Okay so without being rude, the Pope is what I would call a Caliph?
Something like that. The Pope is the successor of Peter — the office that Peter was elected to.
Also, your first comment was that the Vatican would reply "I wish", yet Vatican II is effectively saying that the Pope cannot possibly be wrong because he is guided by the Holy Spirit. That would suggest direct intervention by G-d Himself, would it not?
Not Vatican II, the documents of which explain in greater detail what went before. The Doctrine of Infallibility was a pronouncement, and as such a definition, of the First Vatican Council (1870), of what has always been held to be the case in Catholicism.
Not everything the Pope says in infallible, but everything the Church decrees, within its remit, is, based on Scripture:
Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
To be infallible a statement must:
1: Originate from the Roman Pontiff as head of the Church.
2: That the Pontiff "speak
ex cathedra" — that is,
from the chair, "in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority…."
3: "he defines"
4: "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5: "must be held by the whole Church" (
Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
So when speaking
ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, the Pontiff's word is binding, on earth and in heaven.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. I don't think an
ex cathedra statement has ever been made by a Pontiff without consultation with the Church — these are done by the Councils — a practice established when Paul went to see Peter in Jerusalem to decide whether one had to be a Jew prior to being a Christian, in effect whether gentiles were 'second class Christians', as it were.
Peter said no. There is plenty of gospel evidence to suggest that Jesus taught the opposite — but Jesus teaches that He transcends the Law (another sign of His divinity), for the Law of God was given to man. Man lives according to the Law. God lives according to himself.
Peter's 'no' was a doctrinal statement on faith (what it to be believed) and morals (how one should conduct oneself accordingly).
... the media also works in mysterious ways. Gosh, what would they write about if religions stopped fighting?!
They'd come up with something ... don't worry on that account!
I have had a recurring dream for years that G-d allows me to take all religious and political leaders into a locked room, where they are unable to tell a lie and I force them to verbally fight it out and plan world peace, before anyone is permitted to leave the room. (I know, I have delusions of grandeur in my sleep ).
You should read about St Catherine of Siena. She roasted the Pope soundly when she thought he was in error — but her arguments were founded on faith and the Church's teaching. She embarrased him into doing the right thing. A lesson we should learn and apply across the board, but then, no-one would want to be a politician if that was the case.
I understand that in Guenon's book The Crisis of the Modern World he states that traditionalist thinking is opposed by modern life (technology, morals, etc). Does he not call on the intellectual elite to either return the west to traditionalism or at least embrace some of the Eastern ways? Perhaps I am misreading what it is he is calling for, in my desire to keep hold of my laptop?
I don't think he was anti-technology, just its uses. The 'Eastern ways' was indeed his view that 'Oriental mertaphysics', founded on Brahminic texts, was the most explicit metaphysical doctrine stripped of contingent and relative factors. I think this an overstatement. That it is recognisably oriental renders it both relative and contingent, even if its subject matter is not ... this is the Mystery of Truth, and this is what the
sacra doctrina of humanity can transmit, in an immediate and immanent fashion as
cor ad cor loquitur, 'heart speaks to heart' (J. H. Newman).
That said, I do agree that the west is now virtually morally bankrupt, with it's persuit of materialism and desire to change the world to it's way of living. I also agree that the west is in a dark age. How strange that they now believe themselves to be so enlightened.
One day we will realise that the 'light' of the West is in fact the glow from a screen, probably a TV running a repeat of some crap soap opera.
This is certainly my understanding of the origin of the word sufi, the root word is soof and as you say means wool. However, when you apply logic the story may lose some merit. Yes wool was seen as a plain and simple material, it was readily available but to wear wool in a desert would have been unbearable, particularly the smell, even if you could bear the heat. So I doubt that the desert fathers were particularly known for wearing it, perhaps selling it?
I'm not sure. The School of Sufi Teaching Says: "The most widely accepted origin of the word 'Sufi' is from the Arabic word 'suf' which means 'wool', referring to a group of sincere worshippers who lived during, and shortly after, the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and who became known for their tendency to wear coarse woolen clothes.
Another possible derivation of the word 'Sufi' is from the 'ahl-e-suffa' (literally, 'The People of the Bench'), a group of early muslims who lived in the first mosque at Medina in close proximity to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Yet another derivation is from the Arabic word, 'safa', or 'purity'."
Another souce says a woolen cloak? The view that Sufis are descended from Christian contemplatives I have read, but cannot attest to — it was a bit naughty on my part.
If you go back to the basics of Islam, the Quran and leave out the centuries of 'interpretation' and political wranglings, Islam is very simplistic. You can see the thread of truth running through all of the religions, going right back as far as our history goes. It is just a shame that mankind is so power hungry and has so abused such a gift from G-d.
It's all simple really. True love means to be aware of distinction, but not to hold it against the other. It is simple delight in another's being.
I should think it highly probable that this would be his final word. One thing that becomes very clear in Islam is the process of death and the meaningless attempt to cling to life. When passing your final thoughts should be of Allah, not of the world you are leaving behind.
Matthew 16:25 "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." 'For my sake' is a powerful comment. No Jew would say that, unless ...
Okay now I am truly confused and also rather surprised. Having always been told this means, will come to know him through Jesus (pbuh) as the son of G-d, it would suggest a requirement of being within the church of Jesus (pbuh). John 3:3 says that no one can see the kingdom of G-d unless he is born again (which I assume means through baptism). Also no one comes to the father except through the son. Again this would appear to suggest that entry into heaven is through belief in Jesus (pbuh) as the son of G-d. Please explain as this is BIG news for me and rather welcome news too.
Matthew again: "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." 16:16-17
Man does not find God — God reveals Himself to man — but even to realise the knowing implies a prior disposition towards revelation. Only man wonders about the existence of God. We can arrive at the idea of God through philosophy and reason — through ther obervation of nature, for example, although that does not constitute an empirical proof. But 'knowing' God is something else, and we believe it is only through the Spirit that we can know the Son, and the Son reveals the Father. It is only in the Spirit we can say 'Abba' or 'Allah' as one being of another. This we call the 'invisible mission' — that God works for the salvation of every living soul, and this is an interior operation. The 'visible mission' is the disclosure of Himself that God makes in human history, to humanity as a whole, and the visible presence in the world of that disclosure we call 'Church'.
The Church then does not believe that they (its members) alone are saved, because God is immanent (invisibly) in the world, and not just in the Church. But in the Church alone is the transcendant God made manifest and visible — it is a charism that only She possesses, but it does not belong to Her.
She does not own it. She preserves it, ponders it, lives it, transmits it, and in so doing calls all humanity to Herself. Sometimes she does it well, sometimes not so well ... but a poor singer does not mean its a poor song.
This was the cause of the recent upset. Pope Benedict is making a theological statement when he says that the Church is and can only be one, but philsophically underlined by the fact that if church signifies this unity, then there can only be one God, and one Church — one unity that He wills.
Others will argue that denominations speak of diversity, but this is application of metaphysical principle at the wrong level. Between the world's religions, and the world's denominations, there is diversity, but no singular aspect of which they represent in diversity. Rather this is difference — not the same thing at all.
There is diversity, of course, within each religion and denomination, but this too, too often, is not diversity but difference, and much blood spilt because of it.
The different character of the monastic charisms, for example, signify this diversity. Benedictine hospitality, Dominican preaching, Franciscan living, Jesuit learning ... and rivalry between them on matters of philosphy, is sometimes intense, but they are united in faith.
It cannot be ignored or denied in Christianity that between some denominations there are fundamental difference. Some do not believe in the Trinity, which we believe is the Revelation not just of God's will, but of Himself.
In Christian speculative theology we talk of God 'traces' or 'vestiges' present in the world, in good people, in right living, in religions, in all human endeavour towards the Good ... in Dchristian doctrine we believe that God manifested Himself to the world in Christ (the Incarnation) and in the Spirit (Pentecost), in a unique way, and one without equal.
Doesn't it terrify you, knowing one day you will stand before G-d Himself and have to answer for your deeds?
My weakness frightens me ... that I might take His love for granted.
It frightens the life out of me and yet also gives me a feeling of comfort (but only when I feel I am being a good girl).
That's an interesting phrase ... 'to frighten the life out of' ... the life is the Spirit, the life is Love, the life is God ... and the thought of it scares us (if it didn't, I suggest we're thinking about God, or ourselves, or both, the wrong way) "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 1:7)
The mosty oft used phrase in Scripture is 'fear not'.
Pax tecum,
Thomas
