The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 15 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 14 15
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Friends,

I myself have books with Islamic art that depicts Mohammed - but his face is always covered.

I no longer have my history books on Islam from SFSU, but I remember seeing images of Mohammad that were produced in Persia and Turkey that depicted Mohammad's face.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Quote
Originally posted by iconophile:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
841. The Church's relationship with Muslims: The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

Todd, as you [like the liberals] limit the Church's competence when it conflicts with your opinions, you are right: this conversation is over. I falsely assumed that we held to a commonly acknowledged religious authority.

[. . .]

-Daniel
Daniel,

First, the text that you quoted from the Catechism (which is originally from a document issued at Vatican II) says that Muslims "profess to hold the faith of Abraham," it does not say that they actually do profess Abraham's faith, but only that they claim to have his faith. But as fellow Eastern Christians you and I know that Abraham's faith was in the Tri-hypostatic God, because as the Eastern Fathers and the Palamite Councils affirmed, the patriarchs and prophets believed in the Trinity. Now this idea is not popular in the modern West, because historical criticism in Biblical studies does not admit that the Old Testament teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, but nevertheless, the Fathers of the Church held that it did.

Besides, the comment in the Catechism is not a definitive teaching of the Church, because again it is not possible for the Magisterium to issue a definitive teaching on a matter that is not related to the deposit of faith.

The Magisterium's authority is limited to expounding the doctrine of the faith based upon divine revelation and the moral law, and who Muslims worship is not contained in those sources.

Now if you can prove that it is a divinely revealed truth that Mohammad worshipped the true God, then, and only then, will you have proved your position as valid.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Rilian�s link to the article in the Wall Street Journal Amir Taheri [opinionjournal.com] is very interesting.

An article in The Brussels Journal by Paul Belien detailing the hoax behind the cartoons. The link [brusselsjournal.com] is strange but work from his home page blog. [brusselsjournal.com]

Evidence is quickly coming together that the whole cartoon fiasco is a product of Iran and Syria to be able to protest the �anti Muslim� status of the European Union once Denmark takes its turn at the rotating presidency (especially if the EU decides to join in referring the nuclear weapons program in Iran to the United Nation's Security Council). One of Egypt�s leading newspapers and a few other Middle East newspapers actually published them last October when they first appeared in the Danish newspapers. It was only when they were republished with much more offensive cartoons now that they became a way to organize a mob to protest a grievance against Islam.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Todd,

There is, of course, the matter of Christian courtesy and sensitivity to other religions - even if it seems that we are the only ones extending the courtesy.

Respect for others' faiths and taboos is something that everyone should practice and I doubt that the Danish journalistic perpetrators of those cartoons would have balked at doing something similar about Christian themes.

Reading the website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate earlier today, I saw that at its recent synodal meeting, it was established that a "celebration" of the 60th anniversary of the Synod of Brest of 1946 should be held in early March of this year.

It is stated that even though "historians have not arrived at a consensus on the significance of the Synod" that it did "restore justice by annulling the Union of Brest that was imposed by the Polish Royal power."

Now, when I read this, apart from the usual distaste for such Russian Orthodox propaganda, bending of history and refusal to acknowledge the ROC's complicity with the Soviet authorities at that time (also made worse by efforts to canonize Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk a "martyr of Orthodoxy" and this by people who lived under the Soviet Yoke and who should know better here), I get this feeling inside that says "what the heck?"

But we still need to somehow live together based on some sort of respect for each other. And real Christians are the ones who are called to make that first step in the right direction.

What those Danish journalists did was a dangerous experiment that backfired badly in their faces.

It had precious little to do with the issue of iconoclasm/iconophilism or other similar religious issues.

The same effect would be achieved, and is achieved, when there is racial tension in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

Islam is not only a religion - its resilience against contemporary paradigms of western-based cultural Christian techniques aimed at conversion of Muslims has to do with the fact that it is a defined spiritual culture and way of life rooted in integrated patterns of social organization and symbolic interaction.

The same is true of Buddhism and other faiths.

Also, to argue that the Koran contains no explicit prohibition against depicting Mohammed (whom Archbishop Raya at one point in his writings does call a "Prophet") and therefore, let's go . . .

This is a Protestant approach to religious analysis - like trying to argue against the cult of the Theotokos and the Saints because there is nothing describing it as we know it today in the New Testament. Tradition is important in other faiths as well as ours.

To me, what is false is not only all religions that are not of Christ, but also what I've described above with the respect to those who would celebrate the Synod of 1946 and turn a blind eye to the context because it would, ostensibly, implicate their Church in complicity with precisely the atheistic power that that same Church claimed victory over when it glorified its New Martyrs and Confessors in 200 AD!

That does not give anyone licence to hang up one's courtesy belt, however.

And if the Danish journalists, whom I doubt are pious in any faith, learned one thing it is that there are people who take religion and their religious culture very seriously.

It is obvious they didn't learn that lesson in whatever study of history they may or may not have undertaken in school.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Administrator,

No one held a Kalashnikov assault rifle to the Danish newspapers' editorial heads to publish the cartoons, nomatter what their origin.

A professor up here put those cartoons on his office door. There was and still is a spontaneous reaction among Muslim students to protest this as the promotion of hate literature etc.

Muslims will also tell us that when it comes to who "terrorists" really are, the U.S. is no country to have the exclusive naming rights to that term.

Denmark has had quite an anti-Muslim movement that some have, in the past, compared to a form of Nazi racism with respect to the Muslim/Turkish workers that are there.

But Denmark has only itself to blame for this now international issue. Certainly, there are those who exploit any such matter for their own agendas.

But did those sorry excuses for journalists have to voluntarily give them more symbolic ammunition?

Alex

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Todd,

There is, of course, the matter of Christian courtesy and sensitivity to other religions - even if it seems that we are the only ones extending the courtesy.
I do understand your position, but as a matter of faith I am compelled to say what I have said about the false nature of the Islamic religion.

I cannot say anything other than what I have said, because it is not charitable to lie, and so I stand by my comments in connection with the Islamic religion. Nevertheless, I have never spoken in a derogatory manner about a particular follower of Mohammad, and I never will.

That being said, if my comments are considered to be offensive, I will be more than willing to leave the Byzantine Forum, because it is not my intention to offend anyone; instead, my concern is simply to speak the truth as I have come to know it by faith in Christ, the sole savior of mankind.

Again, if my comments are thought to be offensive I will cease posting at the forum.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
I fail to grasp why it is offensive for a Christian to state plainly that Islam is a false religion. This is a well-known Christian belief. That does not necessitate or excuse various forms of libel - but "truth is an absolute defence", as American law puts it.

Incognitus

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Alex,

I agree with some of what you write. I didn�t comment on whether the newspapers should have published the cartoons. Good taste would have dictated that the cartoonist find a way to get the point across without such offense. I was only pointing out (clumsily) that the cartoons were originally published in October with minimal response and yet now they are the cause of mass demonstrations. What happened here? The evidence is falling into place showing that Iran and Syria have orchestrated the republication of these cartoons in the Muslim media but with additional cartoons (that were not published by the Danes), cartoons that were more offensive. A number of sources are reporting that the demonstrations are not �spur of the moment� but prearranged.

We�ve all seen worse cartoons about Jesus Christ or Christian religious personages published in Western newspapers. People complain (rightly so) but there are no mass demonstrations, and no one gets killed. And the Muslim press regularly publishes cartoons denigrating Jews, Christians and other people who are not Muslim. Here we essentially have some Islamists (Muslims who are extreme and who will use violence) who are demanding that Europe now follow the harshest version of Islam for determining what is acceptable for publication in European newspapers. Is this the beginning of sharia in Europe? Maybe. The Muslim minorities in the western European countries (like Denmark, France and the United Kingdom) have been demanding the ability to organize themselves according to sharia.

Yes, the newspapers were giving ammo to the Islamists. But the correct response to those objecting is �We agree the cartoons are not in good taste and are offensive. But we are not Muslim and we have a freedom of expression, even for offensive speech. We respect your standards but they are not ours. Go stick it.� A line has to be drawn. Does anyone really want it to get to the point where the EU passes laws stating that you cannot say anything negative about Muslims (what they believe or what they do) while there remains a freedom of expression guarantee to denigrate Jews, Christians and other peoples of faith?

Admin biggrin

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Todd-
"...and together with us they worship the one merciful God."
It doesn't say "they think they worship" the one God, it says they do worship the one God.
Your narrow definition of what constitutes faith and morals reminds me of slippery liberalism. I wonder how you can so easily dismiss the clear teaching of the Church.

The idea that the Old Testament prophets had a clear idea of the Triune God should present quite a surprise to our Jewish friends. Or do you think Judaism somewhere became heretical and rejected the earlier Trinitarian Faith?

Certain Islamic cultures treated the prohibition against images more or less strictly or loosely. What Muslims are reacting to is the ugliness of the caricatures, and I don't blame them [which does not excuse the violence, as many Islamic leaders have said].
-Daniel

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Quote
Originally posted by iconophile:
Todd-
"...and together with us they worship the one merciful God."
It doesn't say "they think they worship" the one God, it says they do worship the one God.
Your narrow definition of what constitutes faith and morals reminds me of slippery liberalism. I wonder how you can so easily dismiss the clear teaching of the Church.

The idea that the Old Testament prophets had a clear idea of the Triune God should present quite a surprise to our Jewish friends. Or do you think Judaism somewhere became heretical and rejected the earlier Trinitarian Faith?

Certain Islamic cultures treated the prohibition against images more or less strictly or loosely. What Muslims are reacting to is the ugliness of the caricatures, and I don't blame them [which does not excuse the violence, as many Islamic leaders have said].
-Daniel
The limits to the authority of the Magisterium that I have mentioned are a part of Catholic doctrine, both as taught in the Official Relatio of Bishop Gasser at Vatican I, and in the discussions surrounding the authority of the hierarchy when Lumen Gentium was being discussed at Vatican II. There is nothing novel in what I have said, and my point is confirmed by the Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei written by Cardinal Ratzinger and issued in conjunction with Pope John Paul II's motu proprio letter Ad Tuendam Fidem. In spite of your views that I am somehow subscribing to a type of theological "liberalism"; the truth is that I actually subscribe to the position held by men like Germain Grisez, Fr. Lawrence Welch, and Msgr Fenton, who give a more expansive understanding of what can be considered to be "related" to divine revelation by a logical or historical connection, and yet there is simply no way to connect Islam to the deposit of faith, that is, without apostatizing from the Catholic faith.

It is simply impossible for the Church's Magisterium to definitively pronounce on who the object of worship is in another religion, because that question is not found in the deposit of faith, nor is it logically or historically connected to the revelation of God in Christ.

In other words, no one is required to subscribe to the opinion of the Pope or the bishops in communion with him, when their views are not an expression of Catholic doctrine. Bearing that in mind, one can understand that the irenic comments made at Vatican II, which are quite courteous, are not of a doctrinal nature, and so no one is required to accept them.

As far as the "ugliness" of the caricatures is concerned, I do not agree with you. Some of them are boring, but none of them is particularly offensive. Biting humor, especially in connection with the evil of suicide bombing, which is promoted by many Islamic leaders, is hard to look at, but perhaps the recognition of the evil nature of a particular action through a cartoon is a good thing.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Quote
Originally posted by iconophile:
The idea that the Old Testament prophets had a clear idea of the Triune God should present quite a surprise to our Jewish friends. Or do you think Judaism somewhere became heretical and rejected the earlier Trinitarian Faith?
As I said, I know it is hard for people today to understand, but the Fathers of the Church believed that the Trinity was known to the patriarchs and the prophets. In fact the patriarchs and prophets conversed with the eternal Logos, because all of the theophanies were manifestations of the Son, and not the Father.

It may also surprise many people, but Judaism is in a certain sense a type of Christian heresy. The early Fathers saw the faith of the Church as the same faith that Abraham possessed.

Interestingly, the Vatican itself has placed the commission for relations with the Jews under the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and not in the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions, which is now called the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Incognitus,

Because "false" is a pejorative term and civilized people of different faiths don't refer to each other's faiths as "false."

I've yet to read about the Pope meeting with Muslims and telling them, "you know, your religion is really false after all."

In fact, far from this, he kissed the Koran at one time.

Truth is always mediated.

God wants all to come to know His Truth.

But His timetable for realizing that goal may just be different from yours or Todd's.

I really can't believe we're talking about such a fundamental Christian principle here.

Sheesh.

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Administrator,

We already have such unproclaimed laws here in North America with respect to a number of issues, including the Holocaust of 1933-1945.

Now, can you categorically say that a U.S. news agency or journal publication would ever publish cartoons in their editorial section that would attack the Holocaust, questioning how many Jews did die etc.?

That would be classified as hate literature and I believe even your free society would take immediate action against it - as it should, I believe.

What the cartoons in question did was attack a specific tenet of the Muslim faith, namely they attacked THEIR prophet Muhammad and THEIR religion has proscribed that - and those Danish journalists knew that.

And even YOUR United States of America has known racial riots, even quite extensive ones, as the direct result of perceived racial insults/attacks, very similar to the ones being incited by Muslims.

There is a difference between "freedom" and "licence."

Your comparison with the Christian situation only serves to show that, when it comes to defending their sacred religion, Christians in North America and elsewhere are weak-kneed horses-asses for failing to join in unison to counter similar attacks against Christian faith and symbols.

I think I've heard enough about freedom of speech from Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight - it is another case of naive American misunderstanding of the cultural situation outside of their own context.

Have a great night though! smile

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Todd,

The Vatican, Sir, used to consider all Eastern Catholics as second-class Catholics at best and placed our forefathers with the Congregation that dealt with outreach to pagans, Jews and others.

So what?

Only God may judge the validity of one's faith relationship to Him, whether Christian, Jew etc.

And love is the ultimate measure of all things.

As St Augustine said, "There are those outside the Church who seem to be inside it, and there are those inside the Church who seem to be outside of it."

Offending another's religion deliberately, as those Danish journalists did(who would probably think nothing of doing to our religious beliefs what they did to Islam's) is wrong.

It was always wrong for Western journalists to attack Christianity in the name of "freedom of speech" (and that is a questionable issue in and of itself).

It is just that the journalists are now up against a religion that won't be indifferent about such attacks and take their religion seriously.

I think taking one's religion seriously is a virtue that shows just how deeply we truly believe in it. I'm not promoting violence - although Christian history has had its share of violent reaction against "heretics" the "Orthodox schismatics" "pagans" and the like.

You name it, Christians have fought it and in the way that only Christians can - in the Name of Jesus.

The fact that we useless Christians have allowed our faith to be trampled on by secular journalists and others in North America and elsewhere, while Muslims don't allow anyone to "spit in their porridge," is a keen commentary about us.

Perhaps we are so very upset that the Muslims have shown Christians to be what we truly are - gutless wonders when it comes to making even a rudimentary defence of our faith in what was once a Christian culture and civilization.

You want to talk about the true Faith - I do to.

Let's show secular society some anger about its attacks on Christianity.

Until we're ready to do that, our faith is simply an academic exercise expressed on a chat forum with little or no further consequences.

Salaam!

Alex

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Dear Alex you said:

"Denmark has had quite an anti-Muslim movement that some have, in the past, compared to a form of Nazi racism with respect to the Muslim/Turkish workers that are there."

I say:

My experiences in the way Scandinavians think about the Turkish workers really goes back twenty years or so. They might not think or act the same today, but at that time I was under the impression that they found their Turkish workers quite adept in utilizing the benefits of their welfare system. Since the Scandinavians are very community minded and have a high work ethic, a manipulation of their system by anyone was bound to cause resentment.

To add to that, the Scandinavians truly believe their culture is more advanced than that of others, so it's easy to see where these secular values of Denmark would come into conflict with the religious values and beliefs of Islam. In that sense, I can see where there would be intolerance towards Islam and where it can be interpreted as a form of 'Nazism'.

Zenovia

Page 10 of 15 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 14 15

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5