Our Lady of Ransom or of Mercy

(Her Order’s establishment 1218)
The story of Our Lady of Ransom is, at its outset, that of Saint Peter Nolasco, born in Languedoc about 1189. At the age of twenty-five he took a vow of chastity and made over his vast estates to the Church. After making a pilgrimage to Our Lady of Montserrat, he went to Barcelona where he began to practice various works of charity. He conceived the idea of establishing an Order for the redemption of captives seized by the Moors on the seas and in Spain itself; they were being cruelly tormented in their African prisons to make them deny their faith. He spoke of it to the king of Aragon, James I, who knew him well and already respected him as a Saint; for the king had already asked for his prayers when he sent out his armies to combat the Moors, and he attributed his victories to those prayers.
In effect all the Christians of Europe, and above all of Spain, were praying a great deal to obtain from God the remedy for the great evil that had befallen them. The divine Will was soon manifested. On the same night, August 1, 1218, the Blessed Virgin appeared to Saint Peter, to his confessor, Raymund of Pennafort, and to the king, and through these three servants of God established a work of the most perfect charity, the redemption of captives.
On that night, while the Church was celebrating the feast of Saint Peter in Chains, the Virgin Mary came from heaven and appeared first to Saint Peter, saying that She indeed desired the establishment of a religious Order bearing the name of Her mercy. Its members would undertake to deliver Christian captives and offer themselves, if necessary, as a gage. Word of the miracle soon spread over the entire kingdom; and on August 10th the king went to the cathedral for a Mass celebrated by the bishop of Barcelona. Saint Raymund went up into the pulpit and narrated his vision, with admirable eloquence and fervor. The king besought the blessing of the bishop for the heaven-sent plan, and the bishop bestowed the habit on Saint Peter, who emitted the solemn vow to give himself as a hostage if necessary.
The Order, thus solemnly established in Spain, was approved by Gregory IX under the name of Our Lady of Mercy. By the grace of God and under the protection of His Virgin Mother, the Order spread rapidly. Its growth was increased as the charity and piety of its members was observed; they very often followed Her directive to give themselves up to voluntary slavery when necessary, to aid the good work. It was to return thanks to God and the Blessed Virgin that a feast day was instituted and observed on September 24th, first in this Order of Our Lady, then everywhere in Spain and France. It was finally extended to the entire Church by Innocent XII.

Our Lady of Ransom - September 24

Finding their power partly crushed in Spain, and in the East checked by the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Muslim Saracens in the 12th century became wholesale pirates, and scoured the seas to obtain slaves for the African markets. We shudder to think of the numberless victims, of every age, sex, and condition, suddenly carried off from the coasts of Christian lands, or captured on the high seas, and condemned to the disgrace of the harem or the miseries of the bagnio. Here, nevertheless, in many an obscure prison, were enacted scenes of heroism worthy to compare with those witnessed in the early persecutions; here was a new field for Christian charity; new horizons opened out for heroic self-devotion. Is not the spiritual good thence arising a sufficient reason for the permission of temporal ills? Without this permission, Heaven would have forever lacked a portion of its beauty.
When in 1696 Innocent XII extended this Feast to the whole Church, he afforded the world an opportunity of expressing its gratitude by a testimony as universal as the benefit received.
Differing from the Order of the Most Holy Trinity (Trinitarians), which had been already 20 years in existence, the Order of Mercy (Mercedarians) was founded as it were in the very face of the Moors; and hence it originally numbered more knights than clerics among its members. It was called the Royal, Military, and Religious Order of Our Lady of Mercy for the Redemption of Captives. The clerics were charged with the celebration of Mass and the Divine Office in the commandaries; the knights guarded the coasts, and undertook the perilous enterprise of ransoming Christian captives. St. Peter Nolasco was the first Commander or Grand Master of the Order; when his relics were discovered, he was found armed with sword and cuirass.
In the lessons of Matins for this Feast, Holy Church gives us Her thoughts upon these facts:
At the time when the Saracen yoke oppressed the larger and more fertile part of Spain, and great numbers of the faithful were detained in cruel servitude, at the great risk of denying their Christian Faith and losing their eternal salvation, the Most Blessed Queen of Heaven graciously came to remedy all these great evils, and showed Her exceeding charity in redeeming Her children. She appeared with beaming countenance to Peter Nolasco, a man conspicuous for wealth and piety, who in his holy meditations was ever striving to devise some means of helping the innumerable Christians living in misery as captives of the Moors. She told him it would be very pleasing to Her and Her Only-Begotten Son, if a Religious Order were instituted in Her honor, whose members should devote themselves to delivering captives from the tyranny of the Turks. Animated by this heavenly vision, the man of God was inflamed with burning love, having but one desire in his heart, that both he and the Order he was to found, might be devoted to the exercise of that highest charity – the laying down of life for one’s friends and neighbors.
That same night, the Most Holy Virgin appeared also to Blessed Raymond of Pennafort, and to King James of Aragon, telling them of Her wish to have the Order instituted, and exhorting them to lend their aid to so great an undertaking. Meanwhile Peter hastened to relate the whole matter to Raymond, who was his confessor; and finding it had been already revealed to him from Heaven, submitted humbly to his direction. King James next arrived, fully resolved to carry out the instructions he also had received from the Blessed Virgin. Having therefore taken counsel together and being all of one mind, they set about instituting an Order in honor of the Virgin Mother, under the invocation of Our Lady of Mercy for the Ransom of Captives.
On the 10th of August, in the year of Our Lord 1218, King James put into execution what the two holy men had planned. The members of the Order bound themselves by a fourth vow to remain, when necessary, as securities in the power of the pagans, in order to deliver Christians. The King granted them license to bear his royal arms upon their breast, and obtained from Pope Gregory IX the confirmation of this Religious institute distinguished by such eminent charity toward neighbor. God Himself gave increase to the work, through His Virgin Mother; so that the Order spread rapidly and prosperously over the whole world. It soon reckoned many holy men remarkable for their charity and piety who collected alms from Christ’s faithful, to be spent in redeeming their brethren; and sometimes gave themselves up as ransom for many others. In order that due thanks might be rendered to God and His Virgin Mother for the benefit of such an institution, the Apostolic See allowed this special Feast and Office to be celebrated, and also granted innumerable other privileges to the Order.

Blessed be Thou, O Mary, the honor and the joy of Thy people! On the day of Thy glorious Assumption, Thou didst take possession of Thy queenly dignity for our sake; and the annals of the human race are a record of Thy merciful interventions. The captives whose chains Thou hast broken, and whom Thou hast set free from the degrading yoke of the Saracens, may be reckoned in the millions. We are still rejoicing in the recollection of Thy dear Birthday; and Thy smile is sufficient to dry our tears and chase away the clouds of grief. And yet, what sorrows there are still upon the earth, where Thou Thyself didst drink such long draughts from the cup of suffering! Thou alone, O Mary, canst break the inextricable chains, in which the cunning prince of darkness entangles the dupes he has deceived by the high-sounding names of equality and liberty. Show thyself a Queen, by coming to the rescue. The whole earth, the entire human race, cries out to Thee, in the words of Mordochai: “Speak to the King for us, and deliver us from death!” (Esther 15: 3)
Source: The Traditional Catholic Liturgy

Kurzer geschichtlicher Abriss über die Mercedarier

Die Mercedarier wurden, ursprünglich als königlicher, militärischer und religiöser reiner Laienorden, als religiöser Ritterorden, im Jahre 1218 vom heiligen Petrus Nolascus, aufgrund einer kirchlich anerkannten Muttergotteserscheinung, und unter Förderung und Mitwirkung von König Jakob I. von Aragon, und des berühmten heiligen Gelehrten des Kirchenrechts Raimund von Penaforte OP gegründet. Kirchlicherseits folgte nach der Anerkennung durch den Bischof von Barcelona, Berengar von Palau, am Tag der Gründung, schließlich auch 17 Jahre später im Jahre 1235 die päpstliche Bestätigungsbulle von Papst Gregor IX.
Der Orden hatte ausdrücklich die Befreiung christlicher Gefangener und Sklaven zur Aufgabe. Sarazenische und maurische Sklavenjäger, Piraten und Plünderer bedrohten im Mittelalter die christlichen Siedlungsgebiete im Mittelmeerraum sowie die Pilgerrouten zum Heiligen Land. Zu den üblichen drei Gelübden der Ehelosigkeit, der Armut und des Gehorsams legten die Mercedarierritter ein viertes Gelübde ab, und zwar die Befreiung christlicher Sklaven, wenn nötig unter Einsatz ihrer eigenen Freiheit und ihres eigenen Lebens im Austausch für Freiheit und Leben von gefangenen Christen. Daraus resultiert die außerordentlich hohe Anzahl an Märtyrern in den Reihen der Mercedarier. Der ritterliche Einsatz und der unerschütterliche Glaube vieler Mercedarier trug auch Früchte in der Bekehrung zahlreicher Moslems in den Reihen der Feinde. Berühmte Patrone der Mercedarier und ihre Festtage sind:
SS. Maria de Mercede 24.9. - S. Petrus Nolascus 28.1. (neu: 6.5.) - S. Raymundus Nonnatus 31.8. - B. Petrus Armengaudius 1.9. - S. Maria de Cervello 25.9. - S. Serapion 14.11. - S. Petrus Paschasius 6.12 und für die Wiener Kommende: B. Marcus ab Aviano OFMCap. 13.8.
Weitere Ausführungen

Nuestra Señora de la Merced

Los últimos siglos de la Edad Media, el sur y el levante español estaban en poder de los árabes y con su vidas en vilo. El Mediterráneo estaba infestado de corsarios turcos y de sarracenos, y lo mismo atacaban a los barcos que desembarcaban en las costas y se llevaban cautivos a muchos.
La cautividad o esclavitud era una calamidad terrible de la humanidad. De cuando en cuando surgían almas generosas y se ponían a actuar. Un santo varón, el clérigo sevillano D. Fernando de Contreras, con la ayuda de la Loca del Sacramento, Doña Teresa Enríquez, y con el aliento de San Juan de Avila, fue una de esas almas generosas en favor de los cautivos.
Otra alma caritativa, suscitada por Dios, fue San Pedro Nolasco, de Barcelona, llamado el Cónsul de la Libertad. Rogaba insistentemente a la Virgen María y se preguntaba cómo poner remedio a tan triste situación.
Pronto empezó a actuar. Vendió cuanto tenía y empezó la compra y rescate de cautivos. La noche del 1 de agosto de 1218, estando Nolasco en oración, se le apareció la Virgen María, le animó en sus intentos y le transmitió el mandato de fundar la Orden Religiosa de la Merced para redención de cautivos. Pocos días después, Nolasco, ayudado por D. Jaime el Conquistador y el consejero real San Raimundo de Peñafort, cumplía el mandato. Los mercedarios se comprometían con un cuarto voto: quedarse como rehenes, si fuera necesario, para liberar a otros más débiles en la fe.
De este modo, a través de los miembros de la Nueva Orden, la Virgen María, Madre y Corredentora, Medianera de todas las gracias, aliviaría a sus hijos cautivos y a todos los que suspiraban a ella, gimiendo y llorando en este valle de lágrimas. A todos daría la merced de su favor.
La Virgen María será invocada desde ahora la advocación de la Merced, o más bello todavía en plural: Santa María de las Mercedes, indicando así la abundancia incontable de sus gracias. ¡Hermosa advocación y hermoso nombre el de Mercedes!
Santa María de las Mercedes concedería a sus hijos la merced de la liberación. Alfonso X el Sabio decía que "sacar a los hombres de captivo es cosa que place mucho a Dios, porque es obra de la Merced".
Bajo la protección de la Virgen de la Merced, los frailes mercedarios realizaron una labor ingente. Ingentes fueron también los sufrimientos de San Pedro Nolasco, San Ramón Nonato y San Pedro Armengol. Y no faltaron mártires como San Serapio, San Pedro Pascual y otros muchos.
El culto a Nuestra Señora de la Merced se extendió muy pronto por Cataluña y por toda España, por Francia y por Italia, a partir del siglo XIII. El año 1265 aparecieron las primera monjas mercedarias. Los mercedarios estuvieron entre los primeros misioneros de América. En la Española o República Dominicana, por ejemplo, misionó Fray Gabriel Téllez (Tirso de Molina).
Barcelona se gloria de haber sido escogida por la Virgen de la Merced como lugar de su aparición y la tiene por celestial patrona. "¡Princesa de Barcelona, protega nuestra ciudad!"
En el museo de Valencia, hay un cuadro de Vicente López en el que varias figuras vuelven su rostro hacia la Virgen de la Merced, como Implorándola, mientras la Virgen abre sus brazos, extiende su manto, cubriéndolos a todos con amor, así su titulo de Santa María de la Merced.
Source: Editions Magnificat: Nuestra Señora de la Merced

Le 24 Septembre: Notre-Dame de la Merci

Au temps où le joug du Sarrasin pesait de tout son poids sur la plus grande et la plus fortunée partie des Espagnes, lorsqu'innombrables étaient les malheureux fidèles exposés sous une affreuse servitude au danger imminent de renier la foi et d'oublier leur salut éternel, la Reine bienheureuse des cieux, subvenant dans sa bonté à tant de maux, montra sa grande chanté pour racheter les siens. Elle apparut à saint Pierre Nolasque, dont la piété égalait la fortune et qui, dans ses méditations devant Dieu, songeait sans cesse au moyen de secourir tant d'infortunés chrétiens prisonniers des Maures ; douce et propice, la Vierge bienheureuse daigna dire qu'elle aurait pour très agréable, ainsi que son unique Fils, que fut fondé en son honneur un Ordre religieux auquel incomberait la tâche de délivrer les captifs de la tyrannie des Turcs. Animé par cette vision du ciel, on ne saurait dire de quelle ardeur de charité ne fut pas embrasé l'homme de Dieu ; il n'eut plus qu'une pensée au cœur : se dévouer, lui et l'Ordre qu'il devait établir, à la pratique de cette très haute charité qui consiste à livrer sa vie pour ses amis et son prochain.

Or, en cette même nuit, la Vierge très sainte s'était révélée au bienheureux Raymond de Pegnafort et au roi Jacques d'Aragon, leur signifiant également son désir au sujet desdits religieux et les priant de s'employer pour une oeuvre de telle importance. Pierre donc étant de suite accouru aux pieds de Raymond, qui était son confesseur, pour lui raconter toute chose, le trouva lui-même instruit d'en haut, et se soumit humblement à sa direction. Le roi Jacques survint alors, honoré lui aussi des révélations de la bienheureuse Vierge, et résolu de leur donner suite. C'est pourquoi, après en avoir conféré entre eux, d'un commun accord, ils entreprirent d'instituer en l'honneur de la Vierge Mère l'Ordre auquel serait donné le nom de Sainte-Marie de la Merci pour la Rédemption des captifs.

Le dix août donc de l'an du Seigneur douze cent dix-huit, le roi Jacques exécuta le dessein précédemment mûri par ces saints personnages ; par un quatrième vœu, les nouveaux religieux s'obligeaient à rester en gage sous puissance des païens, s'il était nécessaire pour la délivrance des chrétiens. Le roi leur accorda de porter sur la poitrine ses propres armes ; il prit soin d'obtenir de Grégoire IX la confirmation d'un institut religieux que recommandait une charité si éminente envers le prochain. Mais lui aussi Dieu même, par la Vierge Mère, donna tels accroissements à l'œuvre, qu'elle fut bientôt heureusement connue dans le monde entier ; elle compta nombre de sujets remarquables en sainteté, piété, charité, recueillant les aumônes des fidèles du Christ et les employant au rachat du prochain, se livrant eux-mêmes plus d'une fois pour la délivrance d'un grand nombre. Il convenait que pour une telle institution, pour tant de bienfaits, de dignes actions de grâces fussent rendues à Dieu et à la Vierge Mère ; et c'est pourquoi le Siège apostolique, après mille autres privilèges dont il avait comblé cet Ordre, accorda la célébration de cette fête particulière et de son Office.

Soyez bénie, ô vous, l'honneur de votre peuple et notre joie! Au jour de votre Assomption glorieuse, c'était bien pour nous que vous montiez prendre possession de votre titre de Reine; les annales de l'humanité sont pleines de vos interventions miséricordieuses. Ils se comptent par millions ceux dont vous fîtes tomber les chaînes, les captifs arrachés par vous à l'enfer du Sarrasin, vestibule de celui de Satan. En ce monde qui tressaille au souvenir récemment renouvelé de votre bénie naissance, votre sourire a suffi toujours pour dissiper les nuages, pour sécher les pleurs. Que de douleurs encore cependant sur cette terre où, dans les jours de votre mortalité, vous-même voulûtes goûter à si longs traits au calice des souffrances ! Douleurs sanctifiantes pour quelques-uns, douleurs fécondes ; hélas ! aussi, douleurs stériles et pernicieuses d'infortunés qu'aigrit l'injustice sociale, pour qui l'asservissement de l'usine, l'exploitation aux mille formes du faible par le fort, apparaît bientôt pire que n'eût été l'esclavage d'Alger ou de Tunis. Vous seule, ô Marie, pouvez dénouer ces inextricables liens dont l'ironie du prince du monde enserre une société qu'il a dévoyée au nom des grands mots d'égalité et de liberté. Daignez intervenir ; montrez que vous êtes Reine. La terre entière, l'humanité vous dit comme Mardochée à celle qu'il avait nourrie : Parlez au Roi pour nous, et délivrez-nous de la mort.
Voir: LE XXIV SEPTEMBRE. NOTRE-DAME DE LA MERCI.

L'apostasia dei pastori

Estratto da una lettera al bollettino "sì sì no no" (Aogosto 2007), Centro Cattolico Studi Antimodernisti San Pio X, Via Madonna degli Angeli, n. 78, I-00049 Velletri - e-mail: sisinono@tiscali.it:

(...) Caro sì sì no no, sin qui la notizia riportata dal Gazzettino di Venezia, venerdì 17 agosto 2007. Durante il Telegiornale delle 20,30 alle TV della RAI 1, pochi giorni fa, la proposta del Vescovo di Breda [Tiny Muskens, di chiamare Dio col nome di Allah nelle chiese cattoliche, per favorire il dialogo con gli islamici: 'Allah è un nome molto bello e Dio non fa caso a come lo si chiama'] è stata (meno male!) sfavorevolmente commentata da un sacerdote cattolico sullo sfondo della basilica di San Pietro. Egli ha detto che dietro quel "nome" c'è un tale abisso di differenza e di significato teologico tra il Dio cristiano e quello islamico che NON è assolutamente la steassa cosa. Fortunatamente c'è stata questa precisazione da parte di un "rappresentante" (ma lo era?) della Santa Sede, anche se questo povero popolo cristiano, istupidito e degradato dalla massiccia propaganda laical-massonica, ormai se ne buggera di Dio e di come Lo si chiami. Quello che più disgusta è il fatto che una tale ignobile proposta è venuta da un vescovo "cattolico", il quale dovrebbe conoscere l'abissale, incolmabile differenza tra il Dio dei musulmani, chiamato appunto "Allah", ed il Dio dei cristiani, l'unico vero Dio che si è rivelato agli uomini nella Sacra Scrittura e soprattutto in Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo. Dovrebbe saperlo ed invece fa il propagandista di "Allah" per "favorire il dialogo" con gli islamici, secolari nemici della fede cristiana, che di "dialogo" non voglione sentir parlare, malgrado i cedimenti dei "cattolici" progressisti e neomodernisti, che con l'ecumenismo fanno regolarmente un buco nell'acqua, ma non recedono.
Il Gazzettino di Venezia ci informa anche che un parroco "cattolico" è stato multato di ben 5.000 € per aver suonato troppo forte le campane alle ore 7 del mattino, "disturbando" il vicinato! Sarebbe interessante sapere se tale multa viene (o verrà) propinata anche agli imam che, dai loro minareti, per ben cinque volte al giorno con le loro fastidiosissime nenie rompono i timpani a chi ha la sfortuna di abitare nei pressi delle moschee che vanno spuntando come funghi in Europa e se i delicati "cristiani", che non vogliono essere disturbati dal gioioso suono delle campane cattoliche, hanno (o avranno) il coraggio di protestare.
Caro direttore, siamo arrivati anche a questo! A quando la notizia ufficiale (perché ufficiosa già circola) che Dio si è rivelato anche a Maometto dicendo tutto il contrario di ciò che è stato rivelato da Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo? Che Dio ci aiuti e ci salvi dall'apostasia di questi sciagurati "pastori"! E che salvi la Sua Vera Chiesa!
Grazie per l'ospitalità e con molti cordiali saluti in Cristo Gesù Signore Nostro.
(Lettera firmata)

200 milhões de cristãos em risco de perseguição em 60 países

O Serviço Secreto Britânico MI6 publicou um alarmante relatório na revista Sunday Express no qual informa que cerca de 200 milhões de cristãos em 60 países do mundo vivem em risco de perseguição.
O relatório revela que no Sudão, por exemplo, "milhares de cristãos foram massacrados e o governo fundamentalista pouco fez para os proteger". No Iraque "a situação é grave: os cristãos no têm como defender-se, as facções sunitas e chiitas acusam-nos de colaborar com os 'cruzados' americanos e entre as centenas de sequestros deste ano há um número crescente de cristãos".O estudo dá a conhecer também que durante o último ano no Paquistão foram assassinados pelo menos setenta cristãos. "No Turquemenistão, Uzbequistão e Tajiquistão os cristãos que pertencem à Igreja Ortodoxa Russa são frequentemente mal vistos: nestas três repúblicas dea ex-União Soviética, os pregadores muçulmanos 'sob a influência de Al Qaeda', apresentam os cristãos como sequazes de uma religião estreitamente associada ao odiado colonialismo ocidental e pedem a sua expulsão", precisa o relatório.
A Coreia do Norte, China, Etiópia, Nigéria e Uganda são outros dos países onde os cristãos são perseguidos. A Coreia do Norte teria enviado uns 50 mil cristãos para campos de trabalho por causa das suas crenças, enquanto também as crescentes dificuldades dos palestinos cristãos devido ao progressivo radicalismo das massas islâmicas no Médio Oriente.
Source: Verbo Divino, Portugal

A expansão Árabe antes das Cruzadas (622-1089)

Peregrinos diante da Igreja do Santo Sepulcro de Jerusalém, guardada por Sarracenos.

622. Maomé (570-632) é obrigado a sair de Meca, retirando-se para Medina (cidade do Profeta). Começo da Hégira (exílio), punto de partida do calendário muçulmano (16 de Julho de 622).
630, 1 de Janeiro. Maomé regressa a Meca, após ter derrotado as forças de Meca e os seus aliados. A nova doutrina triunfa na Arábia.
632. Morte de Maomé em Medina. Abu Bakr é escolhido por aclamação como primeiro califa. Os falsos profetas são derrotados, e as tribos rebeldes derrotadas.
634 – 644. O califa Omar, o primeiro a usar o título de Amir al-Mu'minin (príncipe dos Fiéis), transforma o Estado nacional árabe num império teocrático internacional e estabelece uma administração militar. O chefe das tropas de ocupação transforma-se em governador civil, chefe religioso e juiz temporal.
634. Teodoro, irmão do imperador bizantino Heráclio, é derrotado em Ajnadayn, entre Gaza e Jerusalém, pelo exército árabe.
636. Derrota do exército bizantino em Yarmuk, ao sul do Lago Tiberíades.
638. O califa Omar apodera-se de Jerusalém. Conquista da Palestina e da Síria.
639-641. Conquista da Mesopotâmia, actual Iraque, pelos exércitos árabes.
642. Conquista do Egipto, negociada pelo patriarca de Alexandria. As condições acordadas garantiam a segurança de pessoas e bens, e a liberdade de culto para os cristãos. Fundação do Cairo (al-Fustât)
649. Conquista de Chipre.
655. Conquista de Cabul.
687. Começo da construção da mesquita de Omar em Jerusalém.
711. Invasão da Península Ibérica. Derrota de Rodrigo, último rei Visigodo de Espanha.
- Conquista da região do Indo (actual Paquistão e Afeganistão).
716 - 717. Cerco de Constantinopla
732. Batalha de Poitiers. Fim da expansão árabe na Europa.
747. Sublevação abássida no Kkorassan.
750. Derrota do último califa Omíada de Damasco na batalha do Grande Zab, na Pérsia revoltada pelos Chiitas.
750 – 1258. Dinastia Abássida (de Abbas, tio de Maomé), sedeada em Bagdade, cidade inteiramente nova construída nas margens do rio Tigre. Fundada por Abu al-Abbas.
755 – 1031. Emirado, e mais tarde Califado (929), Omíada de Córdova, na Península Ibérica. Fundado por Abd al-Rahman, fugido do massacre dos omíadas em Damasco.
c.800. Mercadores muçulmanos em Cantão. Fábrica de papel fundada em Bagdade.
809. Morte do califa Haroun al-Rachid, conhecido pelas Mil e Uma Noites. Apogeu do império árabe.
825. Ocupação da ilha de Creta pelos muçulmanos.
827. O Mu'tazilismo, escola do Islão clássico fortemente influenciada pelo racionalismo, é proclama doutrina oficial.
830. Primeiras peregrinações a Santiago de Compostela. Depois de se ter encontrado o túmulo em 813.
831. Conquista de Palermo, na Sicília, pelos Árabes
842. Conquista de Messina, na Sicília, e de Tarento, na Península Itálica, pelos Árabes
842 – 902. Conquista da Sicília pelos Árabes.
846. Incursão muçulmana em Roma.
857. Morre Muhâsibi, um dos primeiros mísiticos (Çufis).
864. Surge a doutrina do «encerramento das portas do raciocínio individual» em matéria de interpretação da Lei.
868-883. Revolta dos escravos negros (Zandj) no Baixo-Iraque.
869. Conquista árabe da ilha de Malta.
874. Nascimento do teólogo al-Ash'ari: conciliação do racionalismo mu'tazilita com o tradicionalismo sunnita.
875. Massacre dos comerciantes muçulmanos na China.
940 – 1258. O califado dos Abássidas deixa de ter qualquer importância política. Devido ás revoltas chiitas, e à incapacidade do califa, aparecem várias dinastias locais cujos príncipes tomam o título de califa.
960. Conversão ao Islão dos Turcos Qarakhânidas.
961. Reconquista de Creta pelos bizantinos.
962. Fundação da dinastia Ghaznévida, no Afeganistão, primeira dinastia turca no mundo muçulmano. Existirá até 1186.
- Os Bizantinos retomam Alepo.
969. Os Fatimidas, dinastia aparecida no Norte de África por volta de 910, apoderam-se do Egipto.
- Fundação do novo Cairo (al-Aâhira).
- Os Bizantinos voltam a ocupar Antioquia.
993. Nascimento de Ibn Hazm, poeta e teólogo andaluz: apologia da interpretação literal do Corão e da tradição.
996. Massacre de mercadores de Amalfi, porto no sul de Itália, no Cairo.
997. Incursão muçulmana contra S. Tiago de Compostela.
1009. O califa fatimida do Cairo, al-Hakim, manda destruir as igrejas de Jerusalém.
1017. Começo da pregação druza.
1019. Proclamação, pelo califado de Bagdade, de um credo de inspiração hanbalita, uma das quatro escolas do Islão sunnita, que se caracteriza pela sua atenção ao respeito da tradição corânica e profética. Uma 2.ª proclamação dá-se em 1042 e uma 3.ª em 1053.
1031. Fim do Califado de Córdova. As possesões muçulmanas da Península Ibérica são repartidas em principados (tawa'if), conhecidos por Taifas.
1035. Peregrinação a Jerusalém de Roberto, o Diabo (ou o Magnífico), duque da Normandia.
1036. Muçulmanos e Bizantinos concordam em reconstruir as igrejas cristãs de Jerusalém.
1040. Vitória dos Turcos Seljúcidas sobre os Ghaznévidas em Dandanaqan.
1043. Miguel Cerulário torna-se patriarca de Jerusalém.
1054, 25 de Julho. Cisma entre Roma e Constantinopla. Miguel Cerulário, excomungado pelo papa Leão IX, excomunga todos os latinos.
1055. Os Turcos seljúcidas conquistam Bagdade.
1062. O papa Alexandre II concede o perdão dos pecados a quem combater os muçulmanos.
1063. Cruzada de cavaleiros borgonheses à Península Ibérica. O exército cruzado conquista a cidade de Barbastro, em 1064, após 4 meses de cerco.
1064. O arcebispo Gunther de Maiença e os bispos Guilherme de Utrecht e Otto de Ratisbona organizam uma peregrinação de 7.000 pessoas a Jerusalém.
1071, 19 de Agosto. os Bizantinos são derrotados pelos Turcos Seljucidas em Manzikert.
cerca de 1080. Mercadores de Amalfi fundam, perto do Santo Sepulcro, o hospital de São João de Jerusalém, para recolher os peregrinos pobres.
- Fundação da seita muçulmana dos Assassinos.
1081. Aleixo Comneno, imperador do Oriente.
1082. Devido à ajuda prestada contra os Normandos, Veneza obtêm o direito de comerciar em todo o Império Bizantino, sem pagar direitos alfandegários
1084. Antioquia cai nas mãos dos Turcos.
1085. Os Normandos dominam a Sicília.
- Conquista de Toledo por Afonso VI de Castela.
1086. Afonso VI de Castela é vencido na batalha de Sagrajar pelos berberes almorávidas, chamados à Península Ibérica pelos reis muçulmanos das Taifas, devido à conquista de Toledo.
1086 – 1090. Peregrinação à Terra Santa do conde de Flandres, Roberto de Frison.
1087. Cruzada francesa a Espanha, organizada por Urbano II, e dirigida por Raimundo de Saint-Gilles, conde de Toulouse e Eudes I, duque da Borgonha.
1090. Conquista de Malta pelos Normandos.
- Os «Assassinos» apoderam-se do castelo de Alamute, na Pérsia.
1092. Os «Assassinos» matam o vizir Nizam al-Mulk..
Read more...

Ratzeburger-Erklärung des Tempelherren-Ordens zur Gefahr der fortschreitenden Islamisierung Deutschlands

Der Ordo Militiae Crucis Templi – Tempelherren-Orden, Deutsches Priorat, hat sich anläßlich seines Generalkapitels vom 7. bis 9. September 2007 in Ratzeburg mit der Situation des Zusammenlebens von Christen und Moslems in Deutschland befasst und in Sorge um den inneren Frieden in unserem Volk folgende Erklärung abgegeben.

Ratzeburger-Erklärung zur Gefahr der
fortschreitenden Islamisierung Deutschlands

1. Der Orden verpflichtet sich aufs Neue, das gemeinsame und verbindliche Glaubensgut der Christen zu pflegen, die Ökumene zu fördern und die abendländisch christliche Kulturgemeinschaft zu verteidigen. Daher warnt er vor sämtlichen Ausprägungen von totalitären und extremistischen Ideologien. Dies gilt auch für die als „Islamismus“ bezeichnete extreme Ausprägung des Islam, die die Bestimmungen des Korans gegenüber den freiheitlich orientierten Rechtsstaaten Europas zu verabsolutieren versucht und dabei anderen, wie Juden und Christen, mit Hass und Verachtung begegnet.
2. Das Grundrecht der Glaubensfreiheit gemäß Art. 4 GG findet seine Schranken, wo es zur Agitation gegen andere Grundrechte, zur Ungleichbehandlung von Frau und Mann, zum Verstoß gegen die Menschenwürde oder zum Kampf gegen die freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung herangezogen wird. Eine Glaubensströmung, die anderen Religionen das Existenzrecht verweigert, ist keine Religion im Sinne unserer Verfassung.
3. Ausländische Muslime, die aufgrund der Lehre des Koran die Umma (islamische Weltgemeinschaft) – ggf. auch gewaltsam – verwirklichen sowie Frauen und Nichtmuslimen Menschenrechte im Sinne der UN-Charta der Menschenrechte von 1948 bestreiten und verweigern wollen, dürfen in Deutschland kein Aufenthaltsrecht bekommen.
4. Muslime können nur dann die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft erhalten, wenn sie bereit sind, für die freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung einzutreten. Sie müssen sich erkennbar sprachlich, kulturell und wirtschaftlich eigenverantwortlich in den deutschen Staat integrieren.
5. Alle Muslime, die die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft beantragen, und alle islamischen Gemeinschaften in Deutschland haben das Recht auf Glaubenswechsel ausdrücklich anzuerkennen, einschließlich des Rechts auf Abkehr vom Islam.
6. Zuwanderern, die die freiheitlich-demokratische Rechtsordnung ganz oder teilweise ablehnen, ist die deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft zu versagen. Sie sind in ihr Herkunftsland abzuschieben.
7. Polygamie darf weder anerkannt noch toleriert werden. Unsere Sozialsysteme dürfen nicht dazu benutzt werden, Zweit-, Dritt- oder Viertfrauen von Muslimen zu alimentieren.
8. Ärztinnen, Ärzte und Hebammen werden gesetzlich verpflichtet, dem Amtsarzt Genitalverstümmelungen bei Mädchen und Frauen zu melden.
9. Vorauseilender Gehorsam – etwa das Entfernen von Kreuzen aus öffentlichen Gebäuden wie Schulen und Kindergärten – verletzt die Gefühle der Christen hierzulande und muß daher unterbleiben.
10. Die Mitglieder des OMCT wissen, daß Christen und Muslime zwar an einen Gott glauben, daß dies aber nicht derselbe Gott ist. Wir Christen glauben daran, daß Gott sich im Alten Bund und in seinem, ihm wesensgleichen Sohn Jesus Christus ausschließlich und endgültig geoffenbart hat. Jesus Christus spricht: „Wer mich sieht, der sieht den Vater“ (Joh. 14,9).
Der Ordo Militiae Crucis Templi – Tempelherren-Orden, Deutsches Priorat, erwartet von einem Europa, das vom Christentum und von der Aufklärung geprägt wurde, die eigenen Werte bewußt und unverkennbar zu leben, daher gehört der Gottesbezug in eine Europäische Verfassung. Hierbei kommt es nicht nur auf den Staat, sondern auch auf die Kirchen, Unternehmen, Verbände und jeden einzelnen an.
Ratzeburg, den 08.09.2007» -- Kontakt zum Tempelherren-Orden: g.nuebling@t-online.de

Quelle: PI (Politically Incorrect)

UNSER KOMMENTAR:
Auch wir stellen uns völlig hinter diese hervorragende, einzigartig gut formulierte Erklärung, die weiteste, sofortige Verbreitung, vor allem unter den Politikern und den in der christlichen Erziehung und Seelsorge Tätigen verdient. Eine "Einschränkung" machen wir nur insofern, als wir den Satzteil "die als „Islamismus“ bezeichnete extreme Ausprägung des Islam" für "idealisiert" halten. Es gibt in Wirklichkeit nur einen Islam. Siehe: "L'Islam n'a pas deux visages". Ein "Islam" ohne "Islamismus" ist eine pure Wunschvorstellung von Nicht-Molems; denn "Totalitarismus" und "Extremismus" sind dem Islam inhärent, gehören zu seinem Wesen, sind für ihn absolut unverzichtbar. Siehe diese Beiträge zum Stichwort Djihad!

El Islam: una anti-religión cuya única finalidad es acabar con el cristianismo

Mahoma era un árabe que, según cuentan sus biógrafos, estaba un día en una cueva y se llevó el susto de su vida. Volvió corriendo a su casa y se metió en la cama temblando. Cuando Jadiya, su esposa, le vio así le preguntó qué le pasaba. Mahoma le dijo que había visto al diablo en una cueva. Ella le persuadió para volver a la cueva por si no era el diablo. Mahoma volvió a la cueva y allí alguien, que dice llamarse Yibril y la tradición islámica interpreta como el ángel Gabriel, le revela una nueva religión.
En este punto conviene recordar las palabras de San Pablo en Gálatas 1.8:
Me maravillo de que abandonando al que os llamó por la gracia de Cristo, os paséis tan pronto a otro evangelio [7]- no que haya otro, sino que hay algunos que os perturban y quieren deformar el Evangelio de Cristo -. [8]Pero aun cuando nosotros mismos o un ángel del cielo os anunciara un evangelio distinto del que os hemos anunciado, ¡sea anatema!
Es decir, San Pablo dice que aunque venga un ángel del cielo y nos revele otro evangelio, no debemos creerlo.
Pues bien, mi amiga V., me explica que si existe Dios y existe el diablo, nada impediría al diablo revelar una anti-religión cuya única finalidad sea acabar con el cristianismo en el mundo. Según ella a Mahoma se le aparece Satanás y el Islam (su religión revelada) no es más que el reverso oscuro de la religión del amor. Por ello el Islam reinstaura el odio (ojo por ojo y diente por diente). Y establece una serie de ritos que no son más que copias tergiversadas de ritos cristianos: el ayuno, la oración (siguiendo la costumbre monástica de las cinco oraciones diarias), etc. Una anti-religión que se extiende por el mundo y en cuyo germen está el odio al cristianismo y, por extensión, a toda la civilización occidental.
Source: Islam, posibles explicaciones

¿Quién es Alá? - ¿Es Alá el mismo Dios de la Biblia?

"Si Alá no es Dios, ¿quién es, pues, realmente Alá?"
Según la Biblia, hay una doble respuesta: - "Es o Dios, o el ídolo; es o Dios el Padre en el cielo, o el dios de este siglo: Satanás.
¿Qué, pues, ocurrió con Mahoma? Mahoma tuvo sus visiones después de un tiempo de ayuno y meditaciones. Al principio, él mismo tuvo miedo de los Espíritus malignos que se le aparecían, y temblando buscó apoyo en su mujer e incluso pensó en suicidarse. Sus experiencias eran tan turbadoras que de ello podemos deducir que tuvo experiencias sobrenaturales. Según Mahoma mismo, se le apareció el ángel Gabriel; o, por lo menos, así se le dio a conocer aquel ser espiritual. Pero, ¿era realmente el ángel Gabriel? Porque el auténtico ángel Gabriel anunció en la Biblia el nacimiento de Jesús cómo el Salvador e Hijo de Dios. Pero el ángel de Mahoma precisamente niega a Jesús como el Hijo de Dios. Por consiguiente, no se puede tratar del mismo ángel. En realidad de verdad hay un ángel que se presenta engañador, el cual se comporta como lo que no es; y el apóstol Pablo lo llama "ángel de luz", el cual es "el mismo Satanás" (2ª Cor. 11:14). En consecuencia, podemos deducir que Mahoma fue engañado por "el ángel de luz".

Conclusión
A nosotros no nos cabe duda de nuestra conclusión: -"Alá no puede ser el Dios bíblico". Pero entonces surge la pregunta: ¿Cómo, pues, teólogos modernos pueden afirmar que Alá es verdaderamente Dios? Aquí, según nuestro parecer, se puede hablar de una ceguera. Es decir que el dios de este siglo ha cerrado los ojos de muchos (véase 2ª Cor. 4:4). El origen de esto se halla, a nuestro entender, en el hecho de que se tiene problema con el creer que Jesús es el Hijo de Dios, y se le prefiere ver como un profeta. Se piensa en la línea de El Corán, y uno se siente afín o emparentado con el Islam. Todo el que confiesa a Jesús como el Hijo de Dios, no puede sino considerar las expresiones y pronunciamientos de El Corán acerca de Jesucristo como un horrible ultraje a nuestro Señor, y conoce al Islam como una acometida anticristiana contra el Cristianismo. Sin embargo, no sólo tenemos que avisar del peligro del Islam, pues, por otro lado el Islam También contiene para nosotros una lección y una advertencia: Que nosotros mismos al Dios que se ha revelado en la Biblia no le hagamos un Alá, haciéndole un Dios caprichoso, o no siendo testigos del amor de Dios.
Source: ¿ES ALA EL MISMO DIOS DE LA BIBLIA?

ОДНОМУ ЛИ БОГУ ПОКЛОНЯЮТСЯ ХРИСТИАНЕ И МУСУЛЬМАНЕ?

Христианский “Бог есть Любовь” (1 Ин 4: 8). Аллах же говорит о себе: “Высокомерие – мой плащ, а гордость – мой покров. Каждого, кто будет претендовать на что-либо из этого, я брошу в огонь”.

Далее следует рассмотреть вопрос, как ислам относится к христианскому представлению о Боге. В 112-й суре Корана об Аллахе говорится: “Не рождал он и не был рожден”. Разве это можно соотнести с православным учением о Боге Отце, Сыне и Святом Духе, Троице единосущной и нераздельной? Коран за то, что христиане сказали “Христос – Сын Аллаха” (то есть Бога), так характеризует их: “Эти слова в их устах похожи на слова тех, которые не веровали раньше. Пусть поразит их Аллах! До чего они отвращены!” (Коран 9: 30, 32). Согласно исламу, Христос – обычный человек, а не Сын Божий, мусульмане принципиально отвергают даже мысль, что у Бога есть предвечно рождающийся Сын, тогда как Писание говорит нам: “Всякий, отвергающий Сына, не имеет и Отца” (1 Ин 2: 23).
Христиане верят в Божественную Троицу и знают о Боговоплощении, мусульмане же последовательно отвергают и то, и другое – эти два главнейших догмата христианского учения о Боге.
Сказанного достаточно, чтобы ответить на вопрос: Один и Тот же ли Бог Евангелия и Аллах Корана.
Святоотеческие отзывы о мусульманском представлении Бога
Если принять во внимание вышеизложенное, то не покажется странным, что в чине отречения от ислама, составленном Православной Церковью в IX веке, помимо упоминания прочих заблуждений ислама, стояла “анафема богу Мухаммеда, о котором он говорит, что он есть бог ολόσφυρος, который не рождал, не был рожден, которому никто не подобен”. Здесь дословная цитата 112-й суры Корана.
О том же свидетельствуют и святые отцы, писавшие об исламе.
Например, святитель Симеон Фессалоникийский называет мусульман язычниками и так объясняет это: “Арабы, введенные в заблуждение одним нечестивейшим и бесноватым варваром, единоплеменным им… а именно, Магометом, признали Бога, но и в этом явились подобными совершенно безбожным, какими они и были прежде; ибо после того, как узнали нечто об истинном Боге, не признали безначального Отца, единородного и неплотского Сына и Святого Духа”.
Как полезно было бы вспоминать иногда о святоотеческом слове некоторым “православным” писателям, которые даже доходят до таких утверждений, что-де промысел Божий действовал через Мухаммеда на арабов таким образом, что якобы только в такой несовершенной форме, как ислам, можно было преподать им знание единобожия. И хотя лживость данного мнения вполне очевидна (ибо не может быть народа, для которого по природе закрыта возможность усвоения проповеди Христовой, к тому же мы имеем среди почитаемых Церковью святых – арабов V–VI вв., например преподобных Юлиана Слепца, Илии Араба, 3000 мучеников Наджранских) и из предыдущей главы видно, что учение о Боге в исламе не просто несовершенное, но диаметрально противоположное, хочется привести слова святых отцов, относящиеся непосредственно к этому тезису.
Когда халиф сказал братьям-мученикам Константину и Давиду: “Как вы осмеливаетесь произносить хульные слова на великого Мухаммеда… и порицаете его по безумию вашему? Ведь он всю Персию и Аравию обратил от поклонения огню и привел к единобожию”, святой Давид Аргветский ответил: “Хотя Мухаммед и отвратил вас от служения огню, но не привел к истинному богопознанию, и поэтому не мог дать вам спасения. Он подобен кораблю, который, хотя и не потонул в середине моря, однако вблизи берега погрузился в волны морские. Какая польза в корабле, который не смог достичь берега? Что случилось с ним, то сделается и с вами”.
Мнение, которое мы упоминали, встречалось и прежде, в Византии, среди секулярных, светских кругов, больше озабоченных политикой, нежели вопросами веры. Этому заблуждению посвящена специальная глава в “Опровержении Корана” Никиты Византийского, крупнейшего полемиста, друга святителя Фотия Константинопольского. Приведем краткое изложение 102-й главы, названной “Доказательство того, что пребывают в заблуждении считающие, будто мусульмане сохраняют веру в Бога Отца”.
Господь Иисус Христос, Который является Истиной, сказал: “Кто не чтит Сына, тот не чтит и Отца” (Ин 5: 23), и все патриархи и пророки знали о Сыне Божием, как сказано: “Авраам, отец ваш, рад был увидеть день Мой; и увидел и возрадовался” (Ин 8: 56). Как же можно сказать, что нечестивый народ, отвергающий Сына, имеет Отца? Разве может принять их Отец, видя, как они поносят Его Сына? “Никто не знает Отца, кроме Сына, и кому Сын хочет открыть” (Мф 11: 27). Как же они могут Его знать, если отрицают Сына? Следовательно, мусульмане не поклоняются Богу Авраама и Моисея, Отцу нашего Господа Иисуса, так как отвергают знание о единородном Сыне Божием, хотя даже Ветхий Завет говорит об этом (Пс 109: 3; 44: 8).
Одновременно с Никитой это мнение опровергает и Еводий Монах в записи “Мученичество 42-х мучеников Аморейских”. Один из мучеников говорит мусульманам: “Ваше мнение о Боге ошибочно, так как вы, признавая имя Божие и Его величие, клевещете все-таки на Него, почитая Его виновником зла и добра, истины и лжи”.
Уместно напомнить здесь замечательные по своей трезвости слова святителя Игнатия (Брянчанинова): “Напрасно ж ошибочно вы думаете и говорите, что добрые люди между… магометанами спасутся, то есть вступят в общение с Богом! Напрасно вы смотрите на противную тому мысль, как бы на новизну, как бы на вкравшееся заблуждение! Нет! Таково постоянное учение истинной Церкви: признающий возможность спасения без веры во Христа отрицается Христа и, может быть не ведая, впадает в тяжкий грех богохульства”.
Нельзя здесь обойти вниманием Константинопольский Собор 1180 года, который был специально посвящен тому же вопросу. Как мы помним, в византийском чине оглашения приходящих от ислама стояла “анафема богу Мухаммеда, о котором он говорит, что он есть бог ολόσφυρος”. Анафема была направлена на мусульманское представление о Боге и включала в себя 112-ю суру Корана из византийского перевода.
Император Мануил I пришел в негодование относительно сомнительной формулировки, поскольку, по его мнению, таким образом подвергался анафеме сам истинный Бог. Император был убежден, что, расходясь во многих принципиальных вопросах, христиане и мусульмане, как монотеисты, веруют в одного Бога, и потому требование произнести на Него анафему казалось кощунственным.
Он созвал Собор и передал свое мнение, ожидая получить от архиереев и патриарха Феодосия одобрение на изъятие формулировки из огласительных книг Святой Софии – главного храма Константинополя – и вообще из всех церквей. Однако Собор встретил предложение императора резко отрицательно. Архиереи были убеждены, что бог мусульман – это не тот истинный Бог, которому поклоняются христиане, разность в представлениях о Боге в христианстве и исламе принципиальна. Мусульмане под именем Бога поклоняются мысленному идолу, “жалкому измышлению жалкого ума Мухаммеда”, как передает речи заседавших Никита Хониат. Как пишет Никита, отцы Собора “не хотели даже и слышать о его предложении, как не ведущем ни к чему доброму и удаляющем от истинного понятия о Боге.
Не согласный с мнением архиереев император с помощью секретарей составил собственный томос, в котором обосновал свою точку зрения, утверждая, что анафема на бога Мухаммедова относится к истинному Богу. Однако Церковь подвергла осуждению указанное сочинение. Никита свидетельствует, что патриарх Феодосий “не только сам не согласился с этим сочинением, как опасным и вводящим новые догматы, но и других убеждал остерегаться его, как яда. Царь оскорбился этим, как будто бы получил жестокую обиду, осыпал архиереев бранью и называл их всесветными дураками”.
Наконец в результате прений с представителями императора был составлен соборный томос, который постановлял не просто изъять анафематизм, но заменить его новой анафемой против Мухаммеда и его учения. Так Церкви, несмотря на давление официальной власти, удалось отстоять свою точку зрения. Это хорошо видно из текста соборного томоса. Требование императора об удалении 22-го анафематизма удовлетворяется, но подчеркивается, что это делается из соображений икономии, для устранения препятствий перед желающими креститься мусульманами, но не из-за догматического убеждения, что христиане и мусульмане поклоняются одному и тому же Богу, как того требовал Мануил Комнин.
Более того, в томосе прямо сказано, что “сам Мухаммед объявил неверное понимание Бога”, а выражение анафематизма лишь “кажущееся кощунственным”, а не кощунственное, как утверждал в своих томосах император. И, наконец, в новом варианте анафематизма, содержится, хоть и в более завуалированном виде, и отвержение мусульманского богопочитания, и осуждение позиции, выраженной императором: провозглашается анафема учению Мухаммеда, в котором он исповедует, что Господь, Бог и Спаситель наш Иисус Христос не является Сыном Божиим. Это тот самый аргумент, который приводил Никита Византийский и который звучал на первом заседании собора: отвергая Троицу и Христа как Сына Божия, мусульмане не могут считаться почитающими истинного Бога. При этом формальное требование императора было удовлетворено.
Впрочем, не удивительно, что Церковь не озаботилась выполнить даже это формальное требование, когда престарелый император скончался спустя полгода после Собора. Первоначальная формулировка 22-го анафематизма сохранилась в последующем тексте чина отречения и в том же виде попала в славянский перевод чина, в “Кормчую” святителя Саввы Сербского, перешедшую позднее и на Русь.
Огромное значение томоса Собора 1180 года состоит в свидетельстве о том, что мнение о принципиальной разности богопочитания в христианстве и исламе было засвидетельствовано Церковью соборно, притом двукратно, и засвидетельствовано, несмотря на угрозы и давление со стороны официальной власти.
***
Приведенного выше материала вполне достаточно, чтобы любой непредвзятый читатель грамотно ответил на тот вопрос, который вынесен в заглавие нашей статьи.
Read more...

«Isa (Jesus), o destruidor do Cristianismo»

Isa (Jesus) na Hadith

O profeta ‘Isa terá um papel muito importante no fim dos tempos, estabelecendo o Islã e fazendo guerra até que ele destrua todas as religiões, exceto o Islã. Ele deve matar o Maligno (Dajjal), uma figura apocalíptica anti-Cristo.

Em outra tradição de Maomé, lemos que nenhum outro profeta virá à terra até que ‘Isa retorne como ‘um homem de estatura mediana, de pele avermelhada, vestindo duas peças leves, parecendo como se gotas de água caíssem de sua cabeça apesar de não estar molhada. Ele lutará pela causa do Islã. Ele quebrará a cruz, matará os porcos e abolirá o pagamento do imposto. Allá destruirá todas as religiões, exceto o Islã. Ele (‘Isa) destruirá o Maligno e viverá na terra por quarenta anos e então morrerá’. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 37:4310) O Sahih Muslim tem uma variante desta tradição: ‘O filho de Maria... em breve descenderá de você como um juiz reto. Ele abolirá... o pagamento de imposto, e a riqueza verterá de modo tão grande que ninguém aceitará presentes de caridade.’ (Sahih Muslim 287)

O que estes ditos significam? A cruz é um símbolo Cristão. Quebrar cruzes significa abolir o Cristianismo. Porcos são associados aos Cristãos. Matá-los é outro modo de falar sobre a destruição do Cristianismo. Sob a lei Islâmica, o pagamento do imposto compra a proteção de suas vidas e as propriedades dos conquistados ‘daqueles que receberam o Livro’. (At-taubah 9:29) A abolição do pagamento do imposto significa que a jihad voltou contra Cristãos (e Judeus) que vivem onde o Islã rege, os quais podem se converter ao Islã, ou também serem mortos ou escravizados. A abundância de riquezas refere-se aos saques realizados pelos Muçulmanos em suas conquistas. Isto é o que o ‘Isa Muçulmano fará quando retornar nos últimos dias.

Juristas Muçulmanos confirmam estas interpretações: considere, por exemplo, o parecer de Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368)

Isa, o Jesus Muçulmano

Бог один, а вера разная?

Иноверцы довольно часто говорят нам: «У нас с вами Бог один, а вера разная». К сожалению, иногда так высказываются и христиане, поверхностно знакомые с христианством... Сторонники этого «единобожия» полагают, что верующие разных религий, сами того не сознавая, поклоняются общему Божеству, несмотря на непохожесть религий и исторические трения между ними. Дескать, всякая Религия - путь, а все пути ведут к Богу; каждый человек идёт к Богу самым удобным для себя путём...
От такой духовной всеядности нас предостерегают православные святые, например, один из первых русских монахов, преп. Феодосий Печерский: «Если кто тебе скажет: „Ваша и наша вера от Бога», то ты, чадо, ответь так: „Кривовер! Или ты и Бога считаешь двоеверным! Не слышишь, что говорит Писание: Один Бог, Одна Вера, Одно крещение (Еф.4, 5)"».
Разумеется, объекты поклонения в разных религиях не совпадают. Об этом говорит и просто здравый смысл: если все религии в сути тождественны, почитают общего Бога, то зачем они стремятся расширить сферу влияния, проповедуют свои взгляды, привлекают новых последователей, нередко вступая на этой почве во взаимные конфликты? Сторонники «единобожия» объясняют это «невежеством», «властными человеческими амбициями» и т.д., но вряд ли кто-то из них не будет рад распространению собственной религии... Да, «человеческий фактор» важен в межрелигиозных отношениях, но ещё важнее сущность самих вероучений!
Сравним, к примеру, христианство и ислам. Христианство признаёт Христа Богом, это утверждение есть основа нашей религии. Ислам же считает Христа человеком, одним из многих пророков, притом по значению меньшим Магомета...
Разве возможно совместить оба эти взгляда на Христа, признать их одинаково верными? Одно из двух: или Христос Бог, или не Бог, ничего третьего о Нём утверждать невозможно. Мусульмане отрицают, что Христос - Бог. Так как же можно говорить, что они поклоняются одному с нами Богу?
На это нам могут возразить: «Да, мусульмане, конечно, не признают Христа Богом, но всё-таки они поклоняются Богу-Отцу, называя Его Аллахом!» Напомним таким людям слова Христовы: Кто не чтит Сына, тот не чтит и Отца, пославшего Его (Ин. 5, 23); Вы не знаете ни Меня, ни Отца Моего; если бы вы знали Меня, то знали бы и Отца Моего (Ин. 8, 19); Я и Отец - одно (Ин. 10, 30); Отец во Мне и Я в Нем (Ин. 10, 38); Ненавидящий Меня ненавидит и Отца Моего (Ин. 15, 23). Напомним и слова св. апостола и евангелиста Иоанна Богослова: Всякий, отвергающий Сына, не имеет и Отца (1 Ин. 2, 23); Всякий, преступающий учение Христово и не пребывающий в нем, не имеет Бога; пребывающий в учении Христовом имеет и Отца и Сына (2 Ин. 1, 9).
Христианство признаёт Троичность Бога. Ислам отрицает Святую Троицу... Библия утверждает: Бог не сотворил смерти (Прем. 1, 13); коран же говорит об Аллахе, что он создал смерть (Сура 67, аят 2), называет его эта книга и источником зла...
Поэтому не приходится говорить о том, что христиане и мусульмане поклоняются одному и тому же Богу! Но кому же поклоняются мусульмане, пусть и сами не сознавая того?
Желающих узнать более подробно разницу между истинным Богом и кораническим божеством мы отсылаем к замечательной книге выдающегося православного писателя С.А. Нилуса: «Близ грядущий антихрист и царство диавола на земле». Здесь же приведём лишь один вопрос, который ставит Сергий Нилус в этой своей книге: «Кто же Аллах, как не дьявол?»
Приведём и фрагмент романа «Мечеть Парижской Богоматери» известной писательницы Елены Чудиновой:
«- Ты считаешь случайностью, что у нас солнечный календарь, а у них (у мусульман - Примеч. ред. „Пг") - лунный? Луна - мертвое светило в отличие от животворящего солнца. Все поклонники дьявола, во все времена, чтили луну.
- Вы считаете, что они поклоняются дьяволу?..
- Я не могу это утверждать, коль скоро они сами этого не утверждают. Но как христианский священник я не могу не обращать внимания на то, что должно меня настораживать. Если мне говорят, что в раю человека встречают существа (гурии. -Примеч. ред. fir"), весьма подходящие под описание суккубов (демоны, принявшие вид женщин. - Примеч. ред. „Пг"), я должен спросить себя - а наверное ли это рай? Это больше походит на ад. Если луна выставляется главным символом некоей религии, как я могу не вспомнить о том, что от культа луны неотделим сатанизм?»
Нет никаких оснований считать, что Бог, пославший к людям Своего Сына, спустя шесть веков после этого величайшего события станет возвещать Свою волю через Магомета, к тому же в виде, который противоречит учению Христову. «Учение Магомета, как известно, представляет собой мозаику из того, что он почерпнул в книгах Ветхого и Нового Заветов, а также из личных медитаций, которые с христианской точки зрения не могут считаться богооткровенными» (Современное обновленчество - протестантизм «восточного обряда». - М.: «Одигитрия», 1996). Ислам не только не признаёт Господа Иисуса Христа как Бога и Сына Божия, но весьма враждебен из-за этого Святой Церкви и христианам...
«Всякая другая вера, кроме веры в святую Истину, есть суеверие. Плоды суеверия - погибель. Такая вера осуждена Богом: ею веруют идолопоклонники в своих кумиров, мусульмане в лжепророка Магомета и коран, еретики в свои богохульные догматы и в своих ересиархов, рационалисты в падший разум человеческий. Ею будут веровать в антихриста его последователи». (Свт. Игнатий Брянчанинов).
«Один из лжепророков, пришествие в мир коих предрекал Господь, прельстил многих (ср.: Мф. 24, 11), возвестив в Аравии новое учение. Учение это получило название ислам, и множество подстегиваемых сим учением драконов аравийских понеслось по земле и в безпощадных войнах захватило огромные территории. Эта «религия мира» со временем распространилась, и приверженцы ее не устают вести непрерывные войны даже до сего дня, подпадая тем самым под запечатленное Самим Господом определение лжи, говоря: «мир, мир!», а мира нет (Иер., 8, 11). (Максимов Ю. Религия Креста и религия полумесяца. - М.: Изд. Московского Подворья Свято-Троицкой Сергиевой Лавры, 2004).
По сути, мусульманство - это возрождённая во внешне видоизменённой форме арианская ересь, ещё за четверть тысячелетия до рождения Магомета яростно нападавшая на Святое Православие. Арианство и ислам едины во взгляде на Христа, считают Его не Богом, а сотворенным существом... Отрицая основополагающую христианскую истину, арианство (как первоначальное, так и исламское) тем самым хулит Бога-Христа, тяжко оскорбляет религиозные убеждения православных... Все разновидности арианства сразу же вызвали подобными своими притязаниями резкую реакцию христиан. Например, средневековый православный араб Феодор Абу Курах рассматривает ислам в труде «Против ересей иудеев и сарацин» как «безбожное и нечестивое учение».
Итак, различия христианства и ислама огромны, говорить о том, что у обоих этих вероучений один общий Бог - просто нелепо! Но какова же причина появления ислама, для чего Господь попустил возникнуть и распространиться этой новой форме арианского лжеучения? Возможно, ответом на этот вопрос будут слова из книги протоиерея Григория Дьяченко «Духовный мир» (М.: 1900), которыми мы и завершим данную статью:
«Когда, однако, и вселенские соборы не в состоянии были обуздать церковного своеволия еще недостаточно проникшихся духом Евангелия народов, и по всему Востоку продолжалось пагубное религиозно-нравственное брожение, проявлявшееся во множестве сект, то оказалась необходимою более сильная мера. Для очищения от сектантской скверны нужен был бич, который в лице лжепророка и совершил очистительную работу. Ислам, пронесшись по Востоку, очистил христианский мир от накопившихся в нем миазмов, поглотив в себя негодные для Церкви элементы. (Практически все тогдашние ереси и секты находили в исламе сходные со своими взгляды и их последователи поэтому легко принимали мусульманство. - Примеч. ред. „Пг"). Вместе с тем ислам, представляя собою новую форму подзаконного ига, как бы нарочито создан был для того, чтобы представлять глубочайший контраст христианству, показывая преимущество его, как царства свободы».

Газета «Православный голос»,

г. Екатеринбург

Temos o Mesmo Deus Que os Não-Cristãos?

Pelo Padre Basile Sakkas.

"OS POVOS HEBREU, ISLÂMICO E CRISTÃO...essas três expressões de um idêntico monoteísmo, falam com as vozes mais autênticas e antigas, e mesmo ousadas e confiantes.
Porque não seria possível que o nome do mesmo Deus, ao invés de engendrar uma oposição irreconciliável, viesse, isso sim, a conduzir ao respeito mútuo, compreensão e coexistência pacífica? Não deveria a referência ao mesmo Deus, o mesmo Pai, sem prejuízo de discussões teológicas, nos conduzir a descobrir o que é tão evidente,apesar de tão difícil — que somos todos filhos do mesmo Pai, e que, portanto, somos todos irmãos?" Papa Paulo VI, La Croix, 11 Ago. 1970.

Na quinta-feira, 2 de abril de 1970, uma grande manifestação religiosa teve lugar em Genebra. Dentro do quadro da Segunda Conferência da "Associação das Religiões Unidas," os representantes das religiões alvo foram convidados a se reunir na Catedral de São Pedro. Essa "oração comum" foi baseada na seguinte motivação: "Os fiéis de todas essas religiões foram convidados a coexistir no culto do mesmo Deus"! Vejamos se essa afirmação é válida à luz das Sagradas Escrituras.
Para melhor explicar o assunto, nos limitaremos às três religiões que se seguiram uma a outra nessa ordem: Judaísmo, Cristianismo, Islamismo. Essas três religiões alegam, de fato, uma origem comum: como adoradores do Deus de Abraão. Essa é uma opinião largamente espalhada já que todos reclamam ser a posteridade de Abraão (os judeus e islâmicos segundo a carne e os Cristãos espiritualmente), nós todos temos como Deus o Deus de Abraão e todos três de nós adoramos (cada um a seu modo, naturalmente) o mesmo Deus! E, esse mesmo Deus constitui de alguma forma nosso ponto de unidade e de "mútuo entendimento," e isso nos convida para uma "relação fraternal," como o Grande Rabino Dr. Safran enfatizou, parafraseando o Salmo: "Ó, como é bom ver os irmãos sentados juntos..."
Nessa perspectiva é evidente que Jesus Cristo, Deus e Homem, o Filho Co-eterno com o Pai sem início, Sua Encarnação, Sua Cruz, Sua gloriosa Ressurreição e Sua Segunda e Terrível Vinda — tornam-se detalhes secundários que não podem impedir que "confraternizemos" com aqueles que O consideram um "simples profeta" (de acordo com o Corão) ou "o filho de uma prostituta" (de acordo com certas tradições talmúdicas)! Assim colocaríamos Jesus de Nazaré e Maomé no mesmo nível. Eu não conheço que Cristão digno do nome poderia admitir isso em sua consciência.
Pode-se dizer que nessas três religiões, olhando sobre o passado, pode-se concordar que Jesus Cristo foi um ser extraordinário e excepcional e que Ele foi mandado por Deus. Mas para nós Cristãos, se Jesus Cristo não é Deus, nós não podemos considerá-Lo nem como um "profeta" nem como alguém mandado por Deus, "mas somente um grande impostor sem comparação, Que Se proclamou "Filho de Deus," fazendo-Se assim igual a Deus!" (Mc.14: 61-62). De acordo com essa solução ecumênica de nível supra-confessional, o Deus Trinitário dos Cristãos seria a mesma coisa que o monoteísmo do Judaísmo, do Islã, dos antigos heréticos seguidores de Sabélio, dos modernos anti-Trinitários, e de certas seitas Iluministas. Não haveria três Pessoas em uma Única Divindade, mas uma única Pessoa, imutável para alguns, ou mudando sucessivamente "máscaras" (Pai, Filho, Espírito Santo) para outros! E não obstante pretende-se que esse é o "mesmo Deus."
Nesse ponto alguém pode propor ingenuamente: "No entanto, para as três religiões há um ponto comum: todas as três confessam o Deus Pai!" Mas de acordo com a Santa Fé Ortodoxa, isso é um absurdo. Nos confessamos sempre: Gloria à Santa, Consubstancial, Vivificante e Indivisível Trindade. Como poderíamos separar o Pai do Filho quando Jesus Cristo afirma Eu e o Pai somos Um (Jo. 10:30); e São João o Apóstolo, Evangelista e Teólogo, o Apóstolo do Amor, afirma claramente: Quem não honra o Filho, não honra o Pai Que O enviou (Jo. 5:23).
Mas mesmo se nós três chamarmos Deus Pai: de quem Ele é realmente o Pai? Para os judeus e os islâmicos Ele é o Pai dos homens no plano da criação; enquanto para nós Cristãos Ele é o Pai de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo por adoção. (Ef.1: 4-5) no plano da redenção. Que semelhança há ai, então, entre a Divina Paternidade no Cristianismo e nas outras religiões?
Outros podem dizer: "Mas é tudo o mesmo, Abraão adorava o verdadeiro Deus; e os judeus através de Isaac e os islâmicos através de Hagar são descendentes desse verdadeiro adorador de Deus."
Aqui se deve deixar uma série de coisas claras: Abraão adorou Deus não na forma do monoteísmo impessoal dos outros, mas na forma da Santíssima Trindade. Nós lemos nas Santas Escrituras: Depois apareceu-lhe o Senhor nos carvalhais de Manre... e ele inclinou-se à terra. (Ge. 18:1-2). E sob que forma Abraão adorou Deus? Sob a forma impessoal, ou sob a forma da Divina Tri-Unidade? Nós Ortodoxos veneramos essa manifestação da Santíssima Trindade no Velho Testamento, no Dia de Pentecostes, quando nós adornamos nossas igrejas com galhos representando os antigos carvalhos, e quando nós veneramos no meio deles o ícone dos Três Anjos, justamente como nosso pai Abraão os venerou! Descendência carnal de Abraão pode não ter uso se nós não formos regenerados nas águas do Batismo na Fé de Abraão.
E a Fé de Abraão era a Fé em Jesus Cristo, como o próprio Senhor disse:
Abraão,vosso Pai, exultou por ver o meu dia, e viu-o, e alegrou-se (Jo. 8:56. Essa foi também a Fé do Profeta-Rei David, que ouviu o Pai celestial falando para Seu Filho Consubstancial: Disse o Senhor ao meu Senhor (Sl.109:1; At. 2:34). Essa foi a Fé dos Três Jovens na fornalha quando eles foram salvos pelo Filho de Deus (Dan. 3:25); e do Santo Profeta Daniel, que teve a visão das duas naturezas de Jesus Cristo no Mistério da Encarnação quando o Filho do Homem dirigiu-se para o Ancião de Dias (Dan. 7:13). Eis ai porque o Senhor, dirigindo-se para a (biologicamente incontestável) posteridade de Abraão, disse: "Se fôsseis filhos de Abraão, faríeis as obras de Abraão." (Jo.8:39), e as "obras" de Deus são para que creiais Naquele Que Ele enviou (Jo.6: 29).
Quem são então os que constituem a posteridade de Abraão? Os filhos de Isaac segundo
a carne, ou os filhos de Hagar a egípcia? É Isaac ou Ismael a posteridade de Abraão? O que as Escrituras ensinam pela boca do divino Apóstolo? Ora as promessas foram feitas a Abraão e à sua posteridade. Não diz: E às posteridades, como falando de muitas, mas como de uma só: E à tua posteridade, que é Cristo (Ga. 3:16). E, se sois de Cristo, então sois descendência de Abraão, e herdeiros conforme a promessa (Ga. 3:29). É então em Jesus Cristo que Abraão se tornou o pai de muitas nações (Ge. 17:5; Ro. 4:17). Depois de tais promessas e tais certezas, que significam as descendências carnais que Abraão teve? De acordo com As Sagradas Escrituras, Isaac é considerado como a descendência ou posteridade, mas somente como a imagem de Jesus Cristo. Oposto a Ismael (o filho de Hagar; Ge. !6:1 e segs.), Isaac nasceu na miraculosa "liberdade" de uma mãe estéril, que estava em idade avançada e contra as leis da natureza, similar a nosso Salvador, Que nasceu miraculosamente de uma Virgem. Ele escalou o monte de Moriá assim como Jesus escalou o Calvário, carregando em Seus ombros o madeiro do sacrifício. Um anjo liberou Isaac da morte, assim como um anjo rolou a rocha para nos mostrar que a tumba estava vazia, que o Ressuscitado não mais estava lá. Na hora da oração, Isaac encontrou Rebeca na planície e conduziu-a para a tenda de sua mãe Sara, assim como Jesus encontrará Sua Igreja nas nuvens para levá-La para as mansões celestiais, a Nova Jerusalém, a mui desejada pátria.
Não! Nós, no mínimo não temos o mesmo Deus que os não-Cristãos têm! O sine qua non para conhecer o Pai, é o Filho: ...quem Me vê a Mim vê o Pai; ...Ninguém vem ao Pai, senão por Mim (Jo. 14:9 e ¨). Nosso Deus é um Deus Encarnado, Que vimos com nossos olhos, e as nossas mãos tocaram (1 Jo 1:1). O imaterial tornou-se material para nossa salvação, como diz São João Damasceno, e Ele Se revelou em nós. Mas quando Ele Se revelou entre os atuais judeus e islâmicos, de modo que possamos supor que eles conhecem Deus? Se eles têm conhecimento de Deus fora de Jesus Cristo, então Cristo encarnou, morreu e ressuscitou em vão!
Não, eles não conhecem o Pai. Eles têm concepções a respeito do Pai; mas todas as concepções acerca do Pai são ídolos, porque concepção é um produto de nossa imaginação, a criação de um deus à nossa imagem e semelhança. Para nós Cristãos Deus é inconcebível, indescritível e imaterial, como diz São Basílio o Grande. Para nossa salvação Ele tornou-Se (contanto que estejamos unidos a Ele) concebido, descrito e material, por revelação no Mistério da Encarnação de Seu Filho. Para Ele glória pelos séculos dos séculos. Amém. E eis ai porque São Cipriano de Cartago afirma que quem não tem a Igreja como Mãe, não tem Deus como Pai!
Que Deus nos preserve de Apostasia e da vinda do Anti-Cristo, de quem os sinais estão se multiplicando dia a dia. Que Ele nos preserve da grande aflição que mesmo os eleitos não terão condição de suportar sem a Graça Daquele Que "abreviará" esses dias. E que Ele nos preserve no "pequeno rebanho," o "remanescente de acordo com a eleição da Graça," para que como Abraão possamos rejubilar à Luz de Sua Face, pelas orações da Santíssima Mãe de Deus e Sempre-Virgem Maria, de todas hostes celestes, a nuvem de testemunhas, profetas, mártires, hierarcas, evangelistas e confessores que foram fiéis até a morte, que derramaram seu sangue por Cristo, que nos geraram pelo Evangelho de Jesus Cristo nas águas do Batismo. Nós somos filhos deles—fracos, pecadores, e indignos, seguramente; mas não elevaremos nossas mãos para um deus estranho. Amém.
Veja: As Religiões Monoteístas

Padre Basile Sakkas
La Foi Transmise, 5 Abril, 1970

If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

Galatians 1, 6-9:

I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

CONCLUSION:
Islam falsely announces and arrogantly preaches "a different gospel", a gospel that immorally "perverts" the verifiable and eternal Gospel of Christ. Therefore, as can be logically deduced and so known from Sacred Scripture, Islam is ever surely "accursed" as a bold satanic heresy by the Apostle Paul (and, consequently, by the Church of Christ and, even more so, by God). It is, nonetheless, theologically important to say that this does not mean, however, that all the Moslems together would be "accursed," nay, each one only to the willful extent to which he personally and knowingly opposes with militance and "with missionary engagement" the one and only, always true and absolutely holy, Gospel of Christ. Thus, requisite conversion to Christianity, meaning especially Roman Catholicism, is here charitably suggested and, moreover, hoped for concerning the spiritual welfare and moral betterment of all the Moslems, as also being among the children of God.

Me maravillo de que abandonando al que os llamó por la gracia de Cristo, os paséis tan pronto a otro evangelio - no que haya otro, sino que hay algunos que os perturban y quieren deformar el Evangelio de Cristo -. Pero aun cuando nosotros mismos o un ángel del cielo os anunciara un evangelio distinto del que os hemos anunciado, ¡sea anatema! Como lo tenemos dicho, también ahora lo repito: Si alguno os anuncia un evangelio distinto del que habéis recibido, ¡sea anatema!

Удивляюсь, что вы от призвавшего вас благодатью Христовою так скоро переходите к иному благовествованию, которое [впрочем] не иное, а только есть люди, смущающие вас и желающие превратить благовествование Христово. Но если бы даже мы или Ангел с неба стал благовествовать вам не то, что мы благовествовали вам, да будет анафема. Как прежде мы сказали, [так] и теперь еще говорю: кто благовествует вам не то, что вы приняли, да будет анафема.

Mi meraviglio che così in fretta da colui che vi ha chiamati con la grazia di Cristo passiate ad un altro vangelo. In realtà, però, non ce n'è un altro; solo che vi sono alcuni che vi turbano e vogliono sovvertire il vangelo di Cristo. Orbene, se anche noi stessi o un angelo dal cielo vi predicasse un vangelo diverso da quello che vi abbiamo predicato, sia anàtema! L'abbiamo già detto e ora lo ripeto: se qualcuno vi predica un vangelo diverso da quello che avete ricevuto, sia anàtema!

Miror quod tam cito transferimini ab eo, qui vos vocavit in gratia Christi, in aliud evangelium; quod non est aliud, nisi sunt aliqui, qui vos conturbant et volunt convertere evangelium Christi. Sed licet nos aut angelus de caelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit! Sicut praediximus, et nunc iterum dico: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id, quod accepistis, anathema sit!

Ich wundere mich, dass ihr euch so schnell von dem, der euch durch die Gnade Christi berufen hat, abwendet zu einem anderen Evangelium, wo es doch kein anderes gibt; einige verwirren euch nur und wollen das Evangelium des Christus umkehren. Wenn aber auch wir oder ein Engel aus dem Himmel euch etwas als Evangelium entgegen dem verkündigten, was wir euch als Evangelium verkündigt haben: Er sei verflucht! Wie wir früher gesagt haben, so sage ich auch jetzt wieder: Wenn jemand euch etwas als Evangelium verkündigt entgegen dem, was ihr empfangen habt: Er sei verflucht!

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG:
Der Islam verkündet, predigt "ein anderes Evangelium", eines das das Evangelium Christi "umkehrt". Folglich ist der Islam als teuflische Irrlehre vom Apostel Paulus (und damit von der Kirche Christi und damit von Gott) "verflucht". Das heißt aber nicht, dass die Moslems insgesamt "verflucht" wären, diese nur in dem Maße wie sie sich persönlich bewußt "militant" und "missionarisch" gegen das wahre Evangelium Christi wenden.

L'Islam n'a pas deux visages

Y aurait-il deux Islams? L’un guerrier et l’autre tolérant et pacifique? Tout comme M. Alcader et son ouvrage «le vrai visage de l’islam», Anne-Marie Delcambre lève le voile sur ce qui apparaît bien être un attrape nigauds!
Pour ne pas avoir à accuser l’islam de violence et de terrorisme, les occidentaux non musulmans et certains musulmans occidentalisés ont inventé “l’islamisme”. Idéologie politique et guerrière, l’islamisme n’aurait, selon eux, absolument rien à voir avec l’islam religion. En d’autres termes, il y aurait deux islams: l’islam éclairé, ouvert, pacifique, religion d’amour, de tolérance et de paix – et ce serait la religion pratiquée par la grosse majorité des musulmans qui ne demanderaient qu’à pratiquer leur religion dans la tranquillité – et l’autre islam -l’islamisme- obscurantiste, fermé sur lui-même, sectaire, fanatique, guerrier, un islam politique, déviant et malade et qui n’aurait rien à voir avec le premier, le vrai, le bon, le juste, le rayonnant, le modéré, le mystique, le frère du judaïsme et du christianisme, dont la haute spiritualité conduirait de nombreux non musulmans à se convertir. Cette invention des “deux islams” est extrêmement pratique car elle rassure l’Occident non musulman sur la nature de l’islam. Malheureusement il s’agit là d’un énorme mensonge car il n’y a qu’un seul islam et il n’a pas deux visages mais un seul à facettes multiples. La facette mystique et la facette terroriste sont les deux extrêmes, mais de nombreuses facettes se situent entre ces deux facettes extrêmes et toutes ont toujours coexisté et s’abreuvent aux mêmes sources, le Coran, considéré comme la Parole de Dieu et la personne de Muhammad -Mahomet- qui constitue pour tous les musulmans, sans exception, le beau modèle à suivre, comme le prescrit le Coran. (Sourate 33, les Factions, verset 21 “Vous avez dans l’Apôtre d’Allah, un bel exemple (uswatun Hasanatun) pour quiconque espère en Allah et au Dernier Jour et invoque (dhakara) Allah fréquemment”)[Traduction Régis Blachère]. Or, dans le Coran, Parole de Dieu, il est difficile de nier que les ordres de Dieu n’appellent à la paix que lorsqu’il n’est pas possible de faire autrement... Dans la sourate 47, Muhammad (Mahomet), verset 35 ou 37, il est prescrit “Ne faiblissez donc pas! N’appelez point à la paix alors que vous avez la supériorité! Allah est avec vous et Il n’abolira pas vos [louables] actions”. Et ces ordres de Dieu, il serait sacrilège d’y toucher. Les paroles divines emprisonnent le croyant, lequel n’aurait jamais l’idée d’en sortir. Comme le fait remarquer Jean-Paul Roux, dans son dernier livre “les Ordres d’Allah”: “Au cours des siècles, on en a fait des commentaires [de ces paroles], on les a expliquées, on a essayé de tirer au clair ce qu’elles avaient d’obscur. On ne les a jamais contestées. Toutes les tentatives d’interprétation libérale ont été vouées à l’échec, que ce soient celles des mutazilites du IX ème siècle, qui soutenaient la théorie d’un Coran créé, et non pas incréé, ou celles des chiites ismaéliens qui en faisaient une lecture ésotérique. Toute personne qui prétend user de son intelligence, de son jugement, de sa science pour aboutir à des conclusions même justes, mais opposées au sens obvie est dans l’erreur car son intelligence, son jugement, sa science ne sauraient égaler ceux d’Allah. Il en découle que toute étude historique et épistémologique semblable à celles qui ont été réalisées en Occident sur la Bible et les Evangiles est impensable et n’a effectivement pas lieu.”
Lire plus...

The Son of Man Who has Come Down from Heaven

John 3, 13-17 -- Joh 3, 13-17

No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

CONCLUSION:
He who knowingly and with his free will adheres to Islam instead of Christ "does not have eternal life and will perish." He then denies, among other things, that the exalted Son of Man, meaning Jesus Christ as the Son of God, had come down from Heaven, which means that GOD had, in truth, become Man. He, as the eternal and glorified God-Man, was once "lifted up" (on the Cross) and so was crucified. Consequently, all who genuinely believe in Christ have the inevitable duty to also be missionaries to all the Moslems and to charitably admonish them to convert to Him; however, this is not fully possible without a clear testimony given always for Christ and adamantly against Mohammed, his followers, and their completely false god or idol, Allah.

---

Und niemand ist in den Himmel hinaufgestiegen außer dem, der vom Himmel herabgestiegen ist: der Menschensohn.
Und wie Mose die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat, so muss der Menschensohn erhöht werden, damit jeder, der (an ihn) glaubt, in ihm das ewige Leben hat.
Denn Gott hat die Welt so sehr geliebt, dass er seinen einzigen Sohn hingab, damit jeder, der an ihn glaubt, nicht zugrunde geht, sondern das ewige Leben hat.
Denn Gott hat seinen Sohn nicht in die Welt gesandt, damit er die Welt richtet, sondern damit die Welt durch ihn gerettet wird.

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG:
Wer sich bewußt und freiwillig zum Islam bekennt, statt zum Christentum, "hat das ewige Leben nicht und geht zugrunde". Er leugnet unter anderem auch, dass der Menschensohn, also Jesus, als Sohn Gottes, vom Himmel herabgestiegen ist, also dass GOTT Mensch geworden ist und dass Er, als Gott-Mensch, (am Kreuz) erhöht, also gekreuzigt worden ist. Folglich haben diejenigen, die an Christus glauben, die unumgängliche Pflicht, auch die Moslems zu missionieren, zur Bekehrung aufzufordern, und das geht nicht, ohne eindeutiges Zeugnis abzulegen für Christus und gegen Mohammed und seine Anhänger und ihren Allah.

---

Un contraste entre Mahomet et Jésus

par George Zeller
La méthode de Mahomet était la COERCITION (Le Coran, Al-Fath 16); l'appel de Christ était une CONVERSION volontaire (Actes 3:19). Les disciples de Mahomet tuent pour leur foi; les disciples de Christ sont tués pour leur foi (Actes 12:2; 2 Timothée 4:7). Mahomet était un prophète guerrier; Christ est le Prince de la Paix (Ésaïe 9:6-7). Mahomet encourage la persécution et le meurtre contre les "infidèles" (le Coran, Al-Baqarah 190); Christ pardonne et transforme les chefs des persécuteurs (1 Timothée 1:13-15).
Mahomet est le destructeur de la vie; Christ est celui qui donne la vie (Jean 10:27-28). Mahomet et ses adeptes guerriers tuent des milliers; Christ ne tue pas, mais il en sauve plusieurs (comparez Jean 12:48). Mahomet se sert de la FORCE; Christ prêche la FOI (Jean 6:29, 35). Mahomet était un GUERRIER; Christ est un LIBÉRATEUR (Colossiens 1:13; 1 Thessaloniciens 1:10). Mahomet a conquis ses ennemis avec l'épée; Christ a conquis ses ennemis avec une autre sorte d'épée, l'épée de l'Esprit qui est la Parole de Dieu (Hébreux 4:12; Actes 2:37). Mahomet dit aux masses: "Convertissez-vous ou mourez !"; Christ dit: "Croyez et vivez !" (Jean 6:47; 11:25-26). Mahomet était rapide à verser le sang (Rom. 3:15-17); Christ versa son propre sang pour le salut de plusieurs (Ephésiens 1:7). Mahomet prêche "la mort des infidèles!"; Christ pria: "Père, pardonne leur, car ils ne savent pas ce qu'ils font" (Luc 23:34). Mahomet déclare la guerre sainte (Jihad) contre les infidèles; Christ a remporté une sainte victoire à la croix du Calvaire (Colossiens 2:14-15) et Ses disciples participent à cette victoire (Jean 16:33). Mahomet contraint les peuples par la conquête; Christ contraint les peuples par l'amour (2 Corinthiens 5:14).
Les terroristes modernes tirent leur inspiration de Mahomet et commettent leurs atrocités dans le nom de son dieu Allah; les Chrétiens tirent leur inspiration de celui qui dit: "Heureux ceux qui procurent la paix, car ils seront appelés fils de Dieu !" (Matthieu 5:9). De nombreux disciples de Mahomet des temps modernes répondent aux attaques terroristes en festoyant dans les rues; les disciples de Christ des temps modernes se sentent profondément attristés par les atrocités perpétrées par ceux qui ne sont "Chrétiens" que de nom seulement (lors du temps des Croisades, et de l'Inquisition espagnole, etc.). Plusieurs Musulmans sont pacifiques, parce qu'ils ne suivent pas à la lettre les enseignements de leur fondateur, ceux qui, parmi les Musulmans, suivent à la lettre ses enseignements, les appellent "les mécréants". En contrepartie, plusieurs Chrétiens sont pacifiques, parce qu'ils suivent les enseignements de leur Fondateur (Romains 12:17-21). Mahomet appelle ses serviteurs à combattre; Jésus dit: "Mon royaume n'est pas de ce monde; si Mon royaume était de ce monde, alors mes serviteurs combattraient… mais maintenant, Mon royaume n'est point d'ici bas" (Jean 18:36). Mahomet ordonne la mort des Juifs [voyez A. Guillaume, La vie de Mahomet, Oxford University Press (1975), p. 369]; Christ a ordonné dans l'évangile de prêcher "aux Juifs premièrement" (Romains 1:16). Le Coran dit: "Combattez pour la cause d'Allah" (Le Coran, An-Nisa 84); la Bible dit: "Car les armes avec lesquelles nous combattons ne sont pas charnelles" (Ephésiens 6:12; 2 Corinthiens 10:4). Le Coran dit: "Combattez et détruisez les infidèles là où ils se trouvent" (Le Coran, Al-Baqarah 190); Christ dit: "Prêchez l'évangile à toute la création" (Marc 16:15). Le Coran dit: "J'inspirerai la terreur dans le cœur des incroyants" (Qu'ran 8.12); Dieu inspire Sa terreur (une crainte révérencielle) dans le cœur des croyants (Ésaïe 8:13). Le Coran (Qu'ran) est un manuel terroriste qui incite à la violence, aux conflits, à la terreur, aux massacres et aux génocides contre ceux qui n'acceptent pas l'Islam; la Bible est un manuel missionnaire pour propager un évangile de paix au monde entier (Romains 10:15). La Mission de Mahomet était de conquérir le monde pour Allah, par la violence; la mission de Christ est de conquérir les cœurs afin d'enlever le péché et la peine qu'il encourt, par le ministère de la réconciliation (2 Corinthiens 5:21; 1 Pierre 3:18). Mahomet dit considérer Christ comme un bon prophète (tout en niant cependant son importance, son évangile, ses enseignements et sa divinité). (Le Coran, Al-Maidah 72-73, le Coran, Al-Maidah 75, le Coran, An-Nisa 171); Christ a décrit les critères qui font de Mahomet un faux prophète (Jean 10:10; Matthieu 24:11). Mahomet dit qu'il n'y a qu'un seul Dieu, Allah; Christ déclara lui-même qu'il était Dieu (Jean 10:30-31; Jean 8:58-59; Jean 5:18; Jean 14:9). La Tombe de Mahomet est OCCUPÉE ! La tombe de Christ est VIDE !
En lire plus...

Le Coran et la guerre

Les vrais musulmans qui veulent la guerre sainte suivent le Coran. En effet, le djihad est une prescription essentielle de l’islam. Le Coran, sans lequel il n’y aurait pas d’islam, le recommande avec véhémence : «Les vrais croyants disent : Dieu n’a-t-il pas ordonné un chapitre qui ordonne la guerre sainte?» (Sourate 47:22) ou encore: «Tuez les idolâtres partout où vous les trouverez, faites-les prisonniers, assiégez-les et guettez-les dans toute embuscade» (Sourate 9:5) et «faites la guerre à ceux qui ne croient pas» (Sourate 9:29). «Quand vous rencontrerez les infidèles: tuez-les jusqu’à en faire un grand carnage, et serrez les entraves des captifs que vous aurez faits. Ensuite, ou vous les mettrez en liberté, ou vous les rendrez moyennant rançon» (Sourate 8:57). Selon le Coran, un non-musulman est un moins que rien: «Il n’y a point auprès d’Allah d’animaux plus vils que ceux qui ne croient point et restent infidèles» (Sourate 8:57). C’est pourquoi il faut les islamiser par la force, en les humiliant. Et ceux qui résistent contre l’islam et son fondateur doivent être châtiés selon le Coran: «Voici quel sera le destin de ceux qui combattent Allah et son envoyé: vous les mettrez à mort ou vous leur ferez subir le supplice de la croix, vous leur couperez les mains et les pieds alternés. Ils seront chassés du pays» (Sourate 5:37). Et comme les musulmans sont réalistes, ils tiennent compte des circonstances pour faire une paix temporaire ou la guerre: «Ne montrez pas de lâcheté et n’appelez point les infidèles à la paix quand vous leur êtes supérieurs» (Sourate 47:22).
En un mot, le Coran étant la parole d’Allah pour tous les musulmans, il est valable pour tous les temps, pour tous les peuples jusqu’à la fin du monde. Il doit être mis en application selon les indications qu’Allah lui-même donne à ses fidèles. Ceci explique logiquement ce qui se passe au Soudan, en Algérie, et dans de nombreux pays musulmans. Idéaliser l’islam c’est le plus grand tort que l’on puisse faire aux musulmans eux-mêmes.

Lire: L'Islam réel et l'Islam imaginaire

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God - and the Word became Flesh

John, Chapter 1, 1-14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. A man named John was sent from God. He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him.
But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God. And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

---

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est; in ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum, et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Ioannes; hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per illum. Non erat ille lux, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem, veniens in mundum. In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Quotquot autem acceperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his, qui credunt in nomine eius, qui non ex sanguinibus neque ex voluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; et vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi Unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.

---

Conclusion:
Islam denies categorically the Incarnation of God in Jesus. Followers of Islam do not, by implication, accept the (only) True Light. They do not believe in the name of JESUS CHRIST and consequently reject Grace and Truth. Therefore, muslims are "not born of God", they cannot "become children of God", as long as they do not convert to the Father's Only Son.

Comments on the Terrible and Failed Pontificate of Pope John Paul II

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Who was once, ultimately speaking, meaning as the Vicar of Christ on earth, responsible for the physical blasphemy, sacrilegious action, and ugly profanation of the sacred altar at the church at Assisi, Italy when a statue of Buddha, an idol, was deliberately placed on it? One wonders if that person, who was ultimately responsible, is now paying an extended visit to Purgatory for that and many other highly questionable actions of his strange and uneven, amazing and incredible, pontificate.
Of course, many rather convenient and bizarrely convoluted rationalizations as complex explanations have been given for Assisi, including outright denials that it ever happened, for such an event contrary to Roman Catholic religious teachings and, one might assume, just plain common sense – if one believes that Jesus Christ is God, meaning the only God that there is, by definition of the Supreme Being, the Lord God Almighty.
Otherwise, of course, anything goes. The Neo-Pelagianism, dominated by nominalism in thinking, corrupting the postmodern world had cheered in favor of the wildly absurd and contemptible Assisi fiasco and the wreckage left in its wake.
Was it known to that pope that on September 8, 1907, Pope Saint Pius X wrote Pascendi Dominici Gregis, an incisive attack on the modernist movement’s entire nominalist agenda and brilliant affirmation of the Church’s traditional teachings? However, Pope John Paul II had, one can note, unwittingly implemented most of what the modernists had, in fact, really wanted.
In his defense, he had badly translated things into terms that he had understood from both his personal and pastoral experience in his native Poland. For instance, the communists had often falsely accused many loyal and good Polish priests of being homosexuals so as to wrongly discredit them; thus, he thought (incorrectly) that the real homosexual crisis/scandal within the Church was almost entirely faked by the enemies of the Church, meaning regardless of all the mounting and objective, highly credible and overwhelmingly extensive, evidence to the contrary.
So, as a direct consequence of having once dealt with communists as real enemies, he did virtually nothing to halt or check the very harmful and evil growth of the gay priesthood and even its vile continuance within much of the hierarchy itself.
Much the same can be fairly said of how he often naively thought that his many international youth rallies were just simply larger versions of the events done at a more local and, thus, controllable level during his years in Poland; he apparently had never sufficiently realized that the great change in scale of such events had then necessarily resulted in ruining the intended consequences; this was by perverting significantly the actual things that had then occurred at such morally twisted events.
Regardless, measurements of much supposed “success” in the early 21st century are, nevertheless, truly strange to see and experience. Since the Roman Catholic religion, however, is still fundamentally sacramental in its integral nature and structure as firmly opposed to, for instance, Protestantism, then the best measurement of true success is the actual forwarding of that so essential and ever truly vital sacramentalism.
The fundamental pivot or main, key, stone as it were of that noted and notable fact is the necessary institution of the priesthood, meaning those properly chosen (one hopes) to be seen as embodied fulfillments and rightful transmitters of the holy sacraments to all of the believing faithful. Horror, therefore, necessarily awaits the possible reader of this article evaluating a man (and his activities) who was also a rather odd and international phenomenon in himself, one who experienced great adulation. Pope John Paul II, amazingly, had reigned so dramatically over a most notable and documented decline in the priesthood, which, one supposes, is not really thought to be a very great scandal, as so perceived by, one assumes, his many (deluded?) admirers. Moreover, by various secular and other empirical measurements of assumed earthly success, he is regarded, by his avid supporters, as being truly worthy of being called “the Great” as to his now valued memory and various observed accomplishments.
So, yes, he had helped, to a certain extent, to defeat the evil and tyrannical Soviet Empire and, in general, the overall evil menace of world Communism; he, moreover, created greater degrees of fair understanding with many peoples of other faiths, especially, in particular, the Jews; he had easily demonstrated an openness to the various and sundry new techniques and advanced technologies for evangelization, inclusive of the dynamics of the internet, etc.
And yet, Catholicism itself is a truly world-encompassing religion that is supposed to ever surpass any merely or simply present reality, meaning in its strident path toward an always needed and permanent spiritual transcendence and transformation in, through and by Christ. So … what really had happened during his disastrous and shocking pontificate? Despite Pope John Paul II’s personal and here totally unquestioned holiness and also quite abundant sanctity notwithstanding, nonetheless, by truly Catholic measurements of spiritual, transcendent, achievement, his odd time as the chosen Vicar of Christ on earth had actually made his pontificate a tragic failure, which yet must properly reflect upon the entire image of the man negatively.
As the general perception of reality is usually greater than reality alone, the observed lack, in the pope’s lexicon, of the ever affirmative pronunciation and demonstration of the irrepressible defense of Christendom, the spiritual reign of Christ, became merely translated, in the warped secular mind, as simply a competing ethics and not really much more than that.
This was and is known as the culture of life; this is where always strident and adamant Catholic truth qua the Faith is not put forth urgently as the only and absolute reality in and of itself being always, forever, superior to any other beliefs whatsoever. And so, the alternate and proclaimed culture of death is then simply just another opposed ethics; the latter proposition or attitude perceives itself as at least equal to or greater in full status; and, as such, this, thus, finally constitutes and substantiates the ultimate formal failure of his, at best, sadly ambiguous and troublesome pontificate.
No strong bulwark was, in short, erected by him to fully fight against the Neo-Pelagian heresy, the denial of the doctrine of Original Sin that makes people believe in the perfectibility of Man (a god-term if there ever was one) on earth. Thus, a great apostasy had occurred in the Western world of an enormous magnitude; millions of people left the Church and, also, repaganization of millions of others massively happened. One can here easily cite such a work as Kenneth C. Jones’ Leading Index of Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II; if genuine charity, it can be said, is traditionally stated to need to begin at home, the pope had a terribly and oddly poor sense of true charity; and, this was to the ever maddening point of tremendously absurd neglect of Church affairs so dreadful as to truly leave open a proper suspicion of naïve unconcern.
So, one may say, as but one simply important consequence and result among many, there are now many more actual mosques being planned and built in Europe than, for instance, churches. The Western world is, needless to say, in rather urgent need of a massive evangelization to combat the Neo-Pelagianism and its resultant neopaganism.
George Weigel’s The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God easily offers very eloquent and fully massive testimony of this, by now, quite obvious fact that ought to need no explanation; though not at all intended by the author, who was a notably ardent and dedicated admirer of the pope, it is, nevertheless, a unique kind of justifiable and massive indictment of the pope as to his horrible and disgusting failure as the pontiff of the Church for about 26 years and the true Vicar of Christ, not just simply the Bishop of Rome. The enormous and glorious Petrine Power of the Keys was sadly wasted and wrongly deformed almost beyond proper recognition. But, this cited and provable enormous spiritual/religious failure, a momentous event, incredibly and obviously presided over by him has, one guesses, been sickly transmogrified into a truly bizarre kind of yet ugly and supposed success. At his funeral Mass, one easily heard many chants raised demanding his future sainthood much sooner rather than later.
John Paul II “the Great” reigned impressively over a monumental and still continuing disaster the true magnitude of which may take some centuries to properly assess and analyze, after much of the initial euphoria has appropriately ended in the deluded minds of so many of his (blindly?) admiring contemporaries. It has, one can add, been well said that he thought of his significant time as pope in explicit terms of a “sign of contradiction,” which does properly express the ever odd reality involved in much abundant terms of free and imaginative reference.
One easily notes that the tide has not yet been turned against the denounced culture of death. (Pope Benedict XVI certainly knows this truth only too well. Thus, his condoning of a greater freedom, a universal indult in effect, for the traditional Latin Mass [wrongly often cited as the Tridentine Latin Mass as if it only originated after/at the Council of Trent] that will come to surely undermine, one fervently hopes, the horrid results of Vatican Council II and its forever weird New Mass that can never, in fact, be reformed.) Shock and horror, therefore, ought to rightly, correctly, greet and instruct the minds of truly informed observers, meaning those in the minority who were not so wildly dazzled and blinded by the assumed brilliance of the earthly, terrene, signs of the warped era he occupied, while he sat in the ever illustrious Chair of St. Peter.
Yes, admittedly, he had impressive and substantial rhetorical and other important gifts and related abilities beyond normal that were superbly added to his always most evident charisma and much noted personal charm.
And yet, for instance, his various youth day rally events were, one can note, more like strange rock concerts that had wondrously attracted his groupies; the kids had obviously admired the man; they, nonetheless, really did not heed his religious-oriented words, for where were the seen and missing enormous numbers of religious vocations – these vocations that ought to have so appropriately developed in various and sundry mighty waves of such perceived and genuine enthusiasm?
One properly knows, as the Gospel rightly teaches, a good tree by the good fruit it thus then naturally produces and a bad tree by the opposite, to paraphrase Jesus Christ. Therefore, exactly where was the to-be-expected “good fruit” of all such amazing and presumably inspiring pontifical labors? Look for it ever in vain dear reader. It becomes a then so noted and sad part of the dreadful myth of John Paul II, similar, in many ways, to the ugly myth of the Spirit of Vatican II. Meanwhile, of course, the so-called Second and Third Worlds are now where the observed majority of converts have actually come from, especially as seen in Africa. Ironically, however, many in the Church do urgently wish to raise the standard of living in those areas to, therefore, someday match that of the (degenerate and nihilistic) West; the latter region is significantly where affluence, on the whole, has mainly been the cause of the nihilism fed by philosophical nominalism that then eagerly encourages: secularism, sadism, homosexuality, atheism, naturalism, relativism, liberalism, humanism, materialism, and hedonism.
Oh, what a surely dubious and strange blessing at best the non-Western world is to supposedly look forward to in the yet unknown future, as the Western sector of a vile humanity falls ever deeper into an evil apostasy that results in both the horrors of repaganization and Weimarization of thought and action, society and culture.
The devastating depths of degeneracy and depravity are, moreover, to be ever insanely deepened with each passing generation, if nothing is not done to both vigorously and substantially reverse the previously noted evil and vile trends.
Question: Will the West’s so evident nihilism and neo-Pelagianism, the dictatorship of relativism as well noted by Pope Benedict XVI, be merely exported eagerly to the Second and Third Worlds? Such important matters as, for instance, the Neo-catechumenate movement seen now among the missionaries reaches the yet to be converted on a supine level of primitivism that ends up, in stark retrograde fashion, seeming to stupidly teach the Western world its odd brand of minimalist religiosity; this, too, rather obscenely creates an unneeded philosophical neo-primitivism in Catholic theology that, for instance, constantly seeks to thus supposedly “innovate” the liturgy continuously with novelties.
This, among other dreadful consequences, is so that the New Mass, the Novus Ordo, becomes ever a mere work-in-progress, not ever, one knows, a true, definitive, and absolute exposition of needed manifest dogma, doctrine, and tradition upheld permanently, forever, by a certainly universal Church, not an ad hoc religious happening.
The traditional Latin Mass, on the other hand, always offers the proof that a genuine alternative has and will exist to fight against the postmodern darkness examined in this presented article looking into the essentially failed pontificate of this pope. Perhaps, the perceived periphery of the Church in the Second and Third Worlds is, thus, oddly expected to somehow or other save the continuingly rotting core in Europe, especially Western Europe and Italy in particular, since Vatican City, of course, resides within the bounds of Rome itself. The Holy See, if this is the supposed case anticipated, must surely be then expecting an amazing miracle of truly vast and unpredictable proportions to then hopefully reverse the observed repaganization, the continuing spread of the culture of death.
All this happened vigorously, one must add, since the terrible calamity of Vatican II and its horrendous aftermath. This charismatic pope had actively sought to expound upon and clarify the dubious “teachings” of Vatican II, in his many encyclicals, and to supposedly seek its ever greater fulfillment within the Church – as the perceived rot and evident decay continued mightily, strongly, in the very heart of the West, of Western civilization and culture.
There is, after all, e.g., a mosque present in Rome itself. Affluence and its often necessarily resulting secularization has, one sadly notices, debased European Christianity, as it has impoverished that same civilization and culture tremendously, as, among others, Christopher Dawson would have agreed. The late pope’s debatable achievements, nonetheless, are still exceedingly lauded to the heavens above; but, responsibility, dear readers, is still ever a double-edged sword of tremendous import; if he is to be, in point of fact, so well praised for any genuine accomplishments, how is it then that the same Holy Father is to be, one assumes, exempted wondrously, magically, from any guilt or blame at the same time? Such is an odd and disgusting spectacle to behold, to say the least, in an astonished and queer amazement. If a parent’s child, as an analogy, becomes a straight A student in grade school but, nevertheless, ends by simply dying as a very youthful drug addict, is the same parent only to be then applauded and praised for the child’s observed success and not, however, held as ever having any necessary and equal responsibility for the noted and unfortunate and premature death of that child? The answer, dear readers, ought to be too obvious without need of further comment on the analogy. So ends the grand, world-historic tragedy, it must be surely said, of the horrifying pontificate of Pope John Paul II whose persona notably impressed literally millions, while, in observed contradistinction, almost all of those same millions discounted or simply ignored his noted Catholic culture of life advocacy – in the very midst of often wildly and warmly greeting the man himself; he himself , therefore, was truly a great and perceived sign of contradiction and, in strict terms of the Faith, a certainly tragic failure of terrible proportions.
One senses easily that the man had, thus, become somehow greater than his message ever was, yet, no disciple is supposed to be truly capable of actually ever surpassing his master, as the original Master Himself has, in fact, said; boorish deconstructionism in most current quasi-philosophy notwithstanding. Self-evident truths will, finally, prevail against the grave errors. Regardless of how much he was sincerely loved, esteemed, admired, praised, welcomed, hailed, and respected, all of that is not the significant nor salient issue in fundamental debate here. And, contrary to all his putative and real achievements, the still proper and appropriate Catholic, not secular, standard of permanent and valid measurement (read: actual Catholicism) is how well a particular pope solidly advances the ever main reality and fundamental meaning and substance of the Faith, of the Eternal Word that is, was and be always Christ and His Kingdom. Catholicism is, therefore, an exoteric, not any supposedly esoteric or neo-Gnostic, religion; it, for instance, strongly defends the classical Natural Law Tradition by, among other reasons, its adamant opposition to all the errors of nominalism; the highest ontological cognition yet obtainable by mortal man has been, moreover, superbly developed by the Church’s own development of theological and metaphysical understanding as axiology logically rises to epistemology and then, ultimately, to ontology.
Opposition, for instance, to any form, shape, or type of syncretism is, therefore, axiomatically necessary; this is surely, one knows, because the Faith is nothing if it is not supremely incarnational in both word and deed, as it necessarily affirms the true Word and the Word made Flesh, the Deed, the Christ.
As the generally enthusiastic and so dedicated apostle of Vatican II, however, what then did this much celebrated pope do to firmly halt or reverse the easily observed and massive theological, liturgical, architectural, and other destruction deliberately, moreover, brought on by that council as to its consequences? One rather doubts that it, meaning a negative reply, can be fairly observed by most of his still dedicated and major or main supporters around the world. Great authority, it need be openly said, must ever assume to itself equally great responsibility; and, what authority and cognate power in the valued spiritual realm is, moreover, ever greater than that of the chief prelate, the pope, of the entire Roman Catholic Church? By certain definition, there is no such authority and power resident on earth that can seem to fully surpass that of the pope. So, this is not to be finally turned, however, into any simply discrete judgment of the man himself or, perhaps, even the possible condition of his own individual soul.
It is, nevertheless, a most requisite and informed judgment and most useful evaluation of the presented troubling impact of his tragic papacy upon the fundamental welfare and true substance of the Church he had guided and held sway over for over 25 years. Tragedy and failure, charged here, do thus mark sadly those forever frightening years; this is, moreover, when considered both seriously and strictly from a traditionalist and historical Catholic point of view objectively freed from any possible subjective personal adulation, media-driven glorification, or, ever much worse still, doctrinal reification. Proof with elaborated and many needed extrapolations as to important facts, dates, figures, statistics, arguments, and ever much more, can be readily found by studiously reading the pages of such worthy publications as: The New Oxford Review and The Latin Mass, besides such very good books as: Robert Phillips’ Last Things First: A Traditionalist Surveys the Wreckage of Vatican II. Equally, the known and virulent threat of Islam was mainly met, by this pope, with much observed appeasement and noted accommodation, not any real and much needed and righteous opposition.
One wonders, in addition, if John Paul II had ever actually read such important works as: The Life and Religion of Mohammed by Fr. J.L. Menezes, The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic, and Robert Spencer’s Islam Unveiled. If anyone still quite ignorantly doubts the basic truth and extent of the many problems and terrors facing many millions of Christians, then that person ought, one hopes, to become acquainted with such very worthy organizations as The Voice of the Martyrs. Did he, moreover, pay any real and necessary attention to good and informative books such as: The Charitable Anathema by Dietrich von Hildebrand and, also, his Trojan Horse in the City of God, and The Church Confronts Modernity by Thomas E, Woods, Jr., Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia by A. S. Guimaraes, among many others that could, therefore, realistically be properly cited. The known metaphysical and dogmatic claim to true and universal spiritual authority on earth as the Vicar of Christ must, logically, severely entail a genuinely grave responsibility; this is, among other reasons, since the exercise of power done without true authority is tyranny (spiritual or otherwise). The actual authority and integral responsibility of any pope are necessarily indivisible, or else they, in fact, are then nothing.
If his dramatic pontificate is to then be supposedly praised for much, it can yet be properly denounced for much more as to much grave and really serious neglect; this is, therefore, ever regarding the defense and promulgation of unadulterated and actual Catholicism as the only and exclusive true Faith; all else, by definition, must then be necessarily and logically mere idolatry, ignorance, absurdity, superstition, or worse.
Any and all prevalent modernist or postmodernist subjectivism (read: nominalism) or relativism notwithstanding. Harsh truths, consequently, need to be urgently dealt with properly – and regardless of mere temporal consequences. His personal and genuine magnetism had, it is true, widely attracted millions to his side, especially many eager young people; but, the grand and lasting and peculiar paradox is that, nonetheless, the majority of those attracted cared not for any of his presented and orthodox moral teachings; and, as said properly before, they were and are still indifferent to seeking any religious vocations in observable or massive numbers.
His was, quite surely, a tremendously high-media papacy that, one knows, essentially added nothing, however, regarding the present and ever future exposition and demonstration of why the true Faith is of eternal and, thus, certainly highly paramount and appropriate importance. As well observed, for instance, especially in Western Europe, the lasting impact of his papacy will be, it can be fairly said, problematic at best.
The absolute rightness, spiritual correctness, of Catholicism qua Catholicism is, thus, the necessary and key spiritual issue that has, of course, many greatly critical implications, historical, cultural, ethical, and otherwise. Nothing less is to be simply implied, nothing really more can yet be legitimately held as of a truly larger magnitude of ultimate significance, of lasting value and fundamental worth, for all of mankind, past, present, and, of course, to come. As but one obvious and critical example, the current seen failure, therefore, to helpfully evangelize the Western world in adamant defense of a universal Christendom is hardly an “achievement “ worth mentioning.
In real terms of Catholicism, therefore, it truly matters not that he was certainly a true master of public relations and modern media who had then grandly popularized the papacy to a notably great degree and, moreover, had the then superbly rapt attention of the vast world arena of his era. Those seemingly important matters and any like them are just, in context, secondary, tertiary, or lesser in actual, meaning Catholic, importance. One must ever come to distinguish clearly, theologically speaking, the mere man from the true mission and purpose, authority and power, of the Roman Catholic Church, of the absolute truths that must be consciously defended unequivocally by the Faith. Perceived forever in that always particular and special light, his papacy, in fundamental and substantive terms, did not at all basically, meaning integrally, serve Catholicism well.
This then necessarily means and explicitly implies, one knows, that Catholicism and its always openly proclaimed reality forever surpasses and is ever greater than any and all popes put together; this surely, as to its higher importance, vital significance, and, moreover, proclaimed spiritual reason for being – that is the fundamentally main point, the manifest core focus, beyond all set rational and theological dispute whatsoever.
The once shining glow, though fading rapidly now, of his past pontificate may, therefore, prove to be just quite vaporous and transitory at best, while real and documented, actual and demonstrated, damage to Holy Mother Church was necessarily done in practice, regardless of the best intentions. In conclusion, Pope John Paul II was, of course, an admittedly towering and so rightly impressive a figure who was, at the least, superbly larger than life on the international stage; but, he progressed vainly, during his spiritually highly strange pontificate, as the Western world had obviously fell ever more into gross nihilism, hedonism, materialism, secularism, neopaganism, destruction, degeneracy, and decay. Calling him, prematurely at best, John Paul II the Great may come to be seen, sadly, as a kind of ironic sneer, finally at worst, put into words.
What is one, finally, to really make of the ugly paradox of a Holy Father who, in fact, had traveled to well over 100 countries – and never fully strayed, much less stayed, long enough in that one “country” that may be, perhaps with justice, denominated as the land of the deaf? It was, dear readers, and is wherever certain men give, in effect, mere lip service to the Truth but do not fully live it by a keen devotion to integral and fundamental duty; wherever assumed believers render odd praise for magnificent showmanship but do not genuinely listen because they cannot hear the substantive and spiritual fullness of the full Gospel.
Such was the certainly odd time and reign of one of the most seemingly remarkable and, yes, to speak the truth, pathetic and tragic pontiffs of the modern or, now, postmodern era. His was, in harsh point of fact, a – dare one say it? – basically and totally failed pontificate.
Athanasius contra mundum!