S
sw85
Guest
Yeah, Trinitarianism mucks up things somewhat. Simply put, Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians without worshipping any of the persons who are God.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
You do remember that it was Cardinal Dolan who said this, I hope. So no, he did not say God was schitzophrenic because it is** not** the same thing. Yes, God is the same, but this does not mean that God is responsible for everything people claim is revelation from him. To use an analogy, the existence of the Book of Mormon does not make Jesus schitzophrenic.
P
pnewton
Guest
The answer of the Catholic Church to this question is, “Yes.” This is not up for grabs, only dissent.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I only just noticed this, but I meant:
Could it not also be argued that Muslims have been misled and deceived into worshipping and understanding the same God WRONGLY?
Sorry if it confused anyone.
T
Tucker_R
Guest
S
shocktrooper
Guest
If this were the case, then why are we not allowed to have communal worship services with other faiths? We worship the same God, correct? Wouldn’t He be pleased to see us worship Him together as the one true God.
My point is this…if I say God is feminine in nature and claim she has 3 daughters named Earth, Wind and Fire, then that god is FALSE. Of course this still means there is only one God, but my depiction of Him is a creation of my own doing or of someone else other than God himself. This is what makes my god a “false god”.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Yes, but this is what makes the Islamic god false. There is only one true God, period. Every faith ever conceived will not change this but this does not mean the god created in our misunderstanding is not false. If one does not KNOW God, then one can’t LOVE God, and one can’t SERVE or WORSHIP God as He desires. If Satan’s deception resulted in worship of the same one true God, then I hardly see the reason for the deception. If Adam and Eve committed the sin of idolatry by choosing themselves over the Creator due to their pride, then why are we not to conclude the same about Muslims or any other faith that does the same) that choose their own understanding of God over divine revelation?
meltzerboy
New member
With regard to your last statement, I think it is a given faith’s own understanding and interpretation of divine revelation which results in its way of worshiping G-d. Within Christianity, within Judaism, within Islam, there are different interpretations of divine revelation, let alone between these (and other) faiths. However, even if one does not know or worship G-d in the same way as another does, this does not mean that one is unable to love the true and unfathomable G-d.
S
SpeakInSilence
Guest
Shocktrooper, I don’t believe you are seeing what some have been saying.
My brother Nathaniel grew up in the same house I did, he grew up in the same Church. He now is a nominal protestant that has some very strange notions of God, and how he works, maybe which is heretical, and myself grew in my faith as a protestant, and that led me to the Catholic Church.
The point is my brother nathaniel and I believe in the same God; however as my faith grew and blossomed and God led me to the Catholic Church, he has chosen a very different path that led him to believe in things that aren’t quite biblical.
For me to worship his way in his manner who reject the truth I now know, but to come together on the things we both believe causes us to both travel in the same direction.
The Church is saying we both grew up in the same house; however Muslims are now wayward, and it’s our jobs who remind them that our Father wants them back.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Okay, the Jews also believe God has no son. They necessarily reject the Trinity (else their leaders would not have handed Him over to Pilate). Do they worship a false god? Was the Unknown God in Athens a false god? Paul does not seem to think so.
We’re not saying that Islam is completely true, not even close (naturally only the Catholic Church has the full truth). But we do share some things with them, which are true, such as the concept of one and only one God, that of Abraham.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
Good question. The more I think about this the more I come to realize that if Islam worships a false god, then the modern day Jew, post Christ, would be in the same boat. Either that or they both worship the same God as Christians. I agree with St. Paul that the Unknown God in Athens was not false, just unknown at the time.
The problem I have is that a god conjured up according to my own liking is “false” even though I may pray to the one true God. The other thing is that Islamic “revelation” directly conflicts with Christian revelation. This is not a case where a Christian departed from the true faith and changing a teaching or two. Islam claims additional revelation that directly conflicts with who God is, His nature and essence.
Since God can’t contradict Himself, then who gave Mohammed the revelation? And if a fallen angel gave that revelation, then the god revealed would be false, not unknown or simply misunderstood.
P
pnewton
Guest
This topic is not up for grabs or opinion. From the Dogmatic Constitution* Lumen Gentium:*
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
and Nostra Aetate:
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own.
From Pope Paul VI:
“Then [we refer] to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.”
From the great John Paull II:
“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.”
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm
The doctrine of the Catholic Church on this question is not ambiguous. Of course Cardinal Dolan, as a Catholic bishop is going to uphold Catholic doctrine. When he is criticized for this statement, he is being criticized for his catholicism, an odd response indeed from Catholics.
I think it also important to remember that Catholic Answers is a Catholic apostolate.
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
and Nostra Aetate:
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own.
From Pope Paul VI:
“Then [we refer] to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.”
From the great John Paull II:
“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.”
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm
The doctrine of the Catholic Church on this question is not ambiguous. Of course Cardinal Dolan, as a Catholic bishop is going to uphold Catholic doctrine. When he is criticized for this statement, he is being criticized for his catholicism, an odd response indeed from Catholics.
I think it also important to remember that Catholic Answers is a Catholic apostolate.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
This talks about Muslims. Muslims can be Christian also. You also forgot about the last part of LG16 which would refer to Muslims that stay with Islam.
Again, Muslims, not Islam.
reference?
Yes, we seek the same God of mercy. I won’t argue with this.
CCC
Adoration
2096 Adoration is the first act of the virtue of religion. To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful Love. “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve,” says Jesus, citing Deuteronomy.13
God has revealed Himself as mankind’s Savior in the person of Jesus Christ. Does Islam claim that God is their savior?
P
pnewton
Guest
Your have a singular understanding of this word.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muslim
*“an adherent of Islam” *
oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/Muslim
"a follower of the religion of Islam. "
“of or relating to the Muslims or their religion”
If you do not even understand the meaning of this word, how can you presume to know more than Cardinal Dolan on the topic (or the Catholic Church, for that matter.) A Muslim by definition adheres to Islam and can not also be Christian.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
You know, you are right and so is Cardinal Dolan. I withdraw my reservations and counter arguments.
Thanks!
J
je333
Guest
S
SirStephen
Guest
You might want to read some real (non-revisionist) history.
S
SirStephen
Guest
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 6:
The case is clear in the case of Mohammed. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and gave free reign to carnal pleasures. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proof of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a modest wisdom.
Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can only be divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.
On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms–which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.
Those who believe in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of divine teaching through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness.
On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.
OBTW - Not to keep harping on reason and facts (that have already shredded the countering view), but 1) Vatican II documents NEVER mentioned Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. This was intentional. 2) In 2012, the Vatican made it clear that Nostra Eatate was NOT doctrine and Pope Benedict stated that there were structural problems associated with it; 3) Dominus Iesus severely constrains how far one can go wrt recognizing revelations to Muhammad as inspired by the Holy Spirit (which Islam denies) while still holding to the mandatory doctrinal claims concerning the totality of the revelations concerning Jesus Christ, and; 4) how fundamentally unREASONABLE it is to hold to mutually exclusive definitions on the nature of God at the same time. All the other side does is offer up unsupported claims or erroneous statements on the position of the Church on the issue. To quote Peter Abelard, 12th-century theologian, philosopher, and abbot:
Authority is inferior to reason because it deals with opinions about the truth rather than with truth itself, while reason concerns the thing itself [facts] and can settle the question.
Among the most serious of the problems concerning those opposing this line of reasoning - w/o mounting any substantive countering position that is rational - is the fact that such rationalizations concerning Allah’s overt and sustained denial of the God of Christians has the effect of reducing all thought to meaninglessness - nihilism. In this, it necessarily has the effect of reducing Catholic belief to meaninglessness in the process. This is the postmodern narrative - what Pope Benedict called “extreme relativism.” Something that is allowed to mean everything (to be an apple and not an apple at the same time) means nothing.
The case is clear in the case of Mohammed. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and gave free reign to carnal pleasures. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proof of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a modest wisdom.
Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can only be divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.
On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms–which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.
Those who believe in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of divine teaching through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness.
On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.
OBTW - Not to keep harping on reason and facts (that have already shredded the countering view), but 1) Vatican II documents NEVER mentioned Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. This was intentional. 2) In 2012, the Vatican made it clear that Nostra Eatate was NOT doctrine and Pope Benedict stated that there were structural problems associated with it; 3) Dominus Iesus severely constrains how far one can go wrt recognizing revelations to Muhammad as inspired by the Holy Spirit (which Islam denies) while still holding to the mandatory doctrinal claims concerning the totality of the revelations concerning Jesus Christ, and; 4) how fundamentally unREASONABLE it is to hold to mutually exclusive definitions on the nature of God at the same time. All the other side does is offer up unsupported claims or erroneous statements on the position of the Church on the issue. To quote Peter Abelard, 12th-century theologian, philosopher, and abbot:
Authority is inferior to reason because it deals with opinions about the truth rather than with truth itself, while reason concerns the thing itself [facts] and can settle the question.
Among the most serious of the problems concerning those opposing this line of reasoning - w/o mounting any substantive countering position that is rational - is the fact that such rationalizations concerning Allah’s overt and sustained denial of the God of Christians has the effect of reducing all thought to meaninglessness - nihilism. In this, it necessarily has the effect of reducing Catholic belief to meaninglessness in the process. This is the postmodern narrative - what Pope Benedict called “extreme relativism.” Something that is allowed to mean everything (to be an apple and not an apple at the same time) means nothing.
P
pnewton
Guest
Nothing in here contradicts the statement made by AB Dolan, assuming it is authentic, which I will try and find out, as opposed to some attempt to discredit the legitimacy of Vatican II or any of the later pontiffs.
Muslims are mentioned. This is an argument against grammar. It is identical to mentioning Christians instead of Christianity.
As an theologian opposed by St. Bernard for his heterodox positions, I am not surprised he might have authority issues. What he fails to recognize, along with Martin Luther, is that authority is a matter of faith and reason, at least in catholicism. We have 20,000 different denominations many of which are well reasoned in the minds of those who, like Abelard, accept an ineferiority of reason.
On this issue, the Church has spoken with authority, reason and faith, as opposed to reason and changes in font color and style.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
If this is true, then Rome has not spoken in a doctrinal way.
- Status