lyn1136

This ` is not proper as an avatar. They must be required to use alphabetical names--not bouncing balls or illegible unpronouncable characters. Where do I report these and when is yahoo going to step in?

Since Jan. 1 my answer points have dropped back to 2. Is this correct?

I'll give you some fuel to build your objective or deceptive arguments:

One "periti" at V-2 exclaimed on the steps of St. Peter's after Session 2: "We've just won our first victory! And this time we are staying!" He was referring to the "last time," when Luther defected. Why didn't the bishops and priests speak up?

Was Vatican II a “revolt?” Was it the “Second Reformation?”

Luther constructed a new religion using heresy against Catholic Doctrine. He disconnected his past.

Any informed Catholic who lived before V-2 knows that he has a new religion. He disconnects the past.

The two revolts are the same, aren’t they? What does it matter if heretical popes and clerics, like Luther, are speaking the new doctrine? Clerics and popes are not sacrosanct are they? They, too can sever themselves from the Faith. St. Paul warned them they could. Canon Law says they are severed.

The "reformation" was a revolt just like the Revolt of Vatican II.

Luther chose heresies for his new religion.

V-2 contains heresies directly condemned by past popes and infallible councils.

At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? It is the Catholic Church, of course, which alone is the one true Church of Christ. So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ – the universal Catholic Church – does not yet exist! For those who doubt that Vatican II was here denying that the Catholic Church exists we will quote Antipope John Paul II’s own interpretation of this passage.

Vatican II was therefore denying that the Catholic Church is the one universal Church of Christ. That is a slap in Christ's face. It is a heresy.

After that "mixing" was she able to throw out all of her Catholic authors of the last 150 years to show that all of their Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats never meant anything? As to why she did that, can anyone explain why?

The unorthodox and the Protestants had wanted her to "change." Did she change to bring THEM in? Or to bring herself out? The doctrinal books if not null then why discarded? If not null, then why do the Novus Ordo Catholics not read those doctrinal books, Ecclesiastical Reviews and Encyclicals to check them out and see if they are valid? If valid once, not valid now? If Doctrine indefectible once, NOW defectable? Does this make sense when we are speaking of the eternal Word of God? Had the Professors of Theology and the Doctorates dissertations written catholicly in their serious apologetic studies? The alternative is that the Roman Catholic Church been in heresy for 1958 years just as do the Protestants and the unorthodox and all the break-away variations of religion claim, and now the Vatican Church finally admitted it?

Does NewChurch place God above Man; confess to brothers first, and then to God? Was this all backwards, and now they can say the Apostles were wrong? That they should confess to their friends first? Is that heresy? Is it brotherhood? Is Brotherhood a Religion? But--- Is not the real teaching of the True Faith that the brotherhood of the Catholic Church is/was already a well-defined family arrangement? And it gains its new members by the usual family route: they are born into it — through the regenerative power of Baptism? And once baptized, they become, as the Baltimore Catechism puts it, sons of God and heirs to the kingdom of Heaven? Is this NOT the true teaching from all of eternity? Then why throw those books out?

Here is a list of a few apologetic books--books which Scott Hahn, and his once-friend and many other famous NewChurch members know, just so you can inter-loan them --the books are archived (hidden, lost or discarded)---and THEN comment, but not before:

Canon Fr. George D. Smith, "The Teaching of the Catholic Church"; Fr. Henry James Coleridge, The Return of the King";

Fr. Koch "Manual of Apologetics";

Fr, Prachensky, "The Church of the Parables";

Fr. S. Hunter, S.J. "Outlines of Dogmatic Theology";

Fr. Jos.Clifford Fenton, Prof. Dogmatic Theol., Cath.Univ., Concept of Sacred Theology";

Henry Denzinger, "Sources of Catholic Dogma" 1952, rev. by Karl J. Rahner, S.J.

Reply to A Christian Muslim Discussion?

Muslim questioner: The internet world finds every level of incompetence, ignorance and illiteracy possible. Only a keyboard and a screen and even a blithe illiterate can proceed, sans any literary skills or cognizance. But you are the exception. You are worse. You refuse --while claiming you are educated.

Do you see these references? The list could easily be 20 pages on the Mongol Period alone! Let me translate that: scholars wrote books. You ought to read them! Call up the Shah and demand them!

Your problem is the list is losing ability to take you seriously. You initiated the debate. References on your claimed religion is in question and you take to making ad hominum attacks rather than address the issue; you refuse to seek and read credible scholarly works. From your side it is seen that lack of serious discussion due at least to lack of information and knowledge appears to be chronic among Muslims and you are doing nothing to dissuade the argument. Apparently you cannot defend Islam. The argument in the major wins.

TO ANYONE WHO WANTS MY "LONG TOME" REFERRED TO BY THE QUESTIONER AND WHICH QUESTIONER DELETED, NOTE IT WAS HE WHO INVITED THE DEBATE. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT AN EDUCATED UNIVERSITY STUDENT DOES NOT USE SCHOLARS WORKS FOR REFERENCE! I WILL SEND IT PRIVATELY. JUST REQUEST TOME.

Source(s):

The Age of the Caliphs, History of the Muslim World, (624-1479), Spuler, Bertold, 1969; Weiner, Pub. Princeton. Bibliography contains over 300 titles published of hundreds of authors, 624 A.D. to end of the Mongols in Spain, 1609)

The Mongol Period, History of the Muslim World, (1162, Jingiz to the last of the Tartars in Russia, 1944) Spuler, Bertold, 1969 pub. Weiner, Princeton. 250 titles published, hundreds of authors..

The Last Great Muslim Empires, Kissling, Hans, J., Weiner, Weiner, Pub. Princeton, Bibliography of over 300 scholarly titles published.

Encyclopedia of Islam, 1936, 4 vols. (location unknown)

To convert the people of Makkah as his followers, he took the offensive against them. He adopted means which went against the hallowed traditions of the ancient Arabs and repeatedly gave offence to his followers—for instance when he caused a Makkan caravan to be attacked during a sacred month. He claimed “divine revelations” told him to do it. This tendency became more and more conspicuous in Muhammad, namely, to make supernatural manifestations justify humanly reprehensible actions, such as the move against a Jewish tribe in Madinah on the ground of a “revelation” permitting the breach of a treaty between him and the Jews if one of them was suspect.

Muhammad’s attitude towards Christians and the Mosaic changed considerably with the growth of his “prophetic consciousness.” Initially he had believed that both denominations would forthwith recognize him as standing in the line of their heritage and therefore concur with his preaching. When nothing of this sort came to pass, and when the Jews more and more drew his attention to contradictions in his revelations on Old Testament themes, he turned against them with mounting repugnance and seized upon what was, in the circumstances, the appropriate expedient – that of describing their traditions as intentionally falsified and presenting himself as the restorer of the religion of Abraham, founder of the Kabah and its cult. In so doing, he of course renounced the claim to be the first Prophet of his nation. This assertion was not open to disproof, though it was not well grounded because neither he nor his followers could read or understand the scriptures in their garb of foreign tongues. Even had they been able to do so, it would have been an easy thing to suggest that these writings had been deliberately altered by the ancestors of their then living devotees and that references in them to Muhammad had been excised. Common people, who know nothing of textual criticism or the comparative history of religions, are quite powerless against such a reproach, and even today a convinced Muslim will, when the Scriptures and the Qur’an are compared, hold fast to this view and so put every objection out of court (without proof). For Muhammad it meant that his alleged oversights were not errors, but rectifications by which the “falsifications” of his adversaries were unmasked. (conclusion of 3 pts. of condensed section.)

This has been a condensed version of Spuler, The Age of the Caliphs, History of the Muslim World, pp. 5-8. The full book can be found on many bookselling sources.

See previous Ques.How is Jesus, Moses etc.,

Little by little the band of Believers grew. Higher ranking persons joined. But Muhammad’s relatives in Makkah were divided. One uncle, Abu Talib, father of Ali who stayed with him; [Ali will later claim and slay his way to succeed Muhammad] another uncle turned against him, and in typical Muhammad style, Muhammad that uncle “Father of Hell” a Surah modeled on the old Arabic invective poems). Later such reviled statements are to become a tool of fear and control for any dissenters. Those who followed him, however, were unimpressed by the boycott of his family and could not be suppressed. Nor did Muhammed’s followers win over the majority of the Makkans. Even after the family deaths in 619, when he family protected him, his position (of self-acclaimed prophet) was grim. He migrated to Abyssinia and counted on the Christian support against the pagans. But his position remained weak and he decided to concede to the Makkans their three chief goddesses as at least intercessors with himself to God. Soon, he revoked his concession and his departure from strict monotheism. A compromise was no longer possible with himself and several godheads, and death threats on his life surrounded him. He escaped the murderous attempts by seeking refuge in Madinah, 250 miles north, a town rent by hostile clashes between two tribes, Aws and Khazraj, and between these and three Jewish tribes. A compromise could only be brought by an outside arbiter. Envoys from the town approached Muhammad and he gladly obliged to intervene in 622. This was a final breach with his native city, Makkah. From this event Muslims date the beginning of their era. Henceforth Muhammad had secured his authority. He overcame difficulties at first by creating blood ties [with forced concubines] between the settlers, the Muhajirun and the natives, the Ansar, and he issued an ordinance which obliged everyone to protect the Muslims! Here began the “royalty” of a lineage and of unjust rule, so much despised in other future countries in Medieval centuries.

This protestant has an honest reason. He sees the heresy and contradiction in the CCC. He quotes Paragraph 868, to him it is a truth.

Paragraph 819, the Protestant knows, is something he knows Novus Ordo catholics are not supposed to believe but there it is, in all its Apostolic glory. He knows that they don't hold it to be true, and it is against their new doctrine of Vatican II, but there it is.

The Protestant remembers when Catholics respected Pope Pius XII. And all the popes before him. It isn't his thinking, but he knows that no one would call those people uncatholic. What about today? Do they even know about popes before Vatican II?

The Protestant knows the CCC where contradicts itself. It states the opposite in Par. 868, which IS their new doctrine, one of false ecumenism and religious liberty, he, the Protestant, holds to be true, and THIS is against the Doctrine of Christ in Par. 819. The Protestant knows which doctrine can be found in any Manual of Apologetics, the kind of book these CCC people will never dare pick up and read. He has studied Patristics, and he knows. Christ's Doctrine puts an anathema on the false ecumenism and religious liberty.

It is to the Protestant's credit that he can point to the real doctrine, which for him is heresy, but for the True Church it is not. This Protestant knows the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and he is obviously smarter than the Novus Ordo who are reading the words in Paragraph 819 and don't understand them.

Protestants claim that popes can become heretics. Catholic Doctrine agrees. It is the Novus Ordo of Vatican II who deny it. No one ever claimed that a pope cannot become a heretic. In fact, the Canons of the Church provide the punishment for such a pope should he happen to commit heresy. It is that he is removed from office, and the chair is vacant. Sede Vacante, chair empty. This has now happened five times since 1958. There have been no legitimate popes since Pope Pius XII, a sainted pope. Is there anything in the bible that can tell us how many more of these imposters we have to endure before they are all kicked out? Protestants, you probably have the insight to know. Can you tell them?

Protestants! Help these Novus Ordo to return to Catholicism. As it is, they don't even make it as Protestants. They are Roman Protestants, with a mixture of any doctrine.

No Salvation Outside the Church. This is a de fide dogma, established by the previous popes of the past to which the Novus Ordo heretical church no longer obeys. Paragraph 819 is a perfect example of the heresy of the pope who wrote the encyclical on "Ecumenism" and "Religious Liberty," both heresies against the True Church. Many Catholics are still alive, raising their children to be True Catholics, in an era when there is no present Vicar of Christ.

Catholics belong to that Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII. Do any of you dare to not call them Catholic? The Church in hiding is found in private chapels around the world, not SSPX or any other such anagrams, but by individual valid priests who would not have anything to do with the heresy of Vatican II and the heretical church it spawned.

If anyone wants to know the REAL Catechism of the Church, the one that the Protestant KNOWS says what it is supposed to say, and is what Catholics believe, it is the Catechism of Trent, or of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the Baltimore Catechism. Vatican II will have nothing to do with THESE catechisms.

Can there be two kinds of catholics in the same Church? Nah. As there is only one Christ, and Christ taught only one Doctrine, He established only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and those who will be saved will be joined to Him in His Church on earth and in heaven, outside of which there will be no salvation. This is de fide Doctrine, intrinsic to the True Faith," de fide means it MUST BE BELIEVED. Cafeteria is not spelled C a t h o l i c. Prove it through any means you think you can, either Christ taught there is another

Church --or He didn't.

A year ago it was asked: Why does traditional Catholicism oppose Vatican II? It appears few know how to find serious answers. Moderators properly replied and yet the inquiries persist. This is so because the web is filled millions of sites for Modernistic Catholicism and only four or five sites to show what is True Catholicism. Even a casual inquirer would never locate a doctrinal answer. What to do?

The cautious inquirer should do this: Compare your impressions of today's Modernism with a catechism dated before the council of Vatican II (1962-1965), such as the online Baltimore Catechism, levels 1 thru 4. There are four levels, beginners to catechists. Or use the doctrinal level Catechism of Trent to compare encyclical content.

I add this. Modern Catholicism is a "mixture" of some original doctrine and some heretical doctrine. When this happens a "newchurch" is invented. It is not Catholic. The difficulty is knowing which doctrines are "new" and which are historically accurate. Which is which? You cannot have both. Modern Catholicism is condemned by Pops St. Pius X. One also can add, Modern Catholicism is condemned over and over by all the Church Doctrine prior to Pope Pius XII (1958). This is so because it takes the meaning out of a doctrine and puts a new meaning in. That is called heresy.

It is possible to acquire knowledge from websites so contact me privately.