Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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...??
"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.
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...
Let me guess - it is either JPII or BXVI.
Please, I just want to know if anyone will call this heresy or not. Alex, what say you? Is the above citation heresy?
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.