Cardinal Dolan Visits New York Mosque

[SirStephen]

… 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.

Part I -

“Assuming Aquinas said it” - are you accusing me of confabulating this quote?

I make no attempt to discredit either Vatican II or recent pontiffs and your suggesting that I am is inappropriate. But that is all that there has been in this discussion from your side as if I’ve stated anything that violates any doctrine of the Church.

Your point that I am making an argument against grammar is likewise disingenuous. Christianity (or Islam) is a belief, Christians (and Muslims) are the population that is associated with that belief not-with-standing the state of their actual belief. The Vatican II documents in question were intentionally silent on Muhammad, Allah, and the Qur’an. I’ve done some research on these documents including talks with ordained clergy who spent time at the Vatican working these issues and familiar with their production.

The only time Islam is mentioned in any of those document is in Paragraph 3 of Nostra Aetate where it makes a conditional statement on the status of Islam as an Abrahamic faith (“just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself”). Conditional because it says that Islam “links” itself to the faith of Abraham not that it is the “faith of Abraham” and does so without further comment. This holds true with Paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“these profess to hold the faith of Abraham“) where “profess to hold” makes the statement conditional on whether Muslims do in fact hold that faith (not whether Islam dictates it). Both the “link” and “profess to hold” language limits the statements’ effect to whether Muslims (not Islam) actually believe in the status of Abraham and is valid only in-so-far as they are in line with the Abraham defined in Genesis. This is important because the Ibrahim of Islam diverges in a material way from the Abraham in Genesis. For example, and this example is reasonably innocuous, Ibrahim built the Ka’ba in Mecca.

These V-II documents were drafted as formal Church instruments and hence everything they say (or don’t say) and the manner in which they say it - has meaning and is assessed. I was told that the omission of Muhammad, Allah and the Qur’an were purposefully omitted but anyone familiar with how to read official instruments would catch the limitations that stem from not actually commenting on the faith (the object) – only on what it links to or professes to hold to (as opposed to what is actually held).

Hence, these documents were not written to be statements of Catholic doctrine and made no claims regarding the state of belief within Islam. But, as already noted, there is no mystery here either. In May 2012, Vatican Cardinal Walter Brandmuller twice stated in a book he wrote with Vatican Bishop Agostino Marchetto titled Pope Benedict XVI’s Keys for Interpreting Vatican II that Nostra Aetate “did not have binding doctrinal content” and that its canonical nature was “non-binding.” This laid the foundation for Pope Benedict’s later statement in August 2012:

The second document that was to prove important for the Church’s encounter with the modern age came into being almost by chance and it developed in various phases. I am referring to the Declaration “Nostra Aetate” on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. At the outset the intention was to draft a declaration on relations between the Church and Judaism, a text that had become intrinsically necessary after the horrors of the Shoah. … Thus, in a precise and extraordinarily dense document, a theme is opened up whose importance could not be foreseen at the time. The task that it involves and the efforts that are still necessary in order to distinguish, clarify and understand, are appearing ever more clearly. In the process of active reception, a weakness of this otherwise extraordinary text has gradually emerged: it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion which, from the historical and theological viewpoints, are of far-reaching importance; for this reason the Christian faith, from the outset, adopted a critical stance towards religion, both internally and externally.

Pope Benedict XVI, “Reflections of His Holiness Benedict XVI Published for the First Time on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Opening of the Second Vatican Council,” Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2 August 2012 (published by L’Osservatore Romano, 11 October 2012), URL: vatican.va/special/annus_fidei/documents/annus-fidei_bxvi_inedito-50- concilio_en.html, accessed 6 March 2013.​

 

[SirStephen]

Part 2 -
Aside from noting the problems associated with Nostra Aetate, Pope Benedict made it clear that it’s primary purpose was outreach with the Jewish community. It should not go uncommented that the Church has never made any doctrinal claims wrt to the inter se faith requirements of other religions and if it did, it could never be an article of doctrine or faith except in-so-far as such a belief would be inconsistent with Catholic faith - Mormon Baptism for example.

Abelard died as a monk in good standing and is recognized as the early 12th Century leading edge of the scholastic movement that would culminate with philosopher theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas that brought the Medieval Church to a high philosophical/theological water mark on the very idea of reconciling faith with reason - hence, my reference to Abelard.

Abelard is credited with being among those leading the charge to reconcile faith with reason. He was never a heretic, his appeals to reason prevailed, and it was Protestants, like Martin Luther, who argued sola fide. We have never been required to believe what cannot be shown to be reasonable where reason can be used to explain an activity or concept. Holding that God can be the Trinity while being the god that denies the Trinity (be an apple and not an apple at the same time) reduces discussions on the nature of God to incoherence and makes a mockery of Dominus Iesus.

You have yet to explain the contention that God can both be the Trinity where the same god also denies the Trinity at the same time. If you say that Islam believes the same god, you are under some obligation to provide a rational explanation rather than just repeating a narrative – a meme – and then suggest that I am operating out of some dark character or motivational flaw when mounting dispositively defensible arguments that violate no doctrines of faith. Islam does not suffer from doctrines that fail to clearly explain what Muslims believe based on the “Uncreated Word of Allah” – direct divine revelation. Hence, when you are saying that Islam got its concept of god wrong, you are saying that the divine revelations themselves are erroneous – just as Dominus Iesus would seem to demand. At what point does an intentionally oppositional definition of god constitute an denial of God as defined in the Old and New Testament – and Church dogma and doctrine – because that is what you have with Islam.

Just curious as to how far you would take this, what would you say is some Catholic cleric said something like ‘if someone sees the Gospel as the truth, that person should embrace the Gospel - but if someone sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence, that person should follow the Quran’ – would that raise any concerns given that this would actually involve validating those verses of the Qur’an cited earlier in this thread that deny Christ and invalidate the basis of Christian faith?

Finally, not only have my arguments demonstrated, as you noted, reason with a solid dose of font and color, but also faith and reason fully consistent with the requirements of the Catholic faith? In this regard, and I am only stating it as a general proposition and not because I am making any such case here, so long as I am not making an argument that challenges the Pope’s authority on issues of faith and morals and other considerations reasonably flowing from them (I don’t want to list them off), there is no restriction to making reasoned arguments to the contrary of what comes from what a Pope (or Cardinals and Bishops) says. Pope Benedict even noted this in Volume I of his Jesus of Nazareth. Likewise, the local Bishop cannot tell me who to vote for in an otherwise open election (if both are equally burdened or unburdened by life issues).

 

[shocktrooper]

1 John 2:18-24

18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.22**Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.**24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

2 John 1:7-11

7**For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.8Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.**10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;11for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Anyone that does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God…

My goal is to submit to the definitive teaching of the Church concerning the topic in this thread. Does anyone know why these verses are so ignored?

 

[shocktrooper]

And let us not forget our Lord’s words in the Gospel of Luke: “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

 

[SirStephen]

Anyone that does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God…

My goal is to submit to the definitive teaching of the Church concerning the topic in this thread. Does anyone know why these verses are so ignored?

And there you have it. You can only go so far in the “same god” narrative in the interest of creating a common ground (because it doesn’t actually exist) in the interest of interfaith cumbaya before you find yourself defending the irrational while also running directly counter to what Jesus plainly revealed on this question.

The very idea underlying the “same god” position is to argue that the other side, in this instance Islam, is mistaken in their understanding of the Allah they define as God. Hence, this position shows no respect for either Islam or Muslims because it denies to them the validity of their own beliefs in their own domain. It also forces those holding the “same god” view to disrespect informed concerned co-religionists who accurately indentify what Muslims believe by labeling them as being disrespectful of the Church and its leaders for 1) properly identifying the Church position on faith supported by solid Biblical revelation concerning the nature and person of Jesus Christ and 2) showing that Islam has accurately identified such belief in furtherance of categorically and overtly rejecting it - by citing the very Allah that revealed this to Muhammad as stated in the Qur’an. The reason they don’t take on the argument in main is because they cannot. They cannot reasonably argue the truth and its denial and call it the same. It’s all smokescreen. It’s sophistry. Typically what follows in such discussion threads is to then be accused of being “uncharitable” as the term has been redefined along the postmodern narrative and which means “don’t say anything that will upset anyone” even if (especially if) it is a defense of faith. Of course, from there the accusation becomes that of being “intolerant.” And then we are talking about what Pope Benedict called the new “tolerance” that demands one be silent about what one believes because it may offend someone. To firmly believe in a thing is to firmly not believe in its alternative. So now it is “uncharitable” to “go out and teach the good news to all the nations” because it might offend - and this would surely be an act of intolerance. (I can cite Pope Benedict on this)

The question to ask is whether a Catholic, or any Christian, is allowed to say that because they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, “one of Three in a Trinity” as Islam would say, that they have the right to say, as a natural consequence of that faith, and by virtue of such a belief - and even a responsibility to that faith - to reject those beliefs that deny this article of faith when properly, reasonably and accurately understood? At the end of the day, this “same god” stuff has the effect of trespassing on one’s certitude of faith (not to mention on doctrine and revealed Truth as well).

That our Church leaders were willing to step out and attempt a foundation for future talks in the interest of moving beyond the historical reality in the hopes of a more peaceful relationship is one thing. But to actually hold “same god,” however, cannot be sincere because it cannot be true. As noted, it is premised on the “content free” statement that they (Muslims) are wrong. But when saying that, they are no longer talking about the Islam that Muslims profess. And if the “same god” crowd, when pushed by the irreducible logic of this argument, prove to be willing to accept “same god” that accepts the Islamic paradigm, then they run right in the face of what Christ said in the Gospel along with what you just cited in 1st and 2nd John - and they would then seek to impose that view on others - as this is the effect of this narrative - as you can see in this thread.

To answer your question, Dominus Iesus is online at the Vatican website. Just google “Dominus Iesus” and go to the “.va” address. You will find that it answers your concerns regarding “definitive truth”. What you won’t find is the Church making definitive statements wrt Islam, Buddhism, etc. (As the eternally chosen people of God, you will find some statements regarding Judaism but that is an entirely different discussion) Church dogmatics and doctrine is always only about what you are required to believe, not what others may or may not believe.

 

[pnewton]

Part I -

“Assuming Aquinas said it” - are you accusing me of confabulating this quote?

I did not say that you did.

The Vatican II documents in question were intentionally silent on Muhammad, Allah, and the Qur’an. I’ve done some research on these documents including talks with ordained clergy who spent time at the Vatican working these issues and familiar with their production.

So “Islam” is not mentioned. Muslims worship the same one true God. This is what Cardinal Dolan said. Whether Islam is mentioned is not relevant. Maybe you can start a thread claiming Muslims do not practice Islam, if that is what you think, or that Muslims in Latin is some sort of trade. For the life of me, I can not associate on bit of significance to your point. For the life of me I simply can not grasp your point. Muslims worship the same God. Islam is not mentioned. Huh??? If anyone else can understand why you attach some significance to this, perhaps they can weigh in.

Hence, these documents were not written to be statements of Catholic doctrine and made no claims regarding the state of belief within Islam.

When a Catholic post that a conciliar document, a dogmatic constitutionn (Lumen Gentium) is not a statement of doctrine, yes, I will say again that you are discrediting Vatican II. If you do not like this, then report it, but you might want to read the rules first. This is after all a** Catholic **apostolate and not some traditionally dissent organization.

You have yet to explain the contention that God can both be the Trinity where the same god also denies the Trinity at the same time.

Simple. The Muslims are wrong when they deny the Trinity. Two people can drive, sell, talk about or wash and wax the same six cylinder Mustang that one thinks is a V8. Their mistake or lack of understanding does not make the car non-existent or make two cars where there was only one. Many a Catholic (or Protestant) has had some messed-up notions of Jesus and of God. It does not mean that they worshiped a false God, only that they worshiped with ignorance.

 

[pnewton]

And if the “same god” crowd, when pushed by the irreducible logic of this argument, prove to be willing to accept “same god” that accepts the Islamic paradigm, then they run right in the face of what Christ said in the Gospel along with what you just cited in 1st and 2nd John - and they would then seek to impose that view on others - as this is the effect of this narrative - as you can see in this thread.
eve.

The “same God” crowd, in this case is Cardinal Dolan, Vatican II, Blessed John Paul II; in other words, the Catholic Church. One either accepts Her teaching authority, or one does not. To reject Lumen Gentium is no worse than those who rejected Catholic teaching in the past in favor of their own wisdom.

 

[SirStephen]

The “same God” crowd, in this case is Cardinal Dolan, Vatican II, Blessed John Paul II; in other words, the Catholic Church. One either accepts Her teaching authority, or one does not. To reject Lumen Gentium is no worse than those who rejected Catholic teaching in the past in favor of their own wisdom.

Just as in all substantial documents, legal or theological, not everything written in an instrument is give the same weight. In U.S. Supreme Court cases, for example, there is the ruling - the opinion that becomes a rule of law - where other interesting key points are designated dicta. In the 77 pages of the Dogmatic Constitution - Lumen Gentium, one single sentence was allocated to Muslims, it was not written to be considered dogmatic but rather as a “call out” (as the say today) and the offer of an olive branch. The Vatican document that was written to address interfaith issues as the specific subject from Vatican II was Nostra Aetate, it was understood to be so as such, and, as noted, the Vatican and Pope Benedict last year made it clear that it is not doctrine and that it has problems (that stem not so much from what it says, but rather for the fact that many make it say and do too much). The central topic of Lumen Gentium concerned the state of Church belief and articles of faith. In this, it was - and was intended to be - dogmatic.

It should be noted, however, that Paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church draws its language from Lumen Gentium and hence likewise included that pesky conditional “professing to hold” language that allowed the Church to say something friendly without having to commit to any statement of ultimate belief wrt to what Islam does or does not believe.

I do not reject Lumen Gentium, I don’t reject Nostra Aetate. Neither document made doctrinal or dogmatic claims on the state of belief in Islam, neither intended to do so, as was specifically addressed in the discussion of the principle Vatican II document on the topic, Nostra Aetate, which, as Pope Benedict already noted, was really only concerned with Judaism. (I mean really, with a Vatican archbishop, a Vatican Cardinal, and the Pope already directing its attention on Nostra Aetate to make its point in decisive rapid fire, do you really think that this did not reflect the Vatican’s unified position on the Vatican II’s statements on the topic writ large when that is specifically the subject of those statements?)

On Vatican II, last October, Pope Benedict spent considerable time commenting on it by saying that there is a need to get back to understanding Vatican II by reading, as I’ve tried to explain, the letter of Vatican II rather than operating on the “spirit of V-II”:

“I have often insisted on the need to return, as it were, to the ‘letter’ of the council – that is to its texts – also to draw from them its authentic spirit,” the pope said. “The true legacy of the council is to be found in them.”

Pope B went on to say:

“The council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient,” he said. “Rather, it concerned itself with seeing that the same faith might continue to be lived in the present day, that it might remain a living faith in a world of change.”

In February, Benedict added a few final thoughts on how to re-look Vatican II from a more authentic position. I am not accusing you of not doing so but am suggesting that it is important to read what was actually said (and not said). Pope Benedict said:

The world interpreted the Council through the eyes of the media, instead of seeing the true Council of the fathers and their key vision of faith … Fifty years later, the strength of the real Council has been revealed, and it is our task for the Year of Faith to bring the real Second Vatican Council to life, … The immediate impression of the Council that got thorough to the people was that of the media, not that of the fathers, … The council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith, but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics … a hermeneutic of politics.

You are the one suggesting my mortal soul is at risk for disagreeing with you and yet you have failed to explain the rational basis by which you would maintain that the Allah that denies Christ and the Trinity is the same God defined as the Trinity. If you say Islam is wrong, then this must culminate in saying the revelations of Allah to Muhammad are wrong and hence deny the Allah of Islam. But Muslims are not confused about who He is and neither are they confused about what He commanded. They are not living in doubt or fear that they are wrong - as you claim. You are simply making naked demands that I “obey” your characterizations because you attribute an authority without reason to your explanation.

In history, Popes, Cardinals and Bishops have been wrong before and they will again. The Holy Spirit’s protection concerns “faith and morals” that govern the sheep in the Catholic flock. I have not questioned this - in fact, I haven’t come close to doing so.

 

[pnewton]

In history, Popes, Cardinals and Bishops have been wrong before and they will again.

Church councils have never been wrong when defining dogma. All it takes is one doctrinal sentence in a dogmatic document. What I do think is wrong is people who try an figure all this out themselves instead of just listening to the Church. That is why we have divisions in Christianity and dissent in the Church.

I quoted Lumen Gentium. Cardinal Dolan understands this. The popes of the past understand Lumen Gentium. We simply should not pick and choose what doctrine we believe and what we reject.

Popes have been wrong. In some areas, this is true. But I ask you, how often are people wrong when they post on the internet based on their own opinions?

 

[SirStephen]

Church councils have never been wrong when defining dogma. All it takes is one doctrinal sentence in a dogmatic document. What I do think is wrong is people who try an figure all this out themselves instead of just listening to the Church. That is why we have divisions in Christianity and dissent in the Church.

I quoted Lumen Gentium. Cardinal Dolan understands this. The popes of the past understand Lumen Gentium. We simply should not pick and choose what doctrine we believe and what we reject.

Popes have been wrong. In some areas, this is true. But I ask you, how often are people wrong when they post on the internet based on their own opinions?

Unfortunately for you, I cited my sources just about every time I stated my points; including the Vatican’s from last year making it clear that my points have merit. You could have challenged them in some substantive manner. I never said a Church council was wrong. Part of my research into this question came from a priest that was immediately associated with the Vatican’s ecumenical program.

The Church never told individuals to be potato heads and not think for themselves of to think uncritically. You, on the other hand, have based your entire case on blindly, uncritically and without any support restating a position you’ve made no attempt to defend or explain.

Your suggestion that what I said does not have merit because I posted it here on the CAF is yet again a somewhat passive aggressive ad hominem insult offered in lieu of any discussion that you could have answered on the merits. One thing is certain, you certainly can’t win this argument on the facts.

 

[SirStephen]

As turnabout is fair play, let’s look at what earlier Popes said on the issue of Islam. I will limit myself this time to just 15th Century citations from popes, some associated with councils, others with bulls:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basil 1434 (the session from which this statement came was approved) -
“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”
Pope Callixtus III +/- 1455
I vow to … exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East."
1456 Papal Bull
"On the first Sunday of each month, processions were to be made in every diocese in order that the threatened Turkish invasion might be averted; the Missa contra Paganos (Mass against the Pagans) was to be said and a suitable discourse delivered to the assembled people … (quoting the prayer to be said) “Almighty and Everlasting God to whom all power belongs, and in whose hands are the rights of all nations, protect thy Christian people and crush by Thy power the pagans who trust in their fierceness.”
Pope Pius II, 1459
“In the royal city of the East they have slain the successor of Constantine and his people, desecrated the temples of the Lord, defiled the noble church of Justinian with their Mahometan abominations … Each success will be only a stepping stone to the next until he has mastered all the Western Monarchs, overthrown the Christian Faith, and imposed the law of his *false prophet *on the whole world.”
Then in 1462 -
“Turn the anger of the Almighty against the godless Turks and Barbarians who despise Christ the Lord.”
And yet again, in a 1487 Papal Bull -
“… the false prophet Mahomet - the bloodthirsty hosts of the venomous dragon.”

Please correct me, but an “abominable sect” would be an abomination and hence would never be associated with God; diabolical refers to the “devil” and faithless means “having no faith”; while infidel refers to the more generic unbeliever, “pagans” are those who worship false gods; a false prophet is one that is not true and, when associated with a “venomous dragon,” it would refer to the satanic. Of course, the “godless Turks” could not believe in the “same god” as “we Catholics.” As I already noted, in October 2012, Pope Benedict XVI said:

“The council did not formulate anything new in matters of faith, nor did it wish to replace what was ancient.”

How do you account for what these earlier popes said in an official status (and please believe me when I say I could keep such citations like this coming). Are you saying they were wrong?

 

[agnes_therese]

The Church never told individuals to be potato heads and not think for themselves of to think uncritically. You, on the other hand, have based your entire case on blindly, uncritically and without any support restating a position you’ve made no attempt to defend or explain.

What a terrible thing, to accept the Church’s teaching over yours!

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying they were wrong?

No, but then neither is there a direct contradiction. I find the fact that you make such a big deal over the difference in “Islam” and “Muslim”, then turn around try to find an argument in fifteenth century war rhetoric highly suspect. I think you are arguing back from an opinion to prove something the Catholic Church has clearly said is untrue.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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.”

 

[Greg_N]

Hence, these documents were not written to be statements of Catholic doctrine and made no claims regarding the state of belief within Islam. But, as already noted, there is no mystery here either. In May 2012, Vatican Cardinal Walter Brandmuller twice stated in a book he wrote with Vatican Bishop Agostino Marchetto titled Pope Benedict XVI’s Keys for Interpreting Vatican II that Nostra Aetate “did not have binding doctrinal content” and that its canonical nature was “non-binding.”

 

[SirStephen]

No, but then neither is there a direct contradiction. I find the fact that you make such a big deal over the difference in “Islam” and “Muslim”, then turn around try to find an argument in fifteenth century war rhetoric highly suspect. I think you are arguing back from an opinion to prove something the Catholic Church has clearly said is untrue.

No, I am telling you that the V-II drafters made that distinction - that I was flat out told so by a Vatican priest involved in such ecumenical activities. Just to be clear, I am not engaged in some personal pickiness when pointing out that in official and legal instruments that there is a substantial difference between naming a thing and naming those who follow it. At the most tactical legalistic level, comments to one involve issues of fact whereas comments of the other involve matters of opinion. Issue of fact: “The Catholic Church holds that abortion is murder and objectively evil.” Matter of opinion: “In a poll of 5000 Catholics 40% are pro-choice.”

For those writing instrument as well as those who read them, this types of distinction is looked for because it draws a recognized and substantial distinction that goes to what one chooses to be held to when making an observation, including level of liability. I can be (libelously) wrong about what the Catholic Church holds, but only have to prove that two Catholic believes a thing to prove that at least SOME Catholics believe a thing - regardless of whether the Church actually holds that view and thus not be libelous. When negatively characterized, such language is often described as “weasel words.” Any competent lawyer, including canon lawyers, or diplomats, would recognize this.

(OBTW, I have discussed my views with a Canon lawyer and have been told the trajectory of my inquiry is licit.)

By grounding its statements in what Muslims hold, the Church could never be wrong about what Muslims might think even as they could be completely wrong about what Islam holds. That is the gap that Nostra Aetate purposefully occupied. To be clear, I am not critical of the Church at Vatican II for this because I don’t believe they intended to make a binding statement on the nature of the Allah of Islam but rather tried to develop a zone of possible commonality as a basis for future interfaith discussion by hopefully making that a common ground. Of course, it has failed and Pope Benedict, I believe, came to recognize this over the period of his discussions with Al-Azhar. Pope Benedict, as well as the Vatican Bishop and Cardinal as much as said so when saying that Nostra Aetate was not doctrine, etc. What has become alarming is how often Catholics will attack fellow Catholics, including the Pope, for raising such concerns.

War rhetoric? I found two that came from official Church councils and two from Papal Bulls. They are official expressions of the Church from that era that were formally promulgated by the Pope. Are you going to say they were wrong when explicitly saying Muhammad was faithless and that Islam was satanic? Because that is what was said. You would be right, however, that the rhetoric came at a time when Christians were being massacred for being Christians just as ten’s of thousand today are being - just in less developed parts of the world where no-one cares - or at least not enough to stop yucking it up with the Imam at an outreach session to prove ones interfaith bona fides. And, of course, there is an opportunity cost associated with yucking it up with the Imam at the same time that tens of thousands of Christian and other non-Muslims are killed a year (according to the Church’s own statistics) - while Western Church leaders seek to silence those who raise this reality so as not to make those meetings with the Imam too untidy.

And yes, the statements of the 15th Century do create a contradiction, but only if the meaning of what was stated in the V-II documents were understood along your line. The collapse of critical thinking here is alarming. The postmodern line of reasoning redefines the god of Islam and then says that neutered redefinition is the “same god” and then attacks those who point out that the god claimed as the “same god” is not, as a matter of fact, as a matter of Islamic revealed texts, and as a matter of published Islamic law, the same god that Islam claims as Allah that Islam could not define in more explicitly clear terms.

If you are saying that it was in a different time, and this gives you the free hand to discount what was said in the past by former popes and Church councils, why cannot I claim to be either not as avant garde as you (for not having caught up to your view while still being able to completely ground my position in Church documents) or being truly avant garde (for going where Pope Benedict was heading). (I expect that with Pope Francis, there will be a brief step back before moving forward again in Pope B’s direction because there is an underlying truth that will not be kept suppressed about it.) The reason I can say this is this: In both instances, the popes and councils were not speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. It is not an article of faith either way.

I have great concern for the seeming indifferentism that would allow for a complete blurring of a clearly defined concept of god in Allah that is clearly and cleanly defined in antithetical terms to the Trinity. So clean, in fact, that Verse 9:29 calls for jihad against Christians precisely because they are Christians (“including People of the Book, until they submit and feel themselves subdued.”)

The Church’s teaching is that you form your conscience and follow it in good conscience. It is the goal of all good Catholics to strive to ever more perfectly form that conscience.

 

[pnewton]

And yes, the statements of the 15th Century do create a contradiction, but only if the meaning of what was stated in the V-II documents were understood along your line. .

It is not “my” line. It is that of the Catholic Church. This thread is about Cardinal Dolan.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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.”

FYI - I have thought this issue out quite critically and stand with great clarity of mind alongside not only Cardinal Dolan on this, but also Bl. John Paul, one of the sharpest theologians of our age.

 

[shocktrooper]

It is not “my” line. It is that of the Catholic Church. This thread is about Cardinal Dolan.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst 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.”

FYI - I have thought this issue out quite critically and stand with great clarity of mind alongside not only Cardinal Dolan on this, but also Bl. John Paul, one of the sharpest theologians of our age.

pnewton, I get the feeling you can’t think for yourself. Are you purposely ignoring the arguments put forth by SirStephen. His arguments present a different interpretation than yours concerning NA, LG and the CCC and backs it up with previous Church teachings that harmonizes yesterday with today instead of rupturing and has also had his understanding validated by others in the Church.

The last I heard, Cardinal Dolan is not infallible in his understanding of Church teaching and can, just possibly, be wrong from time to time. This is just part of our human nature and I believe Cardinal Dolan is still human. Any other singular bishop not teaching ex cathedra would also fall into this category.

 

[shocktrooper]

No, I am telling you that the V-II drafters made that distinction - that I was flat out told so by a Vatican priest involved in such ecumenical activities. Just to be clear, I am not engaged in some personal pickiness when pointing out that in official and legal instruments that there is a substantial difference between naming a thing and naming those who follow it. At the most tactical legalistic level, comments to one involve issues of fact whereas comments of the other involve matters of opinion. Issue of fact: “The Catholic Church holds that abortion is murder and objectively evil.” Matter of opinion: “In a poll of 5000 Catholics 40% are pro-choice.” …

SirStephen, taking the arguments put forth by you concerning the god Muslims worship, how do you not go about using those same arguments against Jews that have rejected Christ and the Trinity? I am having a hard time concluding differently for Jews as I do about Muslims. Your arguments to pnewton have swayed me back a bit from feeling in dissent against a Church teaching. Can you help out?

 

[pnewton]

The last I heard, Cardinal Dolan is not infallible in his understanding of Church teaching and can, just possibly, be wrong from time to time. This is just part of our human nature and I believe Cardinal Dolan is still human…

He can be wrong in many thing, but it is not his opinion he stated, but Church doctrine. For him to be wrong, then Vatican II would have produced a false dogmatic document in Lumen Gentium. There are a few far off traditionalists that do believe this. Unfortunately, once you start doubting the Church Councils, then many worse things follow.

I do not respond to every argument. The Catechism statement is based on Lumen Gentium, which is not open for debate. How can I argue this? The definition of “dogmatic”? In light of this, the significance ost Nostra Aetrate is simply not relevant. One only need know something is doctrine, not that it is doctrine multiple places. I can post here that the God the Muslims worship is the same God we do. In doing so, does pointing out that** I** have zero authority really matter?

As to all the other stuff written above. I find it wrong to discredit Lumen Gentium’s statement, made in the Catholic Church meeting in Council in a dogmatic document, based on papal statements, which have less authority than and ecumenical council. He is arguing against an infallible statement by using possibly fallible statements.

I think it important to distinguish what the Church does and does not say, what it means when the Church says we worship the same God.

1. It does *not *mean that God is both a Trinity and not a Trinity.
2. It does not mean that whether we are Muslim, Christian, or Jewish is a matter of indifference.
3. It does not mean that the Koran is of divine origin.
4. It does *not *mean that Islam, is good, evil or anywhere in between.

So, read the quotes below. Not that not one of them said that Islam worships a false God. The closest thing was when it calls Turks and Barbarians “godless”. Remember the big thing about “Muslims” vs. “Islam”? So how much further removed is “Turks”?

I use the term “war rhetoric” because the three popes that made these statements were involved in crusades and war at the time they were made. I invite you to check on Pius II, Callistus III and Eugene IV. Do you not see a discrepancy in elevating these statements made “in official status” over what was done at an ecumenical council (Vatican II) and the statements of the Great John Paul and Pope Emeritus Benedict. I base my understanding both on reason and Church authority.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I found this link on the issue.

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea4.asp