Author Topic: Who will censure this passage? (Read 3775 times)

CM · « **on:** October 01, 2009, 02:03:31 AM »

I would like to know if anybody will venture to tell me if this is heresy or not. I will reveal the source after some discussion. Perhaps it may be a surprise, perhaps not.

Heresy or not heresy?

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: Catholic Martyr
"Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ."

Heresy or not Caminus? Why or why not? Can a 'pope' teach this proposition publicly, in his fallible capacity, and remain pope? Why or why not?

I am very curious to see your answer.

Said statement needs clarification-what exactly does it mean? is it mistranslated, or what?????

Could mean both breathed air, had skin, blood,etc.....but....what does the author/speaker exactly mean...??

Quote

Christ came to earth to establish firmly His kingdom and reign over man, who had prostituted himself to darkness. Being Divine and taking on a human nature, the person of Christ also assumed the role of prophet, foretelling the coming of the kingdom, until His prophecies were at length fulfilled in His very flesh...

...and as the Church teaches, "the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.(LG 16.)...But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (Jn 14:26)...

...great religion, Islam's treasure is contained in the Qur'an, which parallels many of the great truths of Christianity. This being so, it is not absurd at all to assert that Mohammed shared the same natures as Christ...

Alex · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:00:52 AM »

Let me guess - it is either JPII or BXVI.

CM · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:03:14 AM »

Please, I just want to know if anyone will call this heresy or not. Alex, what say you? Is the above citation heresy?

Alex · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:36:03 AM »

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:54:37 AM »

Belloc · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:19:55 AM »

Quote from: Alex

Let me guess - it is either JPII or BXVI.

either write ambigously......Like B16 recent encyclical, some good in it, some you say...what the heck??

B16 is very divided man, he cannot reject V2, but does not like it.....Fr.McLucas said it best, B16 has a traditional heart, modernist mind.....very divided...

crap statements like these from Vatican I ignore.....again, not meant to be official teaching, but warrants judgment on person themselves.....

Belloc · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:22:38 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Please, I just want to know if anyone will call this heresy or not. Alex, what say you? Is the above citation heresy?

I read and reread your quote, it appears there are passages missing, in particular between paragraph 2 and 3, what is in between....???

it states something, then has several periods, then starts about Islam......what is in between......will have to do some digging, but overall, the statements made by the writer are boneheaded.....

Belloc · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2009, 07:23:44 AM »

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2009, 08:08:26 AM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Please, I just want to know if anyone will call this heresy or not. Alex, what say you? Is the above citation heresy?

Not a heresy, but a perfect apostacy!

CMMM · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2009, 11:21:04 AM »

I don't want to be accused of cheating, but I would rather read the whole context, so I have been searching for it in context, but this appears no where on the 'web' but this very thread.

Could you, if possible, provide me with the whole chapter?

Caminus · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2009, 12:31:27 PM »

Rule number one when CM quotes anything: always ask for the entire context.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:13:00 PM »

Do you expect us to believe that we should think the author actually holds that Mohommed ontologically possessed both a divine and human nature? I'm not sure which is more patently absurd, the statement quoted or CM's interpretation of it. Though the reasons differ as to why each proposition is absurd, nevertheless, the convergence of their impiety is ironic.

Provide the context CM. I must insist upon keeping you honest again.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2009, 01:15:11 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Do you expect us to believe that we should think the author actually holds that Mohommed ontologically possessed both a divine and human nature? I'm not sure which is more patently absurd, the statement quoted or CM's interpretation of it. Though the reasons differ as to why each proposition is absurd, nevertheless, the convergence of their impiety is ironic.

Provide the context CM. I must insist upon keeping you honest again.

Should the author retract the statement? Should he be given his two warnings?

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:24:52 PM »

Further discussion is frivolous until CM comes clean.

CM · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2009, 04:43:46 PM »

Do you not have enough in those words alone?

What does it really matter to you what "context" there is?

Is it heresy or not? Do you deny that heresy can hide itself within orthodox statements? Is a heresiarch exonerated of the charge of heresy by his orthodox statements?