago would allow the majority of it's congregation to outright disbelieve what it calls the Source and Summit of Grace, the Eucharist? I may have fallen off a turnip truck, but I didn't land on my head.
[/quote]

The Church is composed of sinners, so while the proportion of various sins may have changed according the various cultures, the amount of sin is probably the same - we are aLL sinners. Pedophiles have always existed.
I don't know what the majority of people thought back then, since Gallop wasn't around to tell me, nor do I necessarily believe the polls of today.

[Resurrexi]

[quote] What do you think of the term.. mohammedans? [/quote]

It's a truthful word to describe those who do not worship God, but worship Mohammad's idol. I use it all the time!

[CatholicMonarchist3]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1058859' date='Sep 8 2006, 12:35 AM']
Read a little Church history and see how it has changed. Nothing you posted shows it hasn't. The Church that existed when it decided the Canon of the Bible is not the temporal Church that exists now. Do you really expect me to believe that the Church then would tolerate pedophiles priests, gay priests, and Bishops who not only harbor them, but foster them? Do you really think the Church 1800 years ago would allow the majority of it's congregation to outright disbelieve what it calls the Source and Summit of Grace, the Eucharist? I may have fallen off a turnip truck, but I didn't land on my head.
[/quote]
Nothing you posted shows it has, my dear friend. And do you have proof of this? St. Jerome put in footnotes of Catholic Orthodoxy. ANd, yes, I do think the Church is filled with modernist and rotten Bishops. It's really a post Vatican II problem because of it's ambiguos documents. Benedict XVI has spoken out against gay priests, and yet they're probably still allowed into seminaries. It's the disobedience of the Bishops (especially the USCCB) that is causing problems, yet the Church is still teaching orthodoxy, even if most of the Church's leaders aren't. Fortunately, the Gates of Hell still have not prevailed. It seems like your main problems are with the post conciliar Church.
*edit*
usually, Ephibophile priests would be locked up in a monastery for their entire life. Then after Vatican II you have disobediant Bishops giving them safe harbor and redistributing them. Also, a great number might be infiltraitors trying to take down the Church (likely Free Masons)

Edited September 8, 2006 by Alexwise the Hobbit

[ardillacid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1058872' date='Sep 7 2006, 11:51 PM']
It's a truthful word to describe those who do not worship God, but worship Mohammad's idol. I use it all the time!
[/quote]
you are one confused little dude

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1058859' date='Sep 7 2006, 11:35 PM']Do you really expect me to believe that the Church then would tolerate pedophiles priests, gay priests, and Bishops who not only harbor them, but foster them? Do you really think the Church 1800 years ago would allow the majority of it's congregation to outright disbelieve what it calls the Source and Summit of Grace, the Eucharist? I may have fallen off a turnip truck, but I didn't land on my head.[/quote]
"The world awoke with groan to find itself Arian." --St. Jerome

The Church has been through many trying times throughout its history, from within and from without.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1059025' date='Sep 8 2006, 11:03 AM']
"The world awoke with groan to find itself Arian." --St. Jerome

The Church has been through many trying times throughout its history, from within and from without.
[/quote] Trying times from within the Church? But what about your claim the Catholic Church is 'perfect and sinless'? I don't follow your logic train.

The Church is Christ and humans.
Christ is perfect.
Humans are not perfect.
Humans act in the Church's name and perform real and effective roles in the Church.
The Church is perfect.

Wrong conclusion.

Aspects of the Church may be perfect.
The Church may have authority.
But the Church does not always weild it's athority perfectly because of humans.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1059066' date='Sep 8 2006, 01:46 PM']Trying times from within the Church? But what about your claim the Catholic Church is 'perfect and sinless'? I don't follow your logic train.

The Church is Christ and humans.
Christ is perfect.
Humans are not perfect.
Humans act in the Church's name and perform real and effective roles in the Church.
The Church is perfect.

Wrong conclusion.

Aspects of the Church may be perfect.
The Church may have authority.
But the Church does not always weild it's athority perfectly because of humans.[/quote]
Although it is possible for Christ to have two natures, he remains one Divine person. You can't be two persons. Only a person can will and act as an individual.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Which means that the Church is his body in the same way that our bodies belong to us. Our bodies only act because we have a rational soul to animate and inform it. A body cannot be said to do anything on its own, except as an agent of a person. This is why corpses don't make many decisions.

Hence, when we speak of the Church, we speak of Christ as a person, and the his People as the Mystical Body. His Mystical Body is made up of many sinners, but, as explained above, a body is not an independent life of its own; only a person can act and will, and when it comes to the person of the Church, that person is Christ. To speak of the Church as a person, which it is, then it is erroneous and blasphemous to suggest that she can sin and err, because you would impute sin and error to God himself, who constitutes the "person" of the Church.

The Church militant directs the temporal affairs of the Mystical Body, but the Church militant is not the Mystical Body of Christ, or "the" Church as such, but rather "part" of the Mystical Body of Christ. Her mission is subordinate to the metaphysical reality of "the" Church, and she can obscure or sin against the Church as a Mystical reality.

However, to summarize my main point, it cannot be said that her foibles are those of the the Church proper, because the Church proper is a Divine person who can neither sin nor err. The Church proper is Christ the head and his Mystical Bride the body.

[Budge]

[quote]The Church proper is Christ the head and his Mystical Bride the body.[/quote]

well then who needs the Vatican.

You really dont.

Look to Jesus Christ.

LOOK UP to God.

Mar 8:25 After that he put [his] hands again upon his eyes, and [size=5]made him look up[/size]: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' post='1057635' date='Sep 6 2006, 02:20 AM']
ditto
I'd pray with anyone
[/quote]

pretty much the same for me.
prayer is not the same as worship at all.
Prayer is simply spiritual communication – this is a very basic Catholic teaching of simple Christian truth.

so i would pray with most members of "Abrahamic" faiths - Jews, seperated Christian and yes, Muslims.
even though i completely disagree with the twisted Islamic understanding of God; and as far as i understand it, i pretty much disagree with Islam on... [i]absolutely everything.[/i]




In other words: [u]praying[/u] (NOT worshiping) with a Muslim...
it seems no more criminal to me than voting along side a liberal

Obviously worship is a very different matter – and I think many are being easily (and unnecessarily) confused with this distinction.

[Era Might]

There's a difference between praying "with" someone in the sense that you have a common prayer, and praying "with" someone in the sense that you're each praying separately, but in the same area.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1059085' date='Sep 8 2006, 01:06 PM']
Although it is possible for Christ to have two natures, he remains one Divine person. You can't be two persons. Only a person can will and act as an individual.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Which means that the Church is his body in the same way that our bodies belong to us. Our bodies only act because we have a rational soul to animate and inform it. A body cannot be said to do anything on its own, except as an agent of a person. This is why corpses don't make many decisions.

Hence, when we speak of the Church, we speak of Christ as a person, and the his People as the Mystical Body. His Mystical Body is made up of many sinners, but, as explained above, a body is not an independent life of its own; only a person can act and will, and when it comes to the person of the Church, that person is Christ. To speak of the Church as a person, which it is, then it is erroneous and blasphemous to suggest that she can sin and err, because you would impute sin and error to God himself, who constitutes the "person" of the Church.

The Church militant directs the temporal affairs of the Mystical Body, but the Church militant is not the Mystical Body of Christ, or "the" Church as such, but rather "part" of the Mystical Body of Christ. Her mission is subordinate to the metaphysical reality of "the" Church, and she can obscure or sin against the Church as a Mystical reality.

However, to summarize my main point, it cannot be said that her foibles are those of the the Church proper, because the Church proper is a Divine person who can neither sin nor err. The Church proper is Christ the head and his Mystical Bride the body.
[/quote]If you could put shoes on what you just wrote, it would win "So You Think You Can Dance" hands down.

It's Catholics who are constantly mis-using the word 'Church' and misunderstand what and who in the Church is saying. This error is manipulated by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions, but with terrible results. The result is Catholics elevating their 'religion' to completely 'Divine' status.

[Era Might]

Well, I've probably said all I can say on the subject. To quote the great Bill Belichick, "it is what it is".

[quote]The Church is holy: the Most Holy God is her author; Christ, her bridegroom, gave himself up to make her holy; the Spirit of holiness gives her life. Since she still includes sinners, she is "the sinless one made up of sinners." Her holiness shines in the saints; in Mary she is already all-holy.

--Catechism of the Catholic Church[/quote]

Edited September 8, 2006 by Era Might