West-Islam Clash 'Not Inevitable', Says Catholic Leader

By Aaron J. Leichman|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

A clash of civilizations between the West and Islam is not inevitable, asserts the head of the U.S. Catholic community’s official international humanitarian agency.

View Full Image
(Photo: AP Images / Hassan Ammar)
US flags flutter next to a mosque on a main road during the sunset over the Saudi capital Riyadh, Tuesday, June 2, 2009 in preparation for the visit of US President Barack Obama.

Obama Speech Gets Mixed Reaction from Christians, Muslims

“In his recent speech in Cairo to the Muslim world, he (President Obama) sought out the common ground and values that unite all people of good will, noting that America and Islam ‘share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings,'” noted Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services, over the weekend.

“As someone who leads a humanitarian organization that works in the five nations in the world with the largest Muslim populations, I could not agree more,” he stated.

In making his case, Hackett reported how his organization has built strong and effective relationships with a multitude of Muslim communities around the globe.

“These relationships, built around shared values, are examples of the type of partnership that President Obama spoke of,” the CRS leader noted.

According to Hackett, partnerships with Muslim communities must be characterized by mutuality and solidarity, recognizing that each partner brings unique resources to the table, such as knowledge, history, finances, expertise and relationships. And, each partner must be accountable to the other for achieving results.

“In our successful partnerships with Muslims communities, we have found that working together to meet the needs of real people helps demystify our respective religions and cultures and fights attempts to demonize the other,” Hackett stated.

“As a result, our staff have benefited from amazing generosity, hospitality, and even protection from those we work with,” he added. "As the President noted, interfaith dialogue can and should lead to interfaith cooperation in service to others."

As one of the world’s largest networks of Catholic development and relief agencies, CRS works to alleviate suffering and provides assistance to people in need in more than 100 countries, without regard to race, religion or nationality.

Through its work, the agency seeks to foster within the U.S. Catholic community a sense of global solidarity, providing inspiration to live out their spiritual tradition of compassionate service to the world.

Next Story : 1 Million Christians Unite to Be Answer to Jesus' Prayer

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2

wrhalver »

Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:38 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Not sure what there is to fear.

The West and Islam can certainly be "neighborly".
It's being done in the United States now.

But can the two sides agree that Christ is Saviour?

President Obama says we're not really a Christian nation. So maybe the two sides can live in complete peace.
matthewr1 »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

(I deleted my last post.)

"A clash of civilizations between the West and Islam is not inevitable, asserts the head of the U.S. Catholic communityâ
matthewr1 »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:37 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "A clash of civilizations between the West and Islam is not inevitable, asserts the head of the U.S. Catholic communityâ hide
UKSaint »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:56 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

The good priest fails to understand the nature of Islam.
He has not forged an understanding with the countries. They are laughing at him while taking every penny of aid they can get. They see it as the non-muslims SERVING the muslims and a sign of Islams superiority.

Meanwhile, they kill, rape, persecute Christians wherever they feel able to do so.

Helping your neighbour is one thing, making him your master is another.

How can there be any partnership with darkness? Their (supposed prophet) Mohammed espoused sex with underage girls and had a 13 year pold wife.

The Ayetolla Khomemie ( who took over in Iran) preaches screwing 6 year old girls, but you cannot marry them until they are 9!

Just what partnership do you want with that?
Online4Him »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:31 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

believer and matthewr1,

Well said . . .
matthewr1 »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:33 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

It was the Papal Church who became schismatic, and apostate to the Catholic Church when she either declared the Word of God to be superflous in church doctrine, or a poor source of counsel (e.g., The doctrines of the Papal church on the forced celebacy of the Priests, in direct contradiction to Pauline epistles in numerous locations, but for reference, refer to, e.g., I Timothy 4:3).
matthewr1 »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:24 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Conclusion from all the preceding arguments.

It was the Papal Church, in her vile heresies, who became a shismatic to the true and catholic church of Jesus Christ when, she, drunk with her own self infatuation declared, "I have become great in both the sight of God and men, my doctrines are infallible, and I do not answer to anyone, neigh, not even to the very Word of God. My adulterous husband, the Pope of Rome, and I have become very wealthy, on breaking the backs of the poor, the weak, and foolish women. St. Peter's Cathedral is mine, bought with the blood of peasants. etc."
believer »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:56 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

cheisa, there is only one Church that can make the claim of being God's Universal Catholic Church and that is the Church that every truly born-again believer becomes a member of the moment they are saved regardless of what denomination they are an active part of to include the roman catholic church!
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:54 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Conclusion -- since the fruit is thorns and thistles, how do they bear any resemblance to the glorious apostles?????????????????????????????

The glorious apostles would not have stuck the saintly reformes up on steaks and burnt them alive, merely because they said, "Sola Scriptura"

Hey, remember when those popish dogs persecuted Wilcliff, simply because he wanted a translation of the Bible in English, instead of in the Latin (pretty reasonable, since we speak ENGLISH!!!!!!).
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:52 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Point is, Cheisa, sounds like those popish dogs had for fruit thorns and thistles.

St. Matthew R.
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:51 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

And again, Cheisa, you never directly responded to the issues I presented you.

So you are going to have to come back with some bigger theological guns to make assertions that "the mother church" -- That is, Popedom -- is the only successive church.

HEY, let's go from a different angle, SINCE YOU are not answering my questions, shall we??

Christ said, "you shall judge a tree by it's fruit"

Well, your church has for it's honor and badge a bunch of murderous, ravenous dogs.

Remember when those Popish dogs stuck our glorious reformers up on steaks and burnt them alive, merely because they said "sola Scriptura"???
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:47 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

"Apostolic succession:
Acts 1:20 "Let another take his OFFICE"
Acts 1:25-26 Mathias takes Judas' apostolic office
1Tim 4:14 gift of authority in Ministry conferred by the laying of hands"

I'm sorry Chris, but this is absurd.

You are building a systematic doctrine off of a specific instance where the Apostles elected, among themselves, another apostle??????????

So, they elect another apostle, as was prophecied. Where is the necessary continous popish lineage from Peter onwards found in this????????

Cut the B.S., and give me explicit bible references, explicitly decreeing a necessary popish succession.

The doctrine of the Pope of Rome is theologically expensive, therefore, you are going to need a HECK OF A LOT of explicit Scripture, specificially sanctioning it.
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:42 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

"History shows the laying of hands and apostolic succession in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches from the beginning. There are hundreds of books and letters written by the early church fathers that attest to this. So, it isn't that Apostolic succession is made up, but rather that Protestants can't show their connection to the apostles so they have to twist the scriptures and historical record."

Again, I politely ask you to give me explicit doctrine, explicitly discussing the power, authority, succession, infallibility, etc., of the Pope of Rome from the early fathers in the first, second and third centuries.

The onus is on you to demonstrate it, and saying "that there is" isn't going to cut it.
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:51 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Furthermore (again, I'm still going to give a more detailed response later), neither Cheisi nor Chris tackled the issue I raised.

Give me explicit doctrine sanctioning the power, authority, succession, etc. of the Pope of Rome from the first, second, and third centuries.

I want explicit doctrine discussing the powers, succession, authority of the Pope (the little ecclesiastical emporer reigning from the Vatican), etc.

Don't give me some B.S. lineage of Roman Presbyters, and say "there you go...". I want explicit doctrine discussing the Power, authority, succession, etc., of the Pope of Rome from the first, second, or third centuires.
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:42 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

I will give more detailed response in a few hours.

"It is only churches that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church who can legitimately claim Apostolic succession. Any church making this claim that is not in communion with the Mother Church makes this claim based on their former participation. If there was a parting of the ways, as in Protestantism, that chain is broken."

By what authority do you claim this?

Which standard can we Judge the Papal church to be the "mother" church??
Online4Him »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:39 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Cheisa,

Apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right.
Cheisa »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 4

It is only churches that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church who can legitimately claim Apostolic succession. Any church making this claim that is not in communion with the Mother Church makes this claim based on their former participation. If there was a parting of the ways, as in Protestantism, that chain is broken.

And many churches would like to be called Catholic, or universal. The Anglicans tried it as did others who sought that legitimacy, but they abandoned the adjective because they thought it undermined their break from Rome. They realized they couldn't have it both ways.
ID4234 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:02 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Rev. Hackett must not know much about the struggle for the Temple Mount. While I applaud his work, his conclusions are wrong.
believer »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:43 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

chris, and there are no truly born-again believers who believe the gates of hell have prevailed over God's Universal Catholic Church of which every truly born-again believer became a member of the moment they were saved!
believer »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:41 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

chris, Catholic Church yes, roman catholic church NO!!
believer »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

chris, and yet there are many Bible scholars who question if Mathias was truly God's selection to replace Judas and many of them believe Paul was truly God's man for the position.
Chas »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 4

Preach it Chris!

History shows the laying of hands and apostolic succession in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches from the beginning. There are hundreds of books and letters written by the early church fathers that attest to this. So, it isn't that Apostolic succession is made up, but rather that Protestants can't show their connection to the apostles so they have to twist the scriptures and historical record. The problem is History is too loud a speaker for the Truth of our Apostolic practice from God.

Good to have you back, bro!
msnchris70 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:02 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 4

Mathewr1,

Showing both Apostolic Succession and Peter's Supreme Apostolic Authority is quite easy. Scripture explicitly supports it and historical record concretes it.

Apostolic succession:
Acts 1:20 "Let another take his OFFICE"
Acts 1:25-26 Mathias takes Judas' apostolic office
1Tim 4:14 gift of authority in Ministry conferred by the laying of hands

All Catholic and Orthodox Bishops can prove historically a link to the original Apostles. You can not, and therefore no Protestants have God's authority.

Peter's special office:
Matt 16:18-19, and I will give you(singular)the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. What do Keys mean?
Binding and loosing authority is also in Matt 18 where all the Apostles receive the power to Bind and loose, but then why does Peter receive the Keys singularly?
Reference Hebrew Culture in the Davidic Kingdom:
Isaiah: 22:19-22
19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. 20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place THE KEY of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

This office described in Isaiah is a dynastic office to continue after the person who holds the Keys dies. Peter's office is a dynastic office as well, but unlike the old covenant this office will continue forever until Jesus comes at the second coming. Isaiah 22 forshadows Matt 16:19. The Old Covenant made Eliakim the Prime Minister of the King with the final say on everything while the King is away. Eliakim is the voice of the King. Peter receives the Keys from the KING OF KINGS, and Peter's office now acts as the voice of Christ on Earth and the final authority on all things under Christ kingdom as it was with Eliakim.

Jesus also uses the Shepherd analogy quite often, and just before Jesus ascends to Heaven He gives Peter His Sheep to be in charge of: Jn 21:17 "Feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my sheep" By having Peter repeat his love for him three times, he reconciles Peter's denial and sets him apart to be the Shepherd to God's people. Peter is the Head of the Apostles and His office will last forever and the Gates of Hell shall NEVER prevail against it.

Protestantism is based on the conclusion that the Gates of Hell did prevail, or otherwise we would have never left. Basic conclusion, Protestants reject Christ promise because His authority was with one continuous church. This is the Catholic Church from whence we all come from.
pvlman »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:38 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

A clash needn't be inevitable, but Christians in the West may end up making it so. Mostly because they think there is a too high a price to pay for peace. For all their posturing, they are reluctant to put their faith in their God that He will safely see them, and their descendants through rough times to live until the true end comes.
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:24 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

5 Con't)

Cheisa,

So, by your own admission, there is no biblical warrent for an apostolic succession.

Now, I have pressed you even further, by stating that the ownus is on you to provide explicit doctrines on the Pope of Rome, sanctioning his power, continual succession, authority, etc., from the first, second, and third centuries.

No such doctrines exist from the first, second, and third centuries -- theferefore, we have the testimony of Scripute, and the testimony of the ignorance of the early fathers on the explicit doctrines of the authority, succession, etc., of the Pope of Rome.

I believe this will lead any man who desires piety and truth to thus repudiate the strange and intricate doctrines of the Pope that have appeared in these latter times.

---

Truth in love,

St. Matthew R.
Online4Him »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:59 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Cheisa said, "It's amazing how little people know about the debt they owe to the Church for the very existence of Christianity and the Bible and most of the doctrines they hold dear."

No . . . the Church owes its existence to God not to Rome and it surely did not give us the Bible as you claim. In fact, the following doctrines are not mentioned in the New Testament: the adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, infant baptism, confession of sins to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation or tradition being equal to sacred Scripture . . .
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:07 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

I should clarify 3., a little more.

Since Jesus makes a distinction between -- the Word of God, and, the Tradition of men -- the saintly reformers (St. Martin Luther, St. John Calvin, and other noble men) have come along, and followed the noble path of Christ's distiction.

So they said -- Sola Scriptura (according to your intellectual jargon). What ever did they mean by this????

That the Tradition of men MUST ALWAYS be continually be back checked with Scripture. Always. Any extraneous, heretical, or superflous doctrine (that is determined by measuring it by the MERE Word of God) must be considered anathema.

I'm enjoying this debate, yours truly,

St. Matthew R.
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:00 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

chesia, II Timothy 3:16-17 is pretty clear that God's Word alone is sufficient!
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

p.s., I apologize for being sloppy.

I should have entitled my last three comments, 3., 4., 5., respecively.

As I am tackling a different issue in each comment, and each issue needs to be clearly titled.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:34 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

"The lineage of Popes can't be proven by Scripture which was only assembled in the 4th century of the Papacy. It can be proven by Catholic Tradition, but I'm sure you know that already or you wouldn't have asked."

Yes, and by the Catholic Tradition from doctrines that do not span back to the first, second, or even third century.

Give me a clear doctrine from those centuries, explicitly invoking the "Pope of Rome" and explicitely sanctioning all the authority that he has in the present day.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:32 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

"Have your rant, but it doesn't change the fact that all later Christian religions are offshoots of the Mother Church."

Again, I'd like for a biblical argument, proving that the Papal church is "the Mother Church".

You'll have to do a lot better than make bare assertions that there is a lineage of "popes" from Peter, onwards.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:30 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

"The problem with sola scriptura is that, one, it's a protestant invention never heard of prior to the 16th century and two, it promotes the idea that God stopped revelation after the last Gospel was put to paper. The One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church knows better."

You're dreaming.

Read where Jesus vehemently assails the Pharasees for contradicting the Word of God, for the sake of their man made religion.

By Jesus' argument ALONE (forget all the other biblical arguments we could appeal to), we have sufficient ground to make a legitimate distinction between -- the word of God; and the tradition of men.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:28 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

2.
"And Peter wasn't the rock chosen to head Christ's Church? You missed a couple of important verses in your BIble training, then. Of course, fundamentalists don't read that verse, literally, only Genesis."

You've got to do a little better than that. You are misrepresenting my point, which is, indeed, a straw man.

Go back and read my comment a little more carefully, and you will see my point is this -- it is impossible, on the basis of that tiny portion of Scripture, to build a systematic theology on the Pope of Rome, with a continuous succession of Popes after Peter, with all the doctrine of the Papal authority and power.

That was my point -- quit making a straw man of my argument.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:26 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

1.

"The terms Papist and unbiblical give your anti-Catholic bigotry away."

So I'm now a bigot because I say that the Papal church holds to certain unbiblical doctrines (e.g., Purgatory)??

Again, "papist" is an intentional term, read my post to MSN if you are interested in my justification.

I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot better than hide behind the term "bigot" to pursuade me that I'm in the wrong.

2.

"It's a fact that the Bible alone was nevr the basis for faith in the early church."

You're wrong. It was.

The Scriptures were still held to be authoratative, but there was still debate until the council of Nicea got together and settled the dispute once and for all.

Where does did the church derive it's apostolic teachings? The authoratiative letters of Paul, etc., that were uncontested even as far back as the letter of Clement.

NOTE:
And I'm afraid the Pope wasn't in that council either. The current bishop of Rome was, but the Pope wasn't. He wasn't dreamed up until church doctrine kept digressing further from biblical doctrine.

Don't believe me? Read your church history. I refuse to get into this tedious task, though, for the sake of brevity (refer to The Institutes of the Christian Religion for a more detailed discussion).
Cheisa »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

The lineage of Popes can't be proven by Scripture which was only assembled in the 4th century of the Papacy. It can be proven by Catholic Tradition, but I'm sure you know that already or you wouldn't have asked.

Again, one of the shortcomings of sola scriptura.
Cheisa »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

The terms Papist and unbiblical give your anti-Catholic bigotry away. It's a fact that the Bible alone was nevr the basis for faith in the early church. Tradition, a passing on of the Truth from the Apostles on had to do until the Catholic Church codified the New Testament in the middle 4th century. That's a fact you can check in any reliable history book.

And Peter wasn't the rock chosen to head Christ's Church? You missed a couple of important verses in your BIble training, then. Of course, fundamentalists don't read that verse, literally, only Genesis.

The problem with sola scriptura is that, one, it's a protestant invention never heard of prior to the 16th century and two, it promotes the idea that God stopped revelation after the last Gospel was put to paper. The One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church knows better.

Have your rant, but it doesn't change the fact that all later Christian religions are offshoots of the Mother Church.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

MSN,

Yes, I call you Papists, quite unapologetically.

I could give a rip about being politically correct, I'm more concerned about wholesome biblical doctrine.

I refuse to call you "catholic", except insofar as you are a member of the "true church" that is united as members under the head of Christ.

Papists is more descriptive, because it is the Papal church we are referring to, which, at best, is a coequal member of the Body of Christ (the true and holy Catholic Church).

However, you do claim to be in pursuit of truth. So I will engage you.

Prove to me, by means of biblical argument, this statement I made in another post,

"But let's for sake of argument grant that from this small portion of Scripture, we can legitimately justify Peter being the Pope of Rome, the little ecclesiastical emporer reigning from the Vatican, with all the ecclesiastical power that the Pope has. Where does Scripture institute a necessary continuous lineage from Peter?????????????????"

Prove, by means of biblical argument, a necessary, continuous lineage of "popes" to succeed Peter. It must be a mere biblical argument (i.e., no Church doctrines may be invoked).

Notice how generous I am being, because I am granting that Peter is a "pope" (with all the doctrinal baggage associated therein). This is indeed a stretch, because there is no biblical grounding for Peter to be the Pope of Rome (with all the doctrinal baggage associated therein).
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

cheisa, you're absolutely correct the secular world is very capable of meeting the physical needs of people, but God has called His church to meet the more important spiritual needs of people, what good does it do to only meet the physical needs of people and not tell about their need for a Savior, specifically Jesus Christ? What good does it do meeting only the physical needs of people and still know that without Christ they are going to be eternally separated from God in hell? Too many denominations have gotten caught up in the social gospel trap at the cost of losing their evangelistic impact on a lost and dying world.
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:50 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

chris, you must have stayed in the sun too long while you were there considering there are many Southern Baptist missionaries actively ministering in the Middle East. Or maybe unlike roman catholics they don't have a need to brag about their presence their!!!
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

chesia, the only person true Christians owe a debt to is God, to God the Father for creating us and loving us enough to send His Son to save us, to God the Son for being willing to come to the earth and pay a price that only He could pay for our sins, and to God the Holy Spirit for convicting us of our sin and need to be saved, for writing and sealing our names in the Lamb's Book of Life the moment we are saved, and for indwelling us the moment we are saved to equip, enable, and empower us to live an effective Christian life. We owe a debt to no one else but God.
msnchris70 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Believer,

Yes, I did see a few non Catholic Christians. They were taking tours at all the Catholic Holy Sites.

I am so glad to be back!!! All my favorites are still here. Where oh where did STAR2 go?
msnchris70 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Mathewr1,

So now we are "Papists"? You are really showing your love of thy neighbor. Responding with Sardonic outbursts trying to initiate a belligerent attack is not so keen.

If you care to really dance, then I'll be your Huckleberry. Being former Reformed Minister holding Masters Degrees in Theology and Sacred Scripture, I believe I am well equipped to answer any question.

I am happy to answer any question one at a time. I will then ask you a question, and with due respect and cordiality you should answer to the best of your ability.

Care to duel for Truth? You must be equipped with faith and reason. Anything less and it will be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. :)
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:08 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

"The only reason why Wilderness you might still be considered a Christian today, is because of what you still accept that came to you from the Catholic Church."

This statement comes from a fantasy dreamed up from the pit of hell.

You Papists are sorely ignorant to the bible. It drives me sick to my stomach the pride, and self infatuation the Papists have. Who in God's name do you guys think you are?? Your doctrines are entirely unbiblical, your little lineage was dreamed up by demoniacs ignorant to the bible, and so forth.
matthewr1 »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:04 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"the debt they owe to the Church for the very existance of Christianity and the Bible and most of the doctrines they hold dear."

1.

"most of the doctrines..."

Like that unbiblical doctrine of Purgatory??

But if you are refering to more wholesome doctrines, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, then you are still wrong. Augustine wasn't a Papist -- because the Pope of Rome did not come to power until well after Constantine.

The Roman Catholics are going to have to do a lot better than draw a continuous lineage of "popes" from Peter onwards.

The ownus is on the Papal Church prove, by biblical argument, how Peter and others from the early centuries were "popes" -- with all the baggage of the doctrine on the pope.

Prove to us how Peter was the little ecclesiastical emporer reigning from Rome -- by way of biblical argument.

2.

"the debt they owe to the Church for the very existance of Christianity and the Bible"

This is a pretty theologically warped view. There are so much theoligal warping going on in this view, that it would be very tedious to unpack every error that is in this statement.

First off, what do you even mean by "church"?? Do you mean the true catholic church? If so, that there is no biblical grounds for giving the exclusive title to the Papal Church.

Or perhaps, when you say "church" you mean the Papal Church. Again, I'm hard pressed to find any biblical grounds for this. Especially when there is nothing in Scripture even hinting at Peter being the little ecclesiastical emporer reigning from the Vatican.

Perhaps you will cavil out on me and say "yes, what about Peter being the 'rock'". But again, this is a pedantic and wrentched hermaneutic of Scripture. Look at Revelation 2:27, where the believer is ruling with a rod of iron. Just as much as Peter is a "rock" of the church, the believer is a "rock" of the church as well.

But let's for sake of argument grant that from this small portion of Scripture, we can legitimately justify Peter being the Pope of Rome, the little ecclesiastical emporer reigning from the Vatican, with all the ecclesiastical power that the Pope has. Where does Scripture institute a necessary continuous lineage from Peter?????????????????

You are going to have to do a lot better than saying "peter is the rock" by justify the Pope of Rome and all his ecclesiastical power.

------

I could keep going, but I feel this suffices as a warm up.
Cheisa »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:05 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

msnchris70,

That's exactly why the Catholic Church is known as the Holy Mother Church. It's amazing howlittle people know about the debt they owe to the Church for the very existance of Christianity and the Bible and most of the doctrines they hold dear.
Cheisa »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:44 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Believer,

And you're not compromising the Word of God by offering aid to non-Christians. I contend that in these good acts of charity, you're actually fufilling it.
Cheisa »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:42 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Believer, So then you're saying that Christians cannot come to the aid of Muslims, Hindus or Budhists who are in need unless we are evangelizing? We should ignore human suffering because people aren't Christian? I know He wants believers to spread the Word, but I don't believe that supercedes our obligations to our fellow man, whoever they might be. I think Christ would be appalled if we used the Great Commission as an excuse to forego charity.
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

chesia, plus you might want to read the Great Commission which is what all Christians are called to do. While it is imperative we obey God's Great Commandment it is even more imperative that we see that obedience as a means to an end, the end being the fulfillment of God's Great Commission.
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

chesia, Southern Baptists are doing a great deal of work in the area of benevolence as well, but not at the risk of compromising the Word of God and more specifically God's plan of salvation, whereas it appears the same is not true for other denominations.
believer »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

How ironic, we haven't heard from chris or ihs in quite a while and lo and behold who shows up on the same day and site?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story