Over the past few days, I have been rereading the second edition of Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr’s., The Great Façade [LINK]. It has been almost a decade since my first reading. Some significant events have transpired within the Catholic paradigm since that first reading; as such, this reading has been proceeding at a much slower rate due to my delving into a substantial number of the references provided in the copious footnotes.
For reasons I do not fully understand, I felt compelled to share the following extract from the book that I had read earlier this morning.
Whitewashing the Darkness of Islam
Respecting Islam, EG had nothing but the usual post-Vatican II praise, which Francis managed to bring to a new level. EG presents Mohammed’s invention as pleasing to God and a suitable vehicle for the salvation of Muslims (along with pagan religions and their Holy Ghost–inspired rituals).[36] For starters, citing only the patently false factual contention of Nostra Aetate, EG declares that Muslims “profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God....” Going further than Vatican II, however, EG also refers to “[t]he sacred writings of Islam,” which “have retained some Christian teachings....” And what of the plenitude of Mohammed’s errors, beginning with his denial of Christ’s very divinity? According to EG, “interreligious dialogue” with Muslims requires “suitable training . . . for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs.” EG thus represents a definitive abandonment of the traditional teaching of the Church as reflected in the traditional Good Friday intercessions for the salvation of non-Christians and the prayer composed by Leo XIII which Pius XI, a mere 37 years before Vatican II, instructed the entire Church to pray on the Feast of Christ the King: “Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God.”[37]
Worse, if that were possible, was Francis’s assumption of the role of Koranic exegete in order to exculpate Mohammed’s cult from its historic connection to the conquest and brutal persecution of Christians: “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”[38] Disconcerting episodes? The bloody persecution of Christians by various Islamic entities was endemic in the Middle East and was posing an ever-greater threat to the heart of Europe itself. This development, predicted nearly eighty years ago by Hilaire Belloc,[39] was a bit more than “disconcerting.”
Moreover, Francis did not seem to notice that it was not a few “fundamentalists” who were not “true followers of Islam” but rather the government of Pakistan that had sentenced Asia Bibi to death for “insulting the Prophet.” (Francis has to date done nothing to save her, although Benedict publicly called for her pardon by the President of Pakistan[40] as part of an international movement to stop her execution.) Nor was it a few fundamentalists but rather the government of Sudan that had sentenced Meriam Ibrahim to death for converting to Christianity and jailed her to await her execution, to take place after she gave birth to her unborn child in prison. She was freed only after a storm of international protest to which Francis contributed nothing (although he did pose with her for photos in the Vatican after her release). It is Saudi Arabia, not a few fundamentalists, that routinely beheads people for “blasphemy” and “apostasy” from Islam.[41] And what of Kuwait, where “blasphemy” against the Sunni version of Islam is also punishable by death?[42] What, for that matter, of the Islamic world in general, in which flogging, imprisonment and death are commonly imposed for offenses ranging from insulting the Islamic religion or “the Prophet” to adultery. As for adultery, in Islamic nations no one heeds Our Lord’s counsel that he who is without sin should cast the first stone; rather, the legal barbarism that preceded the Gospel, including that which Our Lord condemned among the Pharisees, persists to this day in Islamic legal systems.
Was Francis prepared to tell the rulers of Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere that they are not “true followers of Islam” and that their reading of the Koran is not “authentic”? Perhaps the Muslims who control these governments and their Muslim clerics know better than Francis what “authentic” Islam is. Perhaps they have demonstrated what authentic Islam is by the laws and institutions they have erected to enforce the dictates of that man-made religion. That “authentic Islam” is not, and never has been, a “religion of peace” but rather quite the opposite is why Our Lady appeared at Fatima, named after a Muslim princess who became a Catholic following the reconquest of the Muslim-dominated regions of Portugal by Christian forces in the 12th century. In fact, Princess Fatima married the very knight who had captured her, taking the Christian name Oreana, for which the nearby Portuguese town of Ourém is named.
Francis’s willful blindness to the nature of Islam would account for his consistent refusal to issue anything beyond a few generic protests against terrorist violence as Christians are being butchered or driven from their homes throughout the Middle East and Africa by The Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab. Instead, he would pray in the Blue Mosque of Istanbul with an Imam and stage a Prayer for Peace event in the Vatican gardens at which an Imam sang: “grant us victory over the heathen/disbelieving/infidel” (reading from Sura 2: 286) to the embarrassment of those who understood Arabic and of Vatican Radio, which censored those words from the broadcast.43 The planting of an olive tree by Francis, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on that occasion was so ludicrous it was parodied by a popular non-traditionalist Catholic website: “Peace Breaks Out In Israel Moments After Magic Olive Tree Planted.” In fact, only days after the event the worst violence in decades erupted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and elsewhere in the Middle East, prompting this parodic report: “But less than one day after receiving news that every single Middle East conflict had been resolved, the magic Olive Tree that Francis, Peres, and Abbas had shoddily planted into the ground toppled over with a gust of wind, instantaneously causing a chain reaction of violent outbreaks all across the Middle East.”[44]
In stark contrast to Francis’s absurd whitewash of Islam was Benedict’s realistic assessment in the famous Regensburg address, which had resulted in a storm of denunciations in the media and even fears for his life: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[45] But then Benedict was not much concerned with his standing before world opinion, which had held him in contempt throughout his short reign. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Great Façade - The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution, Second Edition 2015, pp. 389-391.)
Footnotes:
36. EG, nn. 252, 253. [EG = Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium; link to Vatican’s official English translation HERE]
37. From Leo XIII’s Act of Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart, promulgated along with the encyclical Annum Sacrum (1899); cf. Chapter 13.
38. EG, n. 253.a
39. Cf. Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies (1938),
Chapter 4: “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.”
40. “APPEAL OF THE HOLY FATHER: In these days the
international community is following with deep concern the difficult situation
of Christians in Pakistan who are often victims of violence or discrimination.
Today I express my spiritual closeness to Ms Asia Bibi and her relatives
in particular, while I ask that full freedom be
restored to her as soon as possible. I also pray for all those in similar
situations, so that their human dignity and fundamental rights may be fully
respected.” General Audience, November 17, 2010, @ w2.vatican.va (with video).
41. See, e.g., “Saudi court gives death penalty to man who
renounced his Muslim faith,” Reuters, February 24, 2015, @ reuters.com.
42. See, e.g., “Kuwait: New Death Penalty for Blasphemy,”
Gatestone Institute Report, June 14, 2012, @ gatestoneinstitute.org.
43. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, “What Did the Imam Really Say?”,
July 20, 2014, @ wdtprs.com.
44. June 9, 2014, @ eyeofthetiber.org.
45. Address at University of Regensburg, September 12,
2006 @ w2.vatican.va (quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus in his
dialogue with a Persian follower of Mohammed).
An interesting time we are living in...
Grace and peace,
David
14 comments:
When I started reading your article, I could not figure out what
EG is. It took me a while to figure out what EG is. Only when I looked at the footnotes did I understand what it is. (an abbreviation of a Latin title of a Papal document. sigh) You may want to put that in parentheses at the beginning of your article.
Overall, I am glad that some in the Roman Catholic Church are seeing the darkness of Islam itself. The Catholic Catechism (# 841 and 847 - that Muslims worship the same God as we do and that they imply (and even atheists) can be saved without conscious faith in Christ) and the papal document the book sites from Francis - this demonstrates Francis is a heretic, along with his many other false doctrines and statements. (although they don't technically fit the ex cathedra formula).
Your article is relevant to the recent (yesterday !) Islamist / Jihadist takedown of the Bashir Al Assad regime in Syria. The future is unstable and uncertain at this point for the region.
Hi Ken,
Wow, what a pleasant surprise! Longtime no chat; so glad you took the time to comment. Interestingly enough, you have been on my mind the last few days concerning an unrelated study I have been engaged in since my recent return from Buenos Aires. (More on this later.)
As for post-Vatican II Catholicism and Islam, there sure seems to a growing divide between conservative Catholics and the liberals that are now dominating the RCC hierarchy and teachers in Catholic universities. Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr’s., The Great Façade is a must read on this issue IMO.
As for the complex issue of whether or not Jews and Muslims worship God the Father, what ever side one takes, the fact remains that Muslims and Jews adamantly reject the divinity of God’s Son Jesus Christ; as well as the Son’s redemptive work for the salvation of Adam’s fallen offspring—i.e. the Gospel.
Moving on to my current studies, I recently listened to the somewhat lengthy debate between two Baptist apologists concerning the issue of Bible versions:
James White / Thomas Ross Bible Versions Debate: KJV & Textus Receptus vs. Modern Versions
https://faithsaves.net/james-white-debate-bible-versions-kjv-lsb/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RgZ-mUh3LM&list=PLo8hPX0f2leb9pIbbGFMtZJ-gZ0Oou37X&index=2
I listened to this debate after my return from Buenos Aires a few days ago, and since then have been researching the quotes and references that are provided in the debate, along with a host of germane articles and books.
During this ongoing process, you came to mind, and I am wondering if you have listened to this fascinating debate. If so, could you share some of your thoughts on it with me. If not, would you be interested in taking the time to listen to it?
Grace and peace,
David
I only listened to a little bit of it and noticed that Thomas Ross was just over-loading with so much information (too much on each slide) and speaking so fast, that it became an exercise in futility.
Thanks for your other gracious comments!
Good morning Ken,
I understand your frustration with Ross’s presentation. I had to listen to the debate twice. During the second time, I took copious notes of the slides that Ross used. That made a huge difference. He had a good deal of information on the topic James did not successfully address. (Could be due to time restraints.) One point though in James’ first rebuttal that troubled me was his statement that Ross’s claim the CT (critical text) contained more than 100 verses without textual support was false. Fact is, there are well over 100 verses in the CT that do not have even one extant manuscript supporting the reading. The Baptist textual scholar Dr. Maurice Robinson points this out (with examples) in his paper, "Rule 9, Isolated Variants and the 'Test-Tube' Nature of the NA27th/UBS4 Text" (https://www.bibelgriechisch.online/Test_Tube.pdf).
Hope to put up a new post on the NT textual issue/s when my studies are completed.
Grace and peace,
David
Got an email yesterday from Rory containing a comment he was unable to post. The following is his comment he sent to me:
>>Rory McKenzie
Dec 15, 2024, 2:54 PM (18 hours ago)
to me
It is something to do with Google. I need passwords and I don't know what they are. So here is what I wrote:
Hi David and hi Ken. I would like to explain a little bit about what the Catholic Church teaches about those who have a full and visible relationship with the Catholic Church. It is no guarantee of salvation. Likewise those who have little or no relationship to the Church are not guaranteed of damnation.
The position as I understand it is that we cannot know until Judgment Day who might be lost or who might be saved. To say that we cannot know that each Jew and Muslim, pagan or atheist are certainly revealed to be damned, is no recommendation of their beliefs. There is much darkness, we all agree, where the light of Christ is absent. But does God give only grace to those exposed to the light?
My first post was too long and when I tried to cut it in half, there was something called an "internal error". I doubt that I will try to reconstruct the whole thing which subsequently disappeared, no doubt due to my ineptitude. If there is interest, I might like to defend what I have just written.
Thanks Dave. Long time Ken. Good to see you. It seems like we go back a long way! You both take care.
Rory
PS:
Dave, feel free to post this on my behalf, but do not feel obligated either.>>
100 verses in the Critical text that have NO extant manuscript supporting the reading. !!!!!
Wow!
I have Philip Comfort's "New Testament Text and Translation Commentary"- the information is very good when I study and have a textual variant issue that I need to look up, and it gives all the evidence for the different readings and the one that makes the most sense.
I am surprised I have never heard such a claim before.
Thanks Rory for your comment. "no guarantee" - agreed. There is no guarantee for anyone in the Roman Catholic system, it seems. But those statements that confuse in the Catechism, etc. open the possibility that atheists and Muslims, etc. might be saved and therefore completely gut one of the main nerves of the urgency for salvation and cuts the nerve of the necessity for evangelism. If salvation is possible for those that have never heard, then better not to tell them, because when we do tell them and they reject, they are even more accountable and for sure not going to be saved. the bottom line for a committed Protestant - Evangelical - Reformed Baptist like myself, is that your statement and put that in juxtoposition with the Catechism and Post Vatican 2 theology and Pope Francis' statements (and encouragement to a boy whose father was an atheist and yet Francis told him he was ok (saved, in heaven, under God's mercy, the kind of father who is in the friendship with God, erc. - I forgot the exact wording) because he had his children baptized, etc. The bottom line is the lack of clarity and confusion about the basic message of the gospel - the Roman Catholic Church has made the message of the gospel unclear and complicated. Whereas, the Scripture says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31) and
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
(Romans 5:1)
and the basic general Reformation principle, combining justification with the process of sanctification: "We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone (Romans, Galatians, John, Ephesians), but true faith does not stay alone, it always results in change, growth, fruit, good works, deeper levels of repentance." (James 2:14-26; Ephesians 2:10) It is not just a bare intellectual assent. "the demons believe and shudder" James 2:19 (my synopsis of the Reformed creeds and statements by both Luther (true faith is living and active) and Calvin said the same thing.)
This is much easier to see in the Scriptures. Clear.
Sorry, Typo
therefore completely gut one of the main nerves of the urgency for salvation and cuts the nerve of the necessity for evangelism.
should have been:
therefore completely gut one of the main nerves of the urgency for Evangelism and cuts the nerve of the necessity for evangelism.
David, you may find this interesting.
Pastor Keith Foskey interviews Thomas Ross right after the debate and it turns out, this Thomas Ross does not believe the Council of Nicea of 325 or anything that TO him, seems "catholic". Sounds like he is one of those who follow the "Trail of Blood" Baptist views of church history. (a terrible way to think about church history) This makes him extra non-credible, in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZYi5CGq31g
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the link. I already knew that Ross holds to the succession/landmark view of ecclesiology. Concerning this issue, you said:
>> This makes him extra non-credible, in my opinion.>>
Why do you think his view of ecclesiology makes his NT textual position “non-credible”?
Kent Brandenburg (a very bright independent Baptist) has provided some germane commentary on ecclesiology and NT textual issues:
https://kentbrandenburg.com/2023/02/23/the-post-text-and-version-debate-attack-on-the-thomas-ross-landmark-ecclesiology/
Hope to hear from you soon…
Grace and peace,
David
It is not just "ecclesiology", rather, it is his view of church history. That view is so crazy that it discredits his understanding of the textual variants / preservation of the text.
Do Independent Baptists hold to plurality of elders for each church (as in Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-4, etc. or do they hold to a one person pastor head model (one or Senior pastor with deacons) ? (without equal elders)
I found Dr. White's book, "The King James Only Controversy" to be a sound response both to the KJVOnlyists and to the liberal critics like Bart Ehrman, and to the Islamic apologists. (we are honest about our textual variants, unlike Islam under Uthman who destroyed almost all the earlier copies.
"the succession/landmark view of ecclesiology."
Is that the same thing as the "Trail of Blood" theory by James Milton Carrol ?
Hi Ken,
2025 is here! You wrote:
>>It is not just "ecclesiology", rather, it is his view of church history. That view is so crazy that it discredits his understanding of the textual variants / preservation of the text.>>
Unless one is Catholic/EO, his take on church history seems consistent. His view maintains that in the early 4th century, the majority of local churches accepted the influence of the state into church affairs—i.e. Constantine calling the first Ecumenical Council, and subsequent emperors choosing and deposing bishops.
Ross believes that the congregational view of ecclesiology is the true Biblical understanding of church government. He also rejects baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, maintaining that believers baptism by immersion is the Biblical view.
Don’t understand why you think such views “discredits his understanding of the textual variants / preservation of the text.”
>> I found Dr. White's book, "The King James Only Controversy" to be a sound response both to the KJVOnlyists and to the liberal critics like Bart Ehrman, and to the Islamic apologists. (we are honest about our textual variants, unlike Islam under Uthman who destroyed almost all the earlier copies.>>
I have this book, it is dated (1995) and does not engage with the Majority Text scholarship of the 21st century—i.e. Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, "The New Testament In The Original Greek Byzantine Textform" [https://archive.org/details/RP2005KoineGreekNTinByzantineTextform] (Robinson is SBC and former professor at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary); "Digging For the Truth - Collected Essays Regarding the Byzantine Text of the Greek New Testament" [https://gksa95stellings.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/festschrift_for_prof_maurice_robinson_on.pdf]; et al.
Anyway, time for my workout. Have much more to comment on, but it will have to wait until after my workout and the Rose Bowl game.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment