Cardinal Burke: Christians and Muslims Do Not Worship The Same God

Source: Cardinal Burke: Christians and Muslims Do Not Worship The Same God

While unfortunately the current Pope, Francis, may be off the deep end in some respects, some of his Cardinals are pretty based! Here is Cardinal Burke:

“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor,” he said.  “In other words, fundamentally Islam is, Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.”

Now it is true that, in the Old Testament, God is sometimes referred to as “our Governor”: for example, “O LORD our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world…” (Psalm 8, verses 1a and 9).

But that is not His primary or key identity, even in the OT – and even in Psalm 8, where God is celebrated primarily as Creator, and it is “man” (e.g., humankind), not a particular religion, which God has given “dominion of the works of thy hands” – and it is certainly not in the New Testament:

“And it’s not a law that’s founded on love,” said Burke.  “To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct.” 

“And while our experience with individual Muslims may be one of people who are gentle and kind and so forth, we have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world,” he said.  

“Whereas, in the Christian faith we’re taught that by the development of right reason, by sound metaphysics, and then that which leads to faith and to the light and strength that’s given by faith, we make our contribution to society also in terms of its governance,” he said.

This is a fundamental contrast: when St. Peter wrote “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2:17), as is the tagline of this blog, or earlier in the same chapter, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” ( the “King” (Emperor) was a pagan Roman.

Likewise St. Paul, who wrote, in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Was writing of the secular powers – which again, in his day, meant the pagan Roman Empire. He is echoing, in that last verse, the words of Our Lord Himself, who said, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25). He also stated, quite emphatically, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Thus it could be said that some essential degree of separation of Church and State is built into the very structure of Christianity. But there is no “render unto Caesar” in Islam; the Caliph is the Caesar! There is no “separation of mosque and state” in the ideology of Mohammed.

To return the words of Cardinal Burke,

“the Church makes no pretense that it’s to govern the world, [he stated]. But rather that [its role is] to inspire and assist those who govern the world to act justly and rightly toward the citizens.”

In other words, Christianity is to provide “leaven in the loaf,” offering moral guidance but not governing: Christianity is not to be a theocracy, not until the Final Coming of Our Lord. And at that point, it will not be the Church which governs, but God Himself!

While this is not the only distinction between Christianity and Islam – the latter also has no doctrine of “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39 et alii), still less “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Matthew 5:44), a point to which Cardinal Burke also alludes in his comments (“it’s not a law that’s founded on love… to say that we all believe in love is simply not correct”)  – it is nonetheless a vital distinction, and important to point out.

With such dramatic differences in understanding, both of God and of our proper relationships with God and one another – including human authorities – it is indeed difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the god Moslems worship is not the same God as the One – in Trinity of Persons and Unity of Substance, the Creator of Creation, and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ – worshiped by Christians.

Or if they are attempting to worship the same God – for the Christian God is not one god among many, but the God! – then they are doing it wrongly. Dangerously wrongly, for the sake of their own souls, and the well-being of this world of ours!

Advertisements

A Brilliant Defense of Christendom – Crisis Magazine

Many believe that Christendom was a rigid and brutal order. In medieval times, we are told that tyranny ruled, and the Church and the nascent State were constant rivals in the pursuit of dominance.

So many modern historians have cynically reduced this period when Christianity prevailed to a time of cultural darkness and violent power struggles. Such people fail to understand the Christian order since they equate it with tyranny. They judge Christendom from the premises of our present disorders, in which people only seek their self-interest...

That is the problem with those who criticize Christendom. They look rigidly upon the past with modern mechanistic criteria. They cannot think outside our Enlightenment box. Hence, they accuse anyone who thinks otherwise of idealizing the past.

Dr. Jones is far from idealizing the medieval past, but he does present a vision of Christendom beyond the oversimplified charts that box in our vision. We get a glimpse of the real Christian order. When properly understood, this Christian order is very appealing and refreshing.

Continue reading “A Brilliant Defense of Christendom – Crisis Magazine”

Nation-states, happiness, identity, and rootlessness

“The nation state has taken the place of God. Responsibilities for education, healing and public welfare which had formerly rested with the Church devolved more and more upon the nation state … National governments are widely assumed to be responsible for and capable of providing those things which former generations thought only God could provide – freedom from fear, hunger, disease and want – in a word: “happiness”.”

― Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984

There is, I think, a great deal of truth to this!

The problem is magnified still further now, though, by the fact that nation-states are under attack by stateless globalism which seeks to supersede them, and that claims to be driven by “progressive values” – but in fact is driven largely by economics (the progressives who have allied themselves with globalism are among the “useful idiots” of whom Stalin spoke, back in Soviet days).

Nation-states at least are / were somewhat organic, in most cases relatively local, with their own identity and cohesion. They share(d) ties of language, culture, ethnicity, and often, religion. Globalism promotes – ostensibly in the name of “equality,” but actually because it makes people easier to manipulate – a stateless, rootless, amorphous mass of humanity, entirely lacking in cohesion, identity, and therefore the ability to successfully resist the strings of the puppeteers.

Now, the globalists may one day learn that a tool sometimes turns in the hand of its wielder; that amorphous mob may one day turn on them! But the result seems unlikely to be a return to “normalcy” as it used to be understood – depending, of course, on how far things have degenerated by then – but rather a further descent into a newer and truer Dark Age. I fear for the future of humanity…

HRH The Prince of Wales – “Recovery of the soul”

HRH Prince Charles - Recovery of the soul

I do not agree with everything Prince Charles has to say, but in this I believe His Royal Highness is 100% correct. When I do agree with him, it usually has to do with architecture, agriculture, or tradition!

Live and Let Die – Maccabee Society

 

What does the decision of Charlie Gard say about society today? Parents should have every right to save their children. How did this become negotiable?

Source: Live and Let Die – Maccabee Society

I have not heretofore chosen to say much about the Charlie Gard situation, in which the parents of a child with a rare and typically-fatal disease were prevented by the authorities in the British health system from seeking experimental medical assistance which – though without guarantees – might have extended, or even saved, his life, if tried soon enough.

They prevented this even though the family had received more than ample donations to ensure that there would be no cost to the state, and even though the child, Charlie, had been granted permanent resident status here in the States, where doctors waited to do what they could for him.

And at the end, they even prevented the parents from taking him home to die – despite the fact that their argument had been, originally, that he deserved to “die with dignity.”

A British professor of law and legal ethics even went so far as to argue, in an op-ed piece in The Guardian (UK), that “children do not belong to their parents,” asserting that parents have no rights with respect to their children (!!!), only duties – “the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests.”

Well, even if one buys the whole “no rights” argument – which I emphatically do not – the fact is that Charlie’s parents were attempting to do precisely that: since he was an infant, and not able to speak for himself, they were attempting to give him the best possible fighting chance for survival. In this they were actively, emphatically, and repeatedly hamstrung and blocked by the authorities.

Stemming from these specific circumstances of Charlie Gard, this Maccabee Society article points out the wider implications of this incident, and the precedent it has set. I found this an especially cogent warning:

“The cause for alarm behind the death of Charlie Gard lies in the fact that the court actively stopped the parents from seeking treatment. This marks a shift in attitude from one of permitting a parent to kill his or her child to one that orders the parent to kill the child. This obviously sets a dangerous precedent: if the state does not think it is worth it to save a life, even if it does not bear the cost, it can deny treatment.

“This bodes nothing less than death for so many others, especially the majority who do not have the moral and financial support that Charlie’s parents had.”

It is very far down the “slippery slope” to go from “you must not kill your child” (traditional viewpoint / classical Christian morality) to “okay, you can allow your child to die (‘death with dignity’) / kill your child (abortion) if that’s what you think is best,” to “you must allow your child to die, and you may not seek treatment to prolong his life!”

What are we becoming? May God help us.

Religion as the root of cultural restoration and political transformation – Knights of St. Michael the Archangel

Source: Knights of St. Michael the Archangel | Facebook

Much good thought here, definitely worth pondering.
Whether we like to think of it in these terms or not, we are – all of us – presently engaged in not merely a socio-political, but also a metaphysical war for the future of Western civilization. Not everyone recognizes it, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re caught up in it. We may choose to defend the heritage and fight for the future of Western Christendom, fight against it, or passively “take a knee,” but we cannot escape the consequences, in any case. And how we fight matters for the outcome!
“All conservative, nationalist, or otherwise ‘right-wing’ political movements are doomed to fail if they are merely reactionary, defining themselves by what they oppose rather than what they promote. That is not to say that right-wing politics should cease to oppose grave evils. Rather, such opposition can only succeed if it is rooted in a set of principles and united by core values, a clearly articulated vision of what we need and an ideological explanation of why we need it…
 
“A political movement striving to restore a civilization and its foundational culture must embrace the religion which gave rise to that culture and maintained that civilization through the trials of many ages. Modern conservatism fails to embrace the fundamentals which we aim to restore. Conservatives must define what they intend to conserve rather than merely function as the party of all who dissent to Leftism, the party which at best merely slows the destruction.
 
“A civilization, like a tree, survives storms and flourishes not because of its size or the number of its leaves, but from the depth and strength of its roots. Any restoration of Western Civilization must be solidly rooted in our historical Greco-Roman roots and the Christian faith.”
I would agree – while also noting that we ought not to forget our Celtic and Germanic (in the case of us Anglicans, most particularly Anglo-Saxon) roots, either! Follow the link for more.

Traditional vs modern society

Traditional vs modern society

One of the reasons that I am a traditionalist.

Please note: this does not mean that traditional societies were, or healthy societies ought to be, static or stagnant. There was, is, and ought to be a dynamic equilibrium, incorporating ebb and flow, travel and interchange, etc.

But what is rejected – and what I reject – is the absurd notion that “change is good,” that change for its own sake should be the norm, and the preferred option.

Change is not good! Not intrinsically. Good change can be good, but the burden of proof is on those who desire the change, to demonstrate how and why it will be good, and that the difficulties and challenges that accompany it – for there will always be those – do not outweigh the benefits.

Stability, balance, equilibrium: these are the things that make for stable, peaceful, and long-lasting societies. Without a great deal of caution and care, change can result in chaos, and chaos is more likely to be destructive than otherwise.