Skip to comments.Archbshp Sheen's Prophetic warning of 50 years ago: Mary and the Moslems; The Significance of Fatima
Posted on 11/02/2001 5:42:58 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
click here to read article
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.If possible, they would even seduce the elect. The Father, who has called us, will together with Christ and the Holy Spirit preserve us. No one will snatch us from His hands. We shall perservere against all.
UMMMMMMMMMM LOL Lurking are ya? *grin* God bless ya Woody !
Well, the Church propagates doctrinal truths; wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture; and interprets Scripture infallibly, so your interpretation could be valid.
But how would this conform with the passage where Jesus tells us to take our disputes "to the church"? And if someone refuses to listen to the church, we should treat him as a "publican"? Why would He not send Christians to "the Church" to settle disputes if, in some sense, it were not the Truth? After all, he could have told us to take our disagreements to Scripture.
In fact, at least insasmuch as the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, It is the Truth.
After JFK was shot, Sheen wrote a book called "The Power of Love" in response. The idea for the book came from George Levy, a smart magazine publisher and good Jew, who contacted Sheen with the title, and Sheen took it from there. Very successful publication. My, how times have changed.
Ol' Binny doesn't cotton to that. There are some signs that 'mainstream' Muslim clerics disapprove of Binny's war...perhaps this will be the beginning of a split.
The original scriptures,however, some 2600 years on are only now starting to be proved in the world of physics,quantum physics,chaos theory etc,as for sodomy the history of the Talibans inception(to resolve a dispute over little boys)and their treatment of women would seem to indicate homo-erotica Nambla style is quite prevalent,also the Christian church gets to blush on this issue ;as for playing with ones privates and karma sutra stuff Buddhists can't hold a candle to certain Taoist sects.
Whilst the Dalai Llama might be a nice chap he is also,by necessity a political animal he can't very well come out with scathing attacks on China as there are a lot of Tibetan Buddhists still in Tibet,the correct Buddhist thought on the matter is to feel sorry for China for the balance of consequences Bad Karma or juju its accumulating for itself to manifest at some future date.
Yes, and the false prophets flourished exponentially a couple hundred years ago, denying the gospel of Christ and substituting a new false gospel that suited better their lusts and vices. ("Sin heartily yet believe even more heartily" versus the words of Christ, "Go and sin no more. Repent and believe the Good News.")
Whether or not priests marry has always been a matter of Church discipline, not dogma. And there are married priests in the Latin rite today, mostly converts from Anglicanism. In the eastern Catholic church priests are allowed to marry or, if they enter the priesthood single, they must remain single. Latin rite bishops are single, in imitation of the Apostles. I think the same holds true for bishops in the eastern rites.
If Jesus tells us to take our disagreements to the church, he must be talking about a visible, discernable church. Otherwise He'd be speaking nonsense. A gathering of two or more people in Jesus' name does not constitute the church. Even the passage doesn't imply that.
In all fairness, most who say those things are ex-Catholic themselves, so you can't really call them ignorant. They simply look upon their upbringing differently than you do.
LOL! ME too! Of course, according to some here, the fact that we no longer place crowns of flowers on statues heads, or bless throats(I could never figure that one out), or incessantly light candles, simply means that we have lost our minds and never really "got it" to begin with. LOL!
Ah, but they DO imitate Jesus.
Frankly, I find former Catholics to be the most ignorant of the real teachings of Catholicism, and, as you noted, the most offensive. If they knew the faith, they would not have left it. Of course, a large percentage, a majority in my experience, are "emotional," not "intellectual" converts.
Emotional converts are the divorced & remarried, the "Father So-and-so was mean to my dad," "Sister Such-and-such hit my knuckles with a ruler," and those easily swayed by the emotionalism and feel-good-ism of the simplistic false gospels out there since 1517.
Few are truly "intellectual" converts. Few leave the Church after having honestly studied the faith, the teachings of the early Christians, and the historical interpretation of scripture. The honest intellectual conversions by and large go through a one way door, into sacramental Christianity. When you talk to the rest long enough, you find the hurt or the insult or the other emotional aspect that precipitated the conversion. You also find that by offering a resolution to that emotional trauma, you can readily bring them home to Rome.
...What I stated in that post is noting compared to what has been said to me personally and what has been said about my Faith on this forum.
I think the key may be that a doctrinal disagreement should not be with confused with an attack on you personally. But if you feel you are being insulted, then take it like this:
1 Peter 3:9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.
1 Peter 4:14
If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
I've had some pretty good knock-down-drag-out doctrinal disputations with my FRiends patent, SoothingDave and Romulus, et al and they have yet to call me a terrorist. I don't say that because you called me any names, but after 9/11 the comparison of non-Roman Catholic Christians to terrorists is too raw to the memory of any "fundys" and "Bible only" Christians who no doubt perished in the planes and towers alongside some good Roman Catholics.
OK, my apologies. Rebuke rightfully made, and humbly accepted. I was wrong, and yes I was being uncharitable and setting a poor example for my Christian brothers and sisters here. I already apologized privately to one of my Catholic peers here for giving scandal by my anger on this thread (no better way to gut your witness and patient efforts at apologetics than to get angry and return insult with insult, as you point out), and he defended you:
My comment: "By the way, unfortunately I really lost my temper on this thread when the Jack Chick brigade showed up. I really blew it. Sorry."
His reply: Kind of got a kick out of it, actually. Diamond is pretty mellow, he isnt a "Catholics are the antichrist type," but he wasnt your initial target anyway.
Again, my aplogies,
Some would say we are waging an undeclared war against Islam, since 9/11
"Diamond is pretty mellow, he isnt a "Catholics are the antichrist type"
If I were to call Roman Catholics the antichrist then I would have to believe that I've been sleeping with a whore of Babylon for 22 years - "Wouldn't be prudent" (hehehe)
Stopped going to mass when he was in the Navy, got out at his wife's request and moved back to Ohio.
She wouldn't convert, and he'd kind of fallen by the wayside, so they found a little 'church in the wildwood' kind of place.
He went at it with all the fury of the convert; not only abandoning all trappings of Catholicism, but going to church three or four times a week, and eventually deciding to be a minister.
He 'studied' for three months. I can only compare this to mainline protestant sects, which, I am told, require a four year degree, and to Catholicism which requires four years of counseling and psychology studies plus four more years of theology. Needless to say, I had my doubts.
Anyway, he becomes a minister. I was unable to make the 'swearing in', but my brother-in-law gave me a general run-down. Some requisite Catholic bashing, followed by inductions, followed by some faith healing. Did you know that unemployment can be healed? Yep. So said the priestess: "Within the week, this woman will have a job."
Never did here whether that worked or not.
Unfortunately, this new minister was every bit as good a Protestant as he had been a Catholic. Last I heard, he was trying to become a fireman.
Ratzginer always has to get a dig in to confirm our low opinion of him doesn't he? I wonder when he will renounce his obnoxious VCII-era writings about the "senselessness" of Adoring the Eucharistic Host because "God is everywhere".
Here are three Scriptural passages that have to be reconciled:
1) Jesus established a Church that he said "the gates of hell would not prevail against." (Matthew 16:17-19)
2) Jesus told us to take our disagreements to "the church." Logically, this must be the Church that He established. And it must be a visible, discernable, united Church. Christ wouldn't recommend that we settle disputes in an unidentifiable church. And He wouldn't recommend that we go to one of many churches with conflicting doctrines to settle doctrinal disputes, among other disputes. (Matthew 18:15-18)
3) The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." This reinforces the idea that Christ would not instruct us to settle disputes in churches that cannot agree on the truth; churches with competing doctrines.(1 Timothy 3:14-16)
Now only two churches have been around since Pentacost: the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
These facts (along with the violent nature of Mohammedanism) have me convinced that it was Satan that visited Mohammed, not Gabriel.
I hope Bishop Sheen was right.
The first person to doubt the genuineness of the Quranic revelations was Mohammed himself. This was at the very beginning of his career, when during his Ramadhaan retreat outside Mecca in AD 610, he had an audio-visual experience in which he both heard and saw the archangel Gabriel, calling upon him to Recite! (Qarâ, whence Qurân). Upon receiving his first revelation, Mohammed thought he was going mad, or in the parlance of those days, that he was getting possessed by an evil spirit.
He didnt want to spend the rest of his life as Meccas village idiot, and so, preferring death to disgrace, he decided to throw himself from a high rock: Now none of Gods creatures was more hateful to me than an ecstatic poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed Never shall Quraish [i.e. his fellow tribesmen of the Quraish tribe] say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. (Ibn Ishaqs Sîrat Rasûl Allah, tra. Alfred Guillaume: The Life of Mohammed, OUP Karachi, p.106/153)
The history of Islam could have ended there and then, with Mohammed escaping the spell of the alleged evil spirit by jumping to his death. But the ghost himself came to the rescue, as Mohammed testified: So I went forth to do so and then, when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying, O Mohammed! Thou art the apostle of God and I am Gabriel. (ibid.) ...
Yet, at one point he did give in to the tempting idea of a quick way to bring the Meccans into his fold, viz. by accepting the reality and auspicious role of the three popular goddesses al-Lât, al-Uzzâ and Manât. A revelation duly arrived from heaven, saying: Have you thought of al-Lât and al-Uzzâ and Manât, the third, the other? These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is approved. (Ishaq/Guillaume:165/239) The Meccans were enthusiastic, prostrating along with the Muslims at the mention of the goddesses in Allahs company, and word even spread that they had converted to Islam.
But then another revelation came down, telling Mohammed that he had been deceived by Satan, who had smuggled these goddess-revering words into the channel of the prophets wahi or revelatory trance, falsely making it look like a divine message like all the others Quranic verses. So Allah annulled the Satanic verses and sent down the verse: We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed [viz. for acceptance], Satan cast suggestions into his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. The God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise. (Q.22:51/52; Ishaq/Guillaume:166/239) Since then, the Quran gives a corrected reading, this one properly revealed by Gabriel himself: Have ye seen Lât, and Uzzâ, and another, the third, Manât? ( .) These are nothing but names which ye have devised, ye and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. (Q.53:19-23)
Mohammed got away with it, the indignation among a few of his followers at this lapse from orthodoxy remaining brief and inconsequential. But an objective observer cannot escape facing the question: if the prophet could be thus deceived by Satan, how could he know on all the other occasions that he hadnt been deceived? The only answer the Islamic apologist can come up with, is the one given in the above narrative: God or Gabriel told Mohammed which revelation to believe and which one to reject as false. That way, the only guarantee of revelation is another revelation.