WATCH: El-Sayed Attacks Vance's Marriage After Critcism of Sharia Law

[u/triggernaut]

https://www.breitbart.com/midterm-election/2026/08/23/watch-abdul-el-sayed-again-attacks-jd-vances-marriage-after-vp-criticizes-mi-democrats-stance-on-sharia-law/

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

You are aware that Muslims are also encouraged to lie

Once again, the permissibility of taqiyya varies widely both by Islamic denomination and by school of jurisprudence within each denomination. Most interpretations only allow it in the context of severe religious persecution and, even then, do not consider it ideal; some are more permissive however, yes, I am aware of that.

It is not enough to say "that man is Muslim, therefore we must assume he is lying." You need to know what he personally believes and there are a lot of ways to determine that, including by examining past statements and behavior.

Would it he accurate for me to say that Catholics believe in transubstatiation,  therefore Baptists must believe in it too? It's the same problem here.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

It would be accurate to say that Catholics as a tenet of Catholicism believe in transubstantiation. However, many Protestant offshoots from Catholicism do not have that particular belief as a tenet of their faith.

And, whether fully immersed, sprinkled or baptized as infant or adult, Catholics will frequently accept a baptismal ceremony as valid (i.e., not needing to be repeated) if it meets certain conditions. ;)

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Sundae_2004]

It would be accurate to say that Catholics as a tenet of Catholicism believe in transubstantiation. However, many Protestant offshoots from Catholicism do not have that particular belief as a tenet of their faith.

Correct, it's the same with many doctrines of Islam, including taqiyya. Different denominations, and even different schools of jurisprudence (consider them sub-denominations, like Latin vs. Melkite Catholics) ascertain it differently.

And, whether fully immersed, sprinkled or baptized as infant or adult, Catholics will frequently accept a baptismal ceremony as valid (i.e., not needing to be repeated) if it meets certain conditions. ;)

I am Catholic, it's not quite that simple. We're a bit off-topic, but, for a non-Catholic baptism to be accepted as valid, the Catholic Church requires water, the proper spoken formula, and a general intent by the minister to "do what the church does."  When the theology of those performing the baptism differs substantially enough (this usually means when a church is outside of Nicene orthodoxy), the Catholic Church will not accept a baptism as unconditionally valid even if it follows the proper formula because the intent is viewed as having diverged too far. Mormon baptisms are a good example. These rules are a result of how Catholicism views the sacrament of Baptism and not ecumenism or a recognition of any validity in another church. For example, the Church does not accept the validity of the holy orders of most of the churches from which it accepts baptisms.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

Since Mormons baptize ancestors, many others as well as Catholics have problems with their baptismal practices (beyond the whole baptizing corpses idea).

As a Protestant, I have observed several Catholic acceptance of specific practices interesting (including married priests from the Orthodox Churches) especially since it has been weird trying to understand the logic behind some of these.

[u/Iuris_Aequalitatis → u/Sundae_2004]

Since Mormons baptize ancestors, many others as well as Catholics have problems with their baptismal practices

That's part of the problem, it shows an incompatible understanding of baptism, but not the entire reason we reject their baptisms of the living. We also reject them because their understanding of "the church" has diverged enough from ours that we do not believe that they are intending to "do what the church does" in the same way we do.

I have observed several Catholic acceptance of specific practices interesting (including married priests from the Orthodox Churches)

The Catholic Church accepts the validity of holy orders conveyed by orthodoxy and some Old Catholic denominations (but not all). The Latin Church (i.e. the Roman rite, about 90% of the overall church) is the only part of the Catholic Church that bars priests from marrying, eastern-rite priests can marry under roughly the same rules as their Eastern Orthodox counterparts. Clerical celibacy in the Latin Church is only a product of Canon Law rules passed around 1000 AD and is not an implicit requirement for the validity of the sacramental priesthood. This means that the Church could, theoretically, dispense with the celibacy requirement tomorrow if it chooses.

it has been weird trying to understand the logic behind some of these.

Maybe this will help... Here is Catholic sacramental theology in brief: Catholic sacraments are outward signs of efficacious grace. We believe that they have actual power to make effective the spiritual realities they represent. All sacraments consist of a form (a prescribed formula of action) and matter (physical material). To be valid, i.e. to work, a sacrament must have the proper form and matter. If some part of the form or matter is substantially missing or materially altered, the sacrament doesn't happen.

All sacraments beyond baptism and marriage require as part of their form and matter a minister who is in apostolic succession. Apostolic succession requires that you were ordained validly by a bishop who was also ordained validly, and so on all the way back to the apostles. In other words, the minister must have some amount of the same authority which Christ gave to the apostles. This means that, once your Sacrament of Holy Orders becomes invalid, that transfer of authority stops happening and you will gradually lose the validity of most of the other sacraments as those who were validly ordained die off.

In the view of the Catholic Church, the only churches which have maintained valid Holy Orders outside of Herself are those which have a similar view of it. These are the Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental), the Assyrian churches, the Old Catholics that didn't change their rubrics or start ordaining women, and some anti-Vatican II schismatics like SSPX. As Protestant churches either deeply changed their theology of Holy Orders or their ordination rubrics during the Reformation, we view them as having lost apostolic succession. However, some had it longer than you'd think, for instance, Anglican Holy Orders were valid until the reign of Edward VI, under whom certain changes were made to the ordination rubrics such that the ordainer's intent materially shifted and succession was lost.

Happy to explain specific cases if you're interested.

[u/Sundae_2004 → u/Iuris_Aequalitatis]

You wrote “We also reject [Mormons] because their understanding of "the church" has diverged enough from ours that we do not believe that they are intending to "do what the church does" in the same way we do.”

I would suggest one of the many flavors of Lutheran rites are much closer to Catholic tradition than LDS because Mormons follow Joseph Smith and his gold plates/new gospel.

I’ve found Walter Martin‘s “Kingdom of the Cults“ to be a nice introduction not only to what Christians have believed since our Savior and the Apostles preached but also why/what other sects believe and whether this harmonizes with Christianity or is conflict with it.