Rorate Caeli

Saudi Expert: If Pope wants churches in Saudi Arabia, he must recognize Muhammad

Interreligious "dialogue", anyone?

But then, why would the Saudis bother to allow us a church when they've got complete freedom to set up mosques all over Europe and the United States?

From the Pakistani Christian Post:



Saudi Arabia: No churches unless prophet Mohammed recognised, says expert

Riyadh: March 29, 2008.No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on thisissue," he said.

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

"If they don`t recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?" Ashiqi`s comments came after a declaration launched by the papal nuncio of the Persian Gulf, the archbishop Mounged El-Hachem, at the opening of the first Catholic church in Qatar last week.

The prelate had announced the launch of "treaties to construct a church in Saudi Arabia where it is banned to practise whatever religion they want outside Islam".

El-Hachem estimated three to four million Christians in the Saudi kingdom who want to have a church.

A member of Saudi Arabia`s Consultative Council, Abdelaziz al-Thinani, rejected the prelate`s claims saying that there were no Christians among the Saudis who were all Muslims.

"Those few Christians do not reside in the country permanently, they come and go," he said. He denied there were four million Christians in the kingdom and said the issue of human rights should not be used to call for the construction of a Christian church.

Most of Saudi Arabia`s Christians are foreign workers. There are 8.2 million foreign workers in a country of 25.6 million people according to a report by the Saudi Labour Ministry.

33 comments:

A Simple Sinner said...

We do recognize Mohammed.....



...... as a heretic.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Umm, isn't "infidel" the proper term? ;P

Anonymous said...

Fr. Stephen, O.F.M. writes:

In dialogue the speakers are expected to conduct the conversation with reason as a sine qua non condition in any dialogue
in order for the contact to be mutually meaningful.
However, an exercise of forcing the other participant merely to submit, both undermines and precludes any hoped for "dialogue" or common word.
The expectation demonstrated here above by these Muslim speakers do not meet the first basis for a meaningful dialogue.
Would a proposal from the West demand that mosques in France, Germany, Italy, in the UK and the US and everywhere else be closed, unless all Muslims recognize Jesus Christ? The Muslim reception of such a demand is not difficult to predict.
It is evident that the Islamist positions proposed here above stifle any common ground, least an accomodation with basic human rights, but rather demand self-surrender by all Non-Muslim positions.
Faith without reason promotes and leads to blinded terror. Muslims need to recognize that Muhammad is not a prophet, but a blind guide, and cannot save anyone.
However, Jesus Christ died for all Muslims and offers them still, as to all men, forgiveness and peace through His Cross and Eternal Life with God by His Resurrection. God loves the Muslims, as much as any other people. Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all men, including all Muslims. Jesus Christ alone is the Savior and offers us all true Peace.
Fr. Stephen, O.F.M.

Dan said...

Ok we all know Benedict XVI answer to this query is ....

Jordan Potter said...

In the words of my patron St. Polycarp to the heresiarch Marcion:

"I do recognise you -- as the firstborn of Satan."

The absurdity of the Muslim response is almost amazing. "We'd like to build a Christian church." "Okay, you can do that, as long as the church is a Muslim mosque."

Most interreligious dialogue today is a dubious venture anyway, but dialogue with Wahabbi Islam is certainly pointless.

Viator Catholicus said...

St. Thomas Aquinas recognized Muhammad! "[Muhammad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us.... he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly." (SCG 1,6.4)
http://www.diafrica.org/kenny/CDtexts/ContraGentiles1.htm#6

Vox said...

Well...St. Ambrose Church in Buffalo, New York certainly recognises him...

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-windows-from-st-ambrose-in_05.html

Anonymous said...

I'm a muslim, and quite simply am amazed at the arrogance of the comments posted on this site.

Although I dont entirely agree with the Saudi's position, I can see exactly why the stance.

As Christians rightfully accepted the message of God's messenger Jesus (God's peace be upon him), he (Jesus) abrogated Moses'(God's peace be upon him) religion so as far as Christians should be concerned, there is no need for synagogues anymore.

Similarly, Islam abrogated the religion of Jesus (God's peace be upon him) and therefore a muslim state should see no requirement for a christian institute

Anonymous said...

The anonymous Muslim poster is the breath of fresh air in a stale room.

His religion is quite clear, in asserting that it obsoletes the Christian religion.

Therefore why on earth would they permit Churches?

If anyone wishes to know why the Muslim absurdity- the utterly false Mohammedan deception-- now boasts more adherents than the Holy Catholic Church, then it is time for the remnant who hold the actual, as opposed to the post-modernist counterfeit of the Catholic Faith, to clearly affir that the responsibility lies squarely with the criminal failure of the episcopacy of the Catholic Church to preach the gospel these past several decades.

This awful, mortally sinful failure involves "another gospel", a gospel unknown to the Church of All Ages, a false "gospel" of "You can build a mosque if I can build a Church, and we will all agree how wonderful each other's faith is".

Such a false gospel, repudiating as it does our Lord's command to make disciples of all nations, has led to the shocking spectacle of a Muslim Europe within the lifetimes of our children.

A terrible judgement awaits the "ecumaniacs", as well as their cringing apologists.

Jordan Potter said...

Similarly, Islam abrogated the religion of Jesus (God's peace be upon him)

That's how Muslims see things, of course. Thankfully that's not true.

and therefore a muslim state should see no requirement for a christian institute

Sure, it's quite understandable that a Muslim state would not want to permit Christianity, much as the pagan Roman Empire did not permit Christianity. What's notable here, however, is the stipulation, "We'll let you build a Christian church as long as it is a Muslim mosque." That's like telling a husband, "We'll let you procreate, as long as you let us castrate you first." Christianity simply cannot recognise Muhammad as a true prophet of God, because then it ceases to be Christianity. Much as Islam cannot recognise Jesus as who He really is, because then it ceases to be Islam.

Jordan Potter said...

Those photos from St. Ambrose Church in Buffalo are absolutely sickening. What an abomination. Is it a Catholic church or a pagan New Age temple? Those windows must all be removed and the church cleansed and rededicated to the one true God -- or just take a wrecking ball to the whole thing and sow the ground with salt.

Anonymous said...

Is there one Muslim able to identify the "common" ground between Muslim and Christian?
I welcome to hear such voice?

Anonymous said...

I dont know the essentials of the Muslim faith. Is it not true that the Muslim faith judges all non-Muslims as infidels?
If this is true, there cannot be any semblance of dialogue between the them.
If that is true, the present push for a "dialogue" is a global suicide plot. "All knee shall bend to the name of Jesus on earth, in heaven and under the earth."
Lord Jesus, come!

Anonymous said...

Both John the Baptist and Our Lord said that penance must precede the Kingdom.
Folks, it is high time to begin. That was the Message of Our Lady at Fatima!
The angle cried:
Penance! Penance! Penance!

Anonymous said...

Muslims! Christians! And men of good will!
Grave times we are living in:
But today we celebrate God become man, the feast of the Incarnation!
In my prayers I reflected on reading Pope Leo the Great!
He said that the Son of God by becoming man emptied Himself of His divine Glory in order to save sinful mankind. Here is the Church's great mission model of the Christ (Messiah) Jesus!
God becoming man accepted the FORM of SINFUL men, though never sinned(!) and made it possible for sinful men to come to Him. The Pope is apparently sees this model of the Son of God for the Church to follow. Therefore, the Pope is reaching out to Islam as to all others. So, what is ACCEPTABLE in Islam, we can support and embrace, and that may is the WAY to reach the heart of the Muslim soul. We teach and believe that Christ died for the Muslims as well as for all men, and loves us all, sinners, and calls us all, sinners, to turn to Him in repentance. The Muslims, creatures of God, loved by God, are not to be condemned, but to be saved. (This is the teaching of Christ, that will never become obsolete, as He Himself said: MY WORDS SHALL NEVER PASS AWAY! We must witness to Muslims as well as to all men of God's love and no less the words of Christ's saving Word of Eternal Life: Christ crucified for the sins of us all! The Muslims must be called on to come to Christ, as St Francis did to the Sultan of Egypt already 800 years ago. Our fate is in the Model of Christ, Who died a martyr's death for all sinners! The Church is Christ extended in time and space. I believe God is calling on Christians to be "witnesses" to the world, in Greek word: "Martyrs" for the Truth, Who is Christ.
Our faith is being tested and purified by the present age. As Mary said, My Immaculate Heart shall triumph. We Christians are called to be the instruments in God's salvific plan. By our blood the Church and the world will be purified and saved in the way Christ taught and showed by His own example, we just celebrated in the Easter Mystery. Let us pray. Let us fast and begin to serve Christ! A follower of St Francis.

Miguel José Ernst-Sandoval said...

Anonymous wrote: "I'm a muslim, and quite simply am amazed at the arrogance of the comments posted on this site."

I think the tension has to do with the fact that the Saudi government petitioned the Holy See for many years to help get a mosque in Rome for the diplomatic corps from Muslim countries. Now that it is time to return the favor, however, we see some hypocrisy that is worthy of the Israelis.

Another anonymous also wrote: "Is there one Muslim able to identify the "common" ground between Muslim and Christian? I welcome to hear such voice?"

I am not a Muslim, but a Roman Catholic. however, I can point out some common ground:

1.) Catholics and Muslims believe in one God.

2.) Catholics and Muslims both believe that Jesus is the Messiah prophecied in the Old Testament.

3.) Catholics and Muslims believe in the Virgin Birth and have great respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

4.) Catholics and Muslims believe in almsgiving and fasting.

5.) catholics and Muslims both believe in praying several times a day--The Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours for Catholics and the Salah for Muslims.

6.) Catholics and Muslims believe in the efficacy of pilgrimages.

7.) Catholics and Shi'a Muslims believe in the efficacy of praying to the saints.

8.) Catholics and Shi'a Muslims both belive in the importance of sacred relics.

9.) Catholics and Sufi Muslims both have religious orders.

10.) Catholics and Muslims both pray for the dead.

Jordan Potter said...

Father Botros practices the right kind of interreligious dialogue:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTUwY2QyNjA0NjcwMjExMzI2ZmJiZTEzN2U1YjYyZjE

Anonymous said...

Muslims have continually warred with each other historically in spite of the fact that they have more in common with each other than we do with them. Why should we expect any better treatment? Cain and Abel held many things in common, too, and that didn't matter either.

Unfortunately, what matters most is what separates us.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I recognize him as the money hungry, blood thirsty, womanizing butcher infidel that he was.

As for you followers of the afore mentioned deceiver and false prophet who visit this site and other Catholic sites: Remember Lepanto! Islam is from the devil.

Oh, and Miguel, you've swallowed the modernist clap trap that Catholics and Muslims believe in one God. Well, we Catholics believe in one God in three Divine Persons - the Blessed Trinity. The god of the Muslims is not the Trinity, and therefore a false god.

I for one see no reason to dialogue with those not of good will. Unless the dialogue is to convert them to the truth of the Catholic faith.

Jordan Potter said...

Oh, and Miguel, you've swallowed the modernist clap trap that Catholics and Muslims believe in one God. Well, we Catholics believe in one God in three Divine Persons - the Blessed Trinity. The god of the Muslims is not the Trinity, and therefore a false god.

You shouldn't be so rash and presumptuous. How does noticing that both Christians and Muslims say there is only one God equal believing that the Muslim understanding of God is correct, or is the same as the Christian understanding of God?

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

Mahomet is a prophet. Okay. Okay. Mahomet is a prophet.



A false prophet.


We had King Jan Sobieski, Deo gratias!

Anonymous said...

At the time of the Muslim invasions, a particular battle took place that was to seal St. James ever more closely to Spain, where he is known as "San Tiago." At the Battle of Clavijo in A.D. 841, the Christians had lost and were in retreat when King Ramirez of Leon had a dream in which the Apostle assured him of victory. He relayed his vision to his men, and the next morning he had his trumpeters sound the call to battle. There, on the field, the men saw St. James on a horse adorned with cockleshells, waving a banner. He led the Christians on to a clear victory, and ever since, the Spanish battle-cry has been "Santiago!"

That is what heaven thinks of the way of the muslims.

Stanislas Wojtiech said...

While Saint Thomas Aquinas considers Muslems to be infidels or heathen (pagans, gentiles), I rather see Islam as an extreme synthesis of heresies, which are Arianism (relicts of it), Rabbinism and Talmudism (from the Babylonian region) - Jewish, and Arab paganism (Ka'aba shrine, formerly idols sanctuary). That is why there are so many similarities.

But Islam is a carnal religion, a perversion of Christianity, and their concept of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ being the true Messiah of the ancient Israelites, is wholly different from ours.

I will quote Saint Thomas (Summa contra gentiles):
On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceed in a way that is contrary to this [the way in whcih Christianity was founded and converted the world]. The point is clear in the case of Mohammed. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teachings also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward what could only be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms - which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followes by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

The Saudis are hypocrites in this regard, and afraid of Christian truth, which will refute Islam wholly, as already Coptic separated Orthodox priest Father Botros is doing in Egypt.

Religious liberty as interpreted by Italian and modern Vatican bureaucrats, is a sign of decadence indeed and can become a heresy against the Catholic Christian Faith. The takki'yah Muslems like the Saudis skillfully abused it for their own purposes with their abusive excessive mosque in Rome, and now denying us a church in Saudi Arabia.

The guards of Islam are afraid of Christianity's truth. Islam is a religion maintained by social brutality, social mind control by threat, and isolation.

The anonymous Muslem writing here should realize that

1) synagogues were restricted but not wholly forbidden in Christian countries; only at times Talmuds were ordered to be censored, due to its extremist content against the goyim.
2) mosques were sometimes allowed too, e.g. in Bosnia.

But there must be due reason to it, and the Church only teaches religious tolerance, because social upstir and bloodshed would be against the justice of God too, unlike the Islamic ideology which holds bloodshed to be fine.

But tolerance is something else than approving modern false rabbinism or the false religion of islam.

Fr. Stephen O.F.M.:
Our Lord indeed offers salvation to Muslems too, but not inside the Islamic faith. Once they realize and are preached Christian truth, they must convert and be baptized, as there is no salvation outside the Church for those willfully remaining outside or erring without innocence, but with guilt.

I would very much approve of proposals demanding the close of mosques in public sight. Not of persecution of Muslems, as is done against Christians in Saudi Arabia, but I do not think mosques should be allowed in foreign building styles. No Islamic triumphalism in the Christian, well now: neo-pagan apostatizing, West for the freedom of which King Jan Sobieski gave almost his life.

Miguel José Ernst-Sandoval said...

Anonymous said: "At the time of the Muslim invasions, a particular battle took place that was to seal St. James ever more closely to Spain, where he is known as "San Tiago."

Actually it's Santiago or Sant'iago, which is a contraction of Santo Iago. Anyone who's read much Shakespeare should be familiar with the name Iago from the play Othello. Iago, not "Tiago", is the traditional Spanish name for James.

The name Diego is also sometimes translated as James, but this is not correct. The City of San Diego in Upper California was actually named after St. Didacus of Alcalá.

Anonymous said...

I thought that the Holy Father had already recognized Muhammad. Isn't that why he prayed with the Muslims?

Jordan Potter said...

Iago, not "Tiago", is the traditional Spanish name for James.

Yep, "Iago" and "James" both are derived from Iacobus, Iakobos, from the Hebrew Yaakov, Jacob. In Italian, it's sometimes Giacobo or Giacomo -- "Jacomo" is related to the spelling "James" (Spanish Jaime).

The City of San Diego in Upper California was actually named after St. Didacus of Alcalá.

Thanks. I didn't know that. I just figured it was named for St. James.

I thought that the Holy Father had already recognized Muhammad. Isn't that why he prayed with the Muslims?

No, that's not why he did it. The Holy Father is a Catholic, not a Muslim. He does not recognise Muhammad.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Potter,

Rabbi Jacob Neusner, the most prolific Talmud scholar ever, was called a "great scholar" by the Holy Father -Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p.71. Rabbi Neusner has this to say about the preeminence of the Talmud in Judaism:

"The Bavli [Babylonian Talmud] has formed the definitive statement of Judaism from the time of its closure to the present day." -Rabbi Jacob Neusner, quoted by Norman F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews, 1995, page 112

Current editions of the Jewish Encyclopedia advise us that Talmud is "Torah" and that it reigns supreme:

"Talmud --- The authoritative body of Jewish law and lore accumulated over a period of seven centuries (c. 200 BCE - c. 500 CE) in Erets Israel and Babylonia." -The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, Geoffrey Wigoder, editor in Chief, New York: New York University Press, 2002, ISBN 0814793996, page 747

"Originally, in order to maintain the distinction between the written Torah (see written law) and various traditional interpretations, customs and practices, the rabbis forbade the commitment to writing of the additional material. However, when it became too voluminous and chaotic conditions made oral transmission too uncertain, the ban was lifted and the material organized and transcribed in the form of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and other rabbinic works. The rabbis expressed their view that 'two Torahs' were given at Sinai, a Written Torah and an Oral Torah (see oral law) and that at least some of the oral traditions relating to the meaning of basic biblical concepts were as authoritative as the written text (see halakah le-mosheh mi-sinai) In a sense the Oral Torah came to be regarded as more important than the Written Torah inasmuch as the explanations and understanding of the latter depended upon the former. A third meaning of the word "Torah" therefore includes elements of the Oral Torah, which are considered authoritative or deoraita ---"from the Torah." Finally in its broadest sense, the word 'Torah' is sometimes used to refer to the entire corpus of Halahak and Aggadah, Written and Oral, from the Bible up to and including the latest Responsa and homiletical interprtations of the rabbis...." -The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, Geoffrey Wigoder editor in Chief, New York: New York University Press, 2002, ISBN 0814793996, page 778


"According to Rabbi Steinsaltz, Jewish mysticism - or Kabbalah - is the official theology of the Jewish people. Although the world of Kabbalah is profoundly symbolic and abstract, its teachings are of tremendous significance to the individual and to society alike. Its influences are evident in all Jewish spheres - the prayer book, the Talmud, and Jewish philosophy. Kabbalah is not a separate area of Torah knowledge, but rather the hidden, spiritual dimension of the revealed aspects of the Torah. These revealed facets of Torah - such as halakha (Jewish law) - speak primarily about visible, physical things; Kabbalah, on the other hand, speaks directly about spiritual entities, like the system of olamot (spiritual “worlds,” or graduated levels of reality) and sefirot (divine “attributes,” or channels of divine energy) through which God creates, sustains and directs the universe. It also discusses the interaction between those entities and the performance of mitzvot in the physical world. It is for this reason that Kabbalah has been called the soul of the Torah." - http://steinsaltz.org/dynamic/content.asp?id=65

Who is Rabbi Steinsaltz? He is the translator of the most recent English translation of Talmud (an edition that, unlike the Soncino translation, is not yet expurgated). He is also the Nasi of the recently reconvened Sanhedrin, the prince of the official court of the Jewish people, the man who today fills Caiphas' shoes.

Does every Jew buy into these teachings? Of course not. Most Jews know their religion as poorly as today's Catholics, but some very important mahers ("movers and shakers") do believe in the racial supremacism of the Talmud and Kabbalah:

"You are adam ["man"], but goyim ["Gentiles"]are not called adam ["man"]."

"...'living soul' designates Israel because they are children of the Almighty, and their souls, which are holy, come from Him. From whence come the souls of otherpeoples? R[abbi] Eleazar said: 'They obtain souls from those sides of the left which convey impurity, and therefore they are all impure and defile those who have contact with them.'...'living soul' refers to Israel, who have holy living souls from above, and 'cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth,' to the other peoples who are not 'living soul," but who are as we have said." -Bereshith 47a

"The best of the Gentiles should all be killed" -Sopherim 15, rule 10

Open both eyes, look at Zionist genocide in Palestine, look at the rabbis pronouncements published in Israeli newspapers that even women and children must be killed. - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Are you getting an inkling of why Jesus accused the Pharisees of "voiding the commandments of God for the traditions of men" [Mark 7:3-9]? Do you begin to understand why He warned of the "leaven" of the Pharisees [Matthew 16:6-12, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1]? Why He said: "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" -John 5:45-47

Let Rabbi Neusner explain it to you:

“... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself.” -Jacob Neusner "The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of 'Being a Rabbi' in Later Sasanian Babylonia," Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1. [Feb., 1970], pp.3-4)

Think long and carefully then why Jesus said what He did at Apocalypse 3:9.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73003.htm


Diego "Iago" Milagro

Anonymous said...

Also for our Talmudic apologist:

The very fact that the Talmud's claim of Jesus' closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge ... of the New Testament narrative, particularly of of John's version of it ... this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus' condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels' message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews ... What we then have here in the [Babylonian Talmud] is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility of Jesus' execution. (Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schafer, Princeton University Press, pp.73-74)

Anonymous said...

Yes, I thought so too that the Pope had already recognized Muhammad. He prayed with them, even adopting their customs while praying with them. I thought the perennial teaching was quite clear in Mortalium Animos. Why doesn't he obey the commission of 2 Timothy 4:2? "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine." Instead of preaching, reproving, entreating, and rebuking, he imitates. How could a real Pope do such a thing? It is scandalous.

Anonymous said...

Well, you haven't seen the last of this pope's scandals. Don't hold your breath that there will be any preaching here either:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008
Benedict to Visit NY Synagogue on Passover Eve, the Day on which the Talmud Claims Jesus was Executed by the Pharisees

Adding to the terrible omen of this visit is the fact that Passover Eve (Nisan 14) falls on a Friday (Parasceve) this year, the day that St. John records the crucifixion took place. Believe me when I tell you, the symbolism of this act of unspeakable treachery will not be missed by the Orthodox rabbis of the world, regardless of the poses they may strike for the public.

"On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth ..." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Steinsaltz edition, Vol XVII, Part III)

Read the rest here:

For the sake of His Passion
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/03/for-sake-of-his-sorrowful-passion-have.html

Diego

Anonymous said...

I am glad that somebody spoke up against Potter. His stock in trade is what the Holy Father called "studied ambiguity." He is much like Fr. Richard Sparks CSP who may barely mention Church teaching in passing, but then spends so much verbiage explaining "other viewpoints" that it becomes quite clear what the tacit message is. You should have seen his outrageous defense of the Talmud. He was as profuse in his insults of the saints, popes, and doctors as he was with his exoneration of the Talmud. It seems too that Potter has some sort of favored relationship with the censors here too.

Al

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention that Potter even boasted of his own understanding of the Talmud while insisting that the Council of Florence was fallible.

"Pride - Pride is the excessive love of one's own excellence...." Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12405a.htm

Al

LeonG said...

Anyone who really believes that muslims will negotiate meaning, as the ideological Vatican phenomenologists lend pretense too, does not comprehend the actual nature of mohamatenism. When they are sufficiently strong in Europe then they will bend the defenceless, hedonistic materialists of the EU with the iron will of their fanatical politicised faith and enslave the weak-willed European of the so-called liberty he imagines he posesses. The numbers grow each year while the white man's dwindles and they have noticed. Time is on their side. Abortion, sodomy and artificial contraception with some euthanasia with increasing sterility already condemns the future of the continent to such subjugation.

If you doubt this then read the history of the Chosen People - God disciplines his idolatrous followers even to the point of captivity and the destruction of the holy places.