CCC on Muslims

[UnityofTrinity]

I agree with one of the posters in page one. If a Muslim is peaceful, loving,open minded, and always seek God. God will either opens Himself to him/her and convert him/her, or maybe just save the Muslim in his religion because it might be dangerous for him/her to convert to Christianity. Again, our God is a just and also a merciful God. However the peril lies for those who are stubborn at heart, never truly seek God but instead seek security in laws. They are liken to the Pharisees and the Saducees of the old, I fear and pray that their souls will be saved.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Here’s your riddle for the day:

Why does the Godman walk on water while his mother is in the sky?

And here’s your clue:
The etymology of Allah.

 

[karaleigh]

thanks for your post.

You’re welcome. :juggle:

 

[karaleigh]

Muslims are waiting on Isa to come, who will be taught by the Mahdi how to pray, and who will lead a world army against all Jews, Christians, and unbelievers.
.

I think the name Isa is a version of the name Asa, and why Muslims believe Isa is a messiah. Asa was a king of Judah. What’s important here is the feelings Muslims have towards a demon name Mmashem(mm-Ash-em). MmAshem like to haunt classical dancers, or dancers alltogether. The movie Black Swan is about the demon MsAshem. It is also believed the demon had its orgin at the time of Augustus Caesar and his wife Livia.

1Kgs.15
[8] And Abi’jam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David. And Asa his son reigned in his stead.
[9] In the twentieth year of Jerobo’am king of Israel Asa began to reign over Judah,
[11] And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done.
[13] He also removed Ma’acah his mother from being queen mother because she had an abominable image made for Ashe’rah; and Asa cut down her image and burned it at the brook Kidron.
[14] But the high places were not taken away. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was wholly true to the LORD all his days.

I’m told Muslims hate that demon with a hard heart. When King Asa conquered the armies of Ashe’rah(#13 above), Asa became the hero for many, as well as, the Muslims who are the followers of the kings in Judah…God Allmighty proclaimed ‘Kings’ as evil, with a exclamanation point, kings are more, in history, a center for Islamic worship. Thereby, Asa became Isa in Islamic history as their messiah. Ma’acah, in the above verses, is also a commom name for such as Mary, Mariam, Martha. Asa son who ruled Israel following Asa death was Jehoshaphat. The Holy Bible can be very secular! But, you have to learn it at a university for it to be taught secularist.

Common in early American history was the word ‘Jumping Jehoshaphat’

…it seems clear that the name of the king of Judah (which also occurs in several other spellings, most commonly Jehosaphat) was used in the United States around the middle of the nineteenth century as a mild oath, a euphemism for Jehovah or Jesus.

Asaph, Saint (or Asa) is the saint of the Welsh people in the UK, which is now largely a Islamic nation.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Here’s your riddle for the day:

Why does the Godman walk on water while his mother is in the sky?

And here’s your clue:
The etymology of Allah.

Allah was the name of the Arabic moongod, whose symbol is the crescent moon. It was also the most popular god, and was kept in the most esteemed place, in the most esteemed temple in Mecca. During festival, people would bring their favorite gods. Allah was always the most popular.

Another god the Jews would recognize, and who was time and again rebuke by God and his prophets, was the god (lord) Ba``alah, which is the feminization of Ba’al, god of rain/water.

Two of the most powerful gods the Jews had to overcome, whom they often turned to, were the river god and the water/storm god.

When Psalm 113 says our enemies will be our footstool, it is referencing a highly symbolic custom of putting a conquered enemy underfoot. See again Hebrews 1:13.

Ergo, when Jesus walks on water in the middle of a storm, he is demonstrating his fulfillment of God’s promise to put his enemies underfoot and they are conquered. This would have more powerful to witness than any of us even imagine, this was total domination! The storm god and the water god are conquered in a single and prophetic gesture. The gesture is that just as the false gods were conquered, so also will el shetan (Satan) the great adversary, be conquered in the same way in his second coming.

Meanwhile, just as the Son is light, there is also a false light, who imitates the Son in order to deceive. Satan is the false light of the moon. Beautiful to behold, great to imagine, but all in vain. If ancient sailors attempted to navigate the waters according to the moon, they would surely be lost. Instead, sailors use stars, which are natural light, and in a symbolic way, the lesser lights (angels). But the moon is false light, it has no light of its own, it can only pretend.

The bible references both false wisdom (false prophets) and the wisdom of the world (popular wisdom, see: irreligion, atheism, mammon) on many many occasions. And notice Mary, whose name literally means “the sea”, who to many pagans would connote a powerful image of a deity, a goddess. But Mary says “my soul magnifies the greatness of the Lord!” This is visible in Revelation 11 and 12, where she is “clothed with the Sun”, she emanates God’s natural first light. In her Magnificat, in saying so, she completely resists the temptation to be deified and obediently makes herself the “handmaid of the Lord”. In this single gesture, she conquers both the conventional wisdom of the world (to glorify the self), and false wisdom (to mistake the lesser for the greater). Ergo, when you see Mary, you almost always see her pointing to Jesus (holding infant or pregnant) and at the same time having either the moon (false god, Ba``alah, Allah) or the earth and serpent (wisdom of the world, temptation of knowledge) both Underfoot. They are conquered.

The symbol is prophetic, it is a sign. Mary conquers Allah. All will be brought together under the “shroud” of the sea, Mary, and brought to Jesus Christ. Sorry, I had to borrow from Moby Dick just now.

I’m not a Marianist, I love Mary. I don’t believe this makes her “The Co-Redeemer”, only God saves/redeems (to be released from a bond (the bond of slavery/sin)). I believe that Mary’s in confession, her magnificent oblation “be it done unto me according to thy word” she resists the temptation of deification (disambiguously from divinization). She recognizes she has no authority and therefore no power, and at the same time recognizes that she is a great vessel, the Arc of the Covenant, through whom God’s power would be made manifest – in the person of Jesus Christ.

Mohammed is a false prophet, we already know this. His god is no God of Abraham, his god is already the footstool of Mary. And did you know that he was raised by his uncle? A heretic of a Catholic sect who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ? Yes, the old Arian heresy continued to rear its ugly neck and re-invented itself as Islam. False wisdom says “submit”, Jesus says, “choose”. False wisdom says, “retribution is prescribed for you”, but Jesus says “forgive your enemies, 70x7”. False wisdom says “slay the Christians and Jews”, it says further that “Christians are dogs” and “Jews are pigs”, Jesus says “I come that you may have life, and have it abundantly.” False wisdom says “Ishmael”, Jesus says, “Israel”. False wisdom says “Allah”, Jesus says “Yahweh”.

So the next time you see an icon of Mary, know these things: just as Moses’ nephews were not allowed to make sacrifices of worship to the Arc, so also u must not make worship of Mary, even if she is Arc of the New Covenant. But, and this is a HUGE but, Mary didn’t have to conquer sin, she was born without it, chosen from among all peoples from all time, she has conquered false wisdom and she stands over the moon and the earth, conquering both, the infidels.

 

[DasErlibnis]

So if I go pull a Mo…

Lol, niiice!!

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I don’t think being American has anything to do with it. American are not against it culturally, and besides there is no proof that American like or dislike more than their over-sea counterparts in foreign countries. I think it it more likely misread or misuse to say something it does not, both by people who are either for or against it. For the most part CCC841 is too carefully worded, it reminds me of an answers from a politician who goes on to great length trying not to pin himself to any one side of an issue. In the paragraph islam muhammed allah and the koran are not mentioned. Yet what is a muslim without them?

My particular dislike of it is the fact people use it advance syncretist ideas. Reading the way it is used to back up some arguments I get the feeling some people believe that Catholism and islam are equal as religions.

 

[rossum]

I don’t think being American has anything to do with it. American are not against it culturally, and besides there is no proof that American like or dislike more than their over-sea counterparts in foreign countries. I think it it more likely misread or misuse to say something it does not, both by people who are either for or against it. For the most part CCC841 is too carefully worded, it reminds me of an answers from a politician who goes on to great length trying not to pin himself to any one side of an issue. In the paragraph islam muhammed allah and the koran are not mentioned. Yet what is a muslim without them?

My particular dislike of it is the fact people use it advance syncretist ideas. Reading the way it is used to back up some arguments I get the feeling some people believe that Catholism and islam are equal as religions.

Of course it is carefully worded. All the words in the Catechism were thought about very carefully for a long time. Would you want a document containing normative Catholic doctrine to be put together carelessly?

Remember also that the CCC is a worldwide document, so it is distributed in countries with significant Moslem minorities, and in countries with Muslim majorities. Careless wording might lead to unnecessary problems. The writers were obviously aware of this when they wrote it.

rossum

 

[gsbrch15]

Catholic Catechism, par. 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.’

Hi, trying to come back to the Catholic Church but I have problems with the above and a few other beliefs. Christians and Muslims do not in my research and opinion worship the same god. Muslims do not believe in the trinity or that Jesus is the Son of God, or that salvation is through Jesus alone. So I don’t understand the above. Does the Catholic faith believe that there is salvation outside of faith and belief in Jesus?

I recently came from a protestant church also and have been going to RCIA. This teaching has been a thorn in my side to say the least. It has bothered me greatly because I want to be part of the Catholic Church. For weeks I have been trying to find an answer with clarity and all I find is ambiguity.
My biggest question, if this teaching is true, is was it necessary for Christ to come and die if ignorance saves us? If ignorance coupled with a sincere zeal and adoration for god can one inherit salvation without Jesus Christ? He (Jesus) seems to be the problem. A generic god is not the problem. I know Acts 17:23 is referred to when dealing with this issue but St. Paul in the same address to the Areopagus says,"30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” So when the Pope goes to a mosque or addresses Muslim youth and starts with this generic god and morals in commending their religion but does not mention Jesus is he, in fact denying Jesus? Could Vatican II be wrong? How can the Catholic Church be a light in the midst of darkness when it seems they are just the brightest light (the fullness of truth) in a room with lights that aren’t as bright (slivers or parts of truth, ie. methodists, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc., etc.)

I’m not trying to be combative I am honestly looking for answers to these same questions that kelcca is asking . So I apologize if it seems that way. You know, as wrong as the Pharisee’s and Scribes were Jesus still said to listen to them before the seven woes against them, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Submitting to authority and searching the Scriptures, like the Bereans to see if what they say is true is stressing.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Allah was the name of the Arabic moongod, whose symbol is the crescent moon. It was also the most popular god, and was kept in the most esteemed place, in the most esteemed temple in Mecca. During festival, people would bring their favorite gods. Allah was always the most popular.

…

Meanwhile, just as the Son is light, there is also a false light, who imitates the Son in order to deceive. Satan is the false light of the moon. Beautiful to behold, great to imagine, but all in vain. If ancient sailors attempted to navigate the waters according to the moon, they would surely be lost. Instead, sailors use stars, which are natural light, and in a symbolic way, the lesser lights (angels). But the moon is false light, it has no light of its own, it can only pretend.

The bible references both false wisdom (false prophets) and the wisdom of the world (popular wisdom, see: irreligion, atheism, mammon) on many many occasions. And notice Mary, whose name literally means “the sea”, who to many pagans would connote a powerful image of a deity, a goddess…

Mohammed is a false prophet, we already know this. His god is no God of Abraham, his god is already the footstool of Mary. And did you know that he was raised by his uncle? A heretic of a Catholic sect who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ? Yes, the old Arian heresy continued to rear its ugly neck and re-invented itself as Islam. False wisdom says “submit”, Jesus says, “choose”. False wisdom says, “retribution is prescribed for you”, but Jesus says “forgive your enemies, 70x7”. False wisdom says “slay the Christians and Jews”, it says further that “Christians are dogs” and “Jews are pigs”, Jesus says “I come that you may have life, and have it abundantly.” False wisdom says “Ishmael”, Jesus says, “Israel”. False wisdom says “Allah”, Jesus says “Yahweh”.

Allah is, of course, the word Arabic speaking Christians also use when refering to God, and it has been for as long as there have been Arabic speaking Christians. It can be heard in Catholic services worldwide during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, including among the Melkites, and is even found in my signature which quotes the Liturgy. Its Aramic relative, Alaha, would have been widely used in Jesus’ own time, since the Jews of that period spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew. It is still the official liturgical language of the Maronites. No Jew, including Jesus, would ever have said “yahweh”.

The word “Mariam” has nothing to do with the sea or water, since the name is Semitic in origin.

 

[jonbhorton]

Allah is, of course, the word Arabic speaking Christians also use when refering to God, and it has been for as long as there have been Arabic speaking Christians. It can be heard in Catholic services worldwide during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, including among the Melkites, and is even found in my signature which quotes the Liturgy. Its Aramic relative, Alaha, would have been widely used in Jesus’ own time, since the Jews of that period spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew. It is still the official liturgical language of the Maronites. No Jew, including Jesus, would ever have said “yahweh”.

The word “Mariam” has nothing to do with the sea or water, since the name is Semitic in origin.

The use of the proper Arabic word “Allah” which literally means “The god” or “God”, depending on usage, doesn’t negate the fact that “Allah” as muslims believe in “God” is not the same, no matter what they might like to say. The historical chronology of the region, in such a regard, coupled with even a cursory study of islam, reveals quite the laughable scenario were it now not so dire and grave. Christian Arabs may use “Allah” from a purely linguistic point of view, but, there are definitely distinctions in how they utilize it, correct? As I understand, many say something like Allah Al-Ab, or even sometimes simply Al-Ab- a phrase I’ve never seen used in islamic text regarding God. There are further divisions, which I think are more appropriate to view given our proclivity for assigning titles as names without realizing it. With Allah literally meaning “The god”, I have to ask which god? Mohammed claimed the God of Abraham, but then totally takes away all that God has said before, to both Jews and Christians (i.e. those grafted into spiritual Israel according to St. Paul, and thus, fulfilled Jews in a manner of speaking, though I do not wish to debate replacement theology).

The fact remains that mohammed took a pagan system of worship, combined it with gnostic/arian/etc doctrines, and mixed up a bunch of mashed up Jewish concepts, both Old Testament and Talmudic, and created a fake religion with which to further a political goal of a totalitarian state which predates Marxism by a long shot and yet somehow mimics many of the same principles. Principles which generally fail in practice due to the exclusion of deity, which man longs for no matter what. If marxism/communism is satanic (which I think it is), then islam is uber-satanic in that is totally crushes man’s spirit and even provides a fake deity with which to do it. A deity I must conclude is Satan himself.

Re: Jesus would never say “Yahweh”.

Do you mean Jesus, nor any Jew, would have ever say Yahweh as we might pronounce it, or they would have just never said it out of respect?

Interestingly, when one looks at both an Orthodox Jewish translation (more like a clutter of English and transliterated Hebrew phrases), and when one looks at the actual Hebrew, we find that Jesus’ actual words (Jn 8:58) insofar as the Semitic language of Hebrew, is rendered as “Ani Hu”, or אני הוא.

I’ll assume you meant option one on saying “YHWH”, so I’ll not refute the second one out of obvious contradiction, directly from Scripture.

However, what’s interesting, is that when we take these letters, which form the phrase, we end up, when looking at a chart which details the full scope of the Hebrew alphabet (or, Aleph Bet), the following words which are attached to the letter (a concept far lost on us with modern alphabets which are elementary in their application):

The chart is here: ancient-hebrew.org/28_chart.html

Aleph- Leader

Nuun- Son

Yod- Worship

---

Heh- Breath

Waw- Secure

Aleph- Leader​

contd…

 

[jonbhorton]

So, a phrase, based on this understanding could be Jesus saying, " I am the Leader and the Son whom you will worship. I, the leader, have secured you through my breath (euphemistically bringing things back to fixing Adam and Eve’s woeful indiscretion)". A phrase, which though arguable in how it’s put together (for certainly there are many options), is not only the basis of the Gospel message in one fell swoop, but would be an extremely blasphemous thing to say were Jesus not actually God as the phrase itself renders literally “I AM”, as we see in the English. Any true Jewish scholar at that time would know exactly the full implication of such a claim (for St. Paul did and used his knowledge extensively to blast away the lies of his former comrades), as they outright admitted it when they said Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It’s apparent that they understood his claim to be both God and the Son, meaning, they knew all along the basic notion Trinity, because they already had/have a phrase for the Holy Spirit, Ruach haKodesh. Anyone, particularly a Jewish scholar, should be able to put these things together based on the evidence found in OT scriptures, and certainly the more specific ones in use at the time which are found in the deuterocanonical books. As best I can tell, the traditional Church, which Jesus founded with Peter as earthly head, while Catholic, is actually the fulfillment and promise of Judaism. But that isn’t to say we should celebrate Jewish feasts per se, nor get wrapped up in the modern Messianic movement which is about as cult-like, and increasingly divided, as any other cult before it.

When we look at the phrase from a pictographic point of view, we are rendered with the following words, or phrase:

Ox Head representing power (but also bears a yoke to accomplish that which Man cannot do easily, if at all), Seed representing Son, arm and closed hand- perhaps God’s handiwork?

Man with arms raised, secured by a tent peg (or nail), to finalize claim to leadership in front of the entire world.

So, we have the Father and the Son represented in what is able to be rendered from these meanings:

The Leader (El) will appear as the Son and through his hand (or work) raise up his arms and by allowing himself to lose his breath being secured to His (well, our) fate by nails, He is finalizing his Leadership.

Starts with leadership in Aleph (God), ends with Leadership (God the Son) in Aleph.

Further, we see “El” not only as the name of Aleph in Ancient Hebrew, but, also as a short version of “God”. When we break that down to Aleph and Lam, we are rendered with " Leader, shepherd staff"; the Leader is the Shepherd. Thematic anyone? It gets more “Christian” though…

Grace literally means to “pitch a tent with” or “dwell with”. Faith? Driving a nail to secure that tent. Again, very “New Testament”. All faith in salvation, before and after the Cross, is dependent on a nail being driven in to the dwelling (body) God used, as the Son. Chew on that for a second in regards to what is revealed when looking at the meanings. They transcend time and culture. They are universal. They are, for a literal meaning, Catholic.

I’m not staking eternity on these things, but, I can’t help but see Christianity foreshadowed in the actual Hebrew words and letter meanings. Despite the author’s contention on the linked page, I don’t think the Septuagint is flawed. I do think, however, that it certainly would not kill Christians to understand the OT from a Hebrew/Jewish perspective, as well the NT. If anything, it would only help in witnessing to them. I further recognize that a lot of Jewish religion has been utterly corrupted by talmudic study, rather than Torah study and mastery of the Tanakh. It seems clear, to me, that the Jews of Jesus’ day had no excuses but their own hard hearts and human-centric view of what Judaism is, i.e. the Pharisees. The modern form of Rabbinic Judaism is about as truly Jewish as the Pentecostals are Roman Catholic. Just as they were faced with the truth of the Messiah, so too are we all. Muslims in particular would do well to truly understand the Hebraic roots of Christianity, as would Christians. That is not to say that I endorse or even find defensible the chaos of Messianic Judaism. In fact, I think the best way for Jews, muslims, et al to find what they seek is to view the glorious nature of the Traditional Latin Mass, or those of the Orthodox rites if that is better for them. It truly answers all of man’s desire for worship, provided we truly want to worship and understand worship.

I’m not putting down the OF Mass, but rather just stating the factual point that certain things are much more evident in the TLM based on my experiences and study in both.

 

[jonbhorton]

In regard to Das’ idea about Mary and water:

Mem “M” is represented water in the chart. Mar, the sea in most romantic languages (or some minor variant thereof), is certainly a potential derivative of the word or concept. In fact, it seems “strong waters” is a potential meaning of the name in its original form.

My personal opinion is that often these concepts are blown way out of proportion and importance, though knowing about them certainly is helpful- if only to witness to messianic (or not) Jews and Christians who are getting into such concepts. I fear doctrine is being based on broadly insignificant linguistic possibilities in Bible study. Etymology in its pure form is great, but, I can see how it could lead to its own doctrine.

Kinda like people focusing on the flour and not the cake staring them in the face.

 

[Badaliyyah]

The use of the proper Arabic word “Allah” which literally means “The god” or “God”, depending on usage, doesn’t negate the fact that “Allah” as muslims believe in “God” is not the same, no matter what they might like to say. The historical chronology of the region, in such a regard, coupled with even a cursory study of islam, reveals quite the laughable scenario were it now not so dire and grave. Christian Arabs may use “Allah” from a purely linguistic point of view, but, there are definitely distinctions in how they utilize it, correct? As I understand, many say something like Allah Al-Ab, or even sometimes simply Al-Ab- a phrase I’ve never seen used in islamic text regarding God. There are further divisions, which I think are more appropriate to view given our proclivity for assigning titles as names without realizing it. With Allah literally meaning “The god”, I have to ask which god? Mohammed claimed the God of Abraham, but then totally takes away all that God has said before, to both Jews and Christians (i.e. those grafted into spiritual Israel according to St. Paul, and thus, fulfilled Jews in a manner of speaking, though I do not wish to debate replacement theology).

The fact remains that mohammed took a pagan system of worship, combined it with gnostic/arian/etc doctrines, and mixed up a bunch of mashed up Jewish concepts, both Old Testament and Talmudic, and created a fake religion with which to further a political goal of a totalitarian state which predates Marxism by a long shot and yet somehow mimics many of the same principles. Principles which generally fail in practice due to the exclusion of deity, which man longs for no matter what. If marxism/communism is satanic (which I think it is), then islam is uber-satanic in that is totally crushes man’s spirit and even provides a fake deity with which to do it. A deity I must conclude is Satan himself.

Re: Jesus would never say “Yahweh”.

Do you mean Jesus, nor any Jew, would have ever say Yahweh as we might pronounce it, or they would have just never said it out of respect?

The Tetragrammaton, which the made-up word “yahweh” is based on, is not found in the NT. Nor, out of respect, would any Jew, including Jesus, have ever said it, since it is by definition, unspeakable. I am under the impression that it has been declared inappropriate for liturgical use in the Latin rite for this reason (and was never in use in the Byzantine rites as far as I know). As I also mentioned, Hebrew is not commonly spoken by Jews in Jesus’ time. They would have spoken Aramaic. The word for God in Aramaic is Alaha.

Allah al-Ab would be the translation of “God the Father”, and is used wherever Christians might refer to God the Father. Allah is still often used on its own, by Christians, such as in the passage in my signature, and when referring to God. You are correct, I believe, that Allah al-Ab is not used by Muslims.

The position outlined in the CCC, regarding Islam, which is a short summary of the position laid out in Nostra Aetate, which you quoted earlier in the thread, is a modern statement of the long standing Christian position on Islam. The same basic idea can be found, for instance, in Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Contra Gentiles (SCG). Aquinas rejects Mohammad’s claims to prophethood, the legitimacy of any revelation that might be associated with Islam, and says some nasty things about Mohammad, but Aquinas still says that Islam’s fundamental statements about God are correct since they are in accord with correctly understood monotheism. Moreover, one doesn’t need revelation to know this truth. Islam is, in this matter, repeating universally available truths and its adherents are holding these truths and worshipping God in accordance with a kind of natural faith. Lack of faith in Christ as savior does not invalidate that which they correctly know and hold regarding God. Even though salvation can only be had by faith in Christ.

Almost 3/4 of the SCG, it turns out, is composed of things anyone can know about God independently of revelation, and includes many examples from pagans, such as Aristotle, and Muslims. It also includes places where these must be corrected. Only the last portion of the SCG contains that which can only be known by revelation and is therefore specific to Christianity. This includes the Trinity, Incarnation and Salvation through Christ. This means that the things most distinctively Christian, according to Thomas, are only known by revelation, but there is so much that Christians share with non-Christian theists, which for him would be Jews and Muslims. The things they don’t know are Crucial, since they can’t be saved without Christ.

The CCC is in keeping with broader Church teaching that God is knowable by anyone, and can be known through reason alone. This position, which is found in Aquinas, is declared Catholic dogma in Vatican I (and can only be denied on pain of anathema, says the Council). This does not include knowledge of the Trinity, which can only be known by revelation. But it means that anyone, anywhere, who puts reason to right use, can know and worship the same God as Christians.

Muslims do this as a community and looked at this way, Islam is an expression of this truth, available to all human beings, concerning God the Creator, the monotheistic God (who is certainly the God of Abraham), worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Councils and CCC are teaching nothing more than the tradition.

salaam.

 

[jonbhorton]

Thanks for the reply. Certainly some things to look up for continued study, namely St. Thomas Aquinas’ view on such things. So far I’ve howled in laughter while reading St. John of Damascus’ view; biting wit, that one.

orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

I certainly plan to read more from him, as well as any other early writers I can get my dirty little hands on.

Monotheism, in itself, really means nothing to me. Nor do claims of worshiping the same God as Jews and Christians. Particularly when the site, name, and attributes of said god conflict in their entirety.

I recognize universal truth. Buddhism has tons as do many other false religions. For example, I recognize the universal truth of air being needed to breathe. But, I can’t call water air and have it be breathable, even if I correctly describe qualities which both air and water share. That doesn’t make me breathe air any more than placing a bag over my head.

The real key is muslim acceptance of Jesus, which they also falsely do and without much real solid ground left for Him to stand on, in terms of their portrayals of “Isa/Issa”. I find the application of the name “Isa”

I have no doubt that if a muslim truly wants to follow God, God will lead them home.

In fact, it is my understanding that Saudi Arabia has a growing Christian population since the boom there of the internet in the past decade or so.

Dunno how much the following caller read online, or where he got his information, but there is certainly much hope for the muslim world, in and outside of Arabia:

youtube.com/watch?v=iL4upLajJSc

Lots of other videos similar to this. I just hope these people professing Christ are able to get proper teaching once accepting the reality of their need for Him.

Of course, if you ask the muslim apologists, the callers are fake and Rachid is a jooooooooooooo.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Monotheism, in itself, really means nothing to me. Nor do claims of worshiping the same God as Jews and Christians. Particularly when the site, name, and attributes of said god conflict in their entirety.

Aquinas’ point, and the Church’s point, is that Islamic monotheism is correct in its fundamental structure: the idea of God as Creator and the attributes of an infinite God are all intact. They understand God correctly.

This is what the CCC and Vatican II are calling attention to.

Creation is preparation for revelation, though, and nature needs grace in order to be perfected.

Take a look at Nostra Aetate and the relevant section of the CCC once again. What you see them doing is placing the various religions in relative degrees of proximity to the truth which is Christianity.

There are the Orthodox, who are in fact Church in the full sense.
There are the Protestants, who are separated brethern in Christianity.
There are the Jews, from which Christianity has sprung and into which it has been adopted, with whom we share a common history and text.
There are the Muslims, with whom we share a common understanding of God, and with whom we look back to Abraham and have an overlapping desire for the good life.
…and so on, into the religions of the East with which we share less and less, etc. etc.

salaam.

 

[Badaliyyah]

I was in a hurry when I posted last. Nostra Aetate is strictly concerned with other religions. The Orthodox and Protestants are treated in other documents of Vatican II.

 

[jonbhorton]

Aquinas’ point, and the Church’s point, is that Islamic monotheism is correct in its fundamental structure: the idea of God as Creator and the attributes of an infinite God are all intact. They understand God correctly.

Again, pagan monotheism is useless. That which is, is. That which is not, is not, though it may be claimed to be. And no, they don’t understand God correctly. Their use of “One” is not the same thing as the Trinity’s sense of oneness, and their explanations of Allah are not congruent with even what God revealed in the OT. It’s tantamount to monogamous homosexuals. Just because they don’t cheat on each other doesn’t make them a legitimate couple. They claim Allah is not begotten nor does Allah beget. I cannot see such an error and still call it God. Allah, maybe, if they’d just admit they worship an amalgam of twisted lies. Satan, for sure. God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Never.

I totally get what you’re saying re: LG and NA. However, we’re back to the place that started this topic: the vague nature of the CCC. It appears, on a cursory reading, that islam is given a leg to stand on, as gimpy, severed and gangrenous as it is. I recognize that a playground style “we’re right and you’re wrong, burn in hell muzzies.” would be totally against the Church’s mission. But it’s maddening to see even the appearance of an inch given. It actuality it seems that what little I have found regarding Nostra Aetate thoroughly encourages this idea of being given a leg to stand on:

crvp.org/book/Series02/IIA-13/conclusion.htm

They can claim they worship an alien named Bob for all I care, but, it doesn’t make Bob real or even an alien, or even anything but a made up thing which calls upon other things. They have faith in a creation of mohammed’s warped mind, at best. At worst, Satan. GOD is nowhere in between those two. Whatever truth they have, is stolen. They make God a liar, evil, etc. In the juxtaposition of islam versus Christianity, Bob’s real title is Satan, no matter what his people claim, and their texts, history, and fruits back that up quite well.

All in all, the CCC quote is relativistic in its phrasing and woefully inadequate at properly enabling the average Catholic, or muslim, to understand the Church’s position. That we need to even go to LG and NA to even figure out what should be a bold statement is just sad.

It gives a rotten, gangrenous leg for mohammedanism to stand on, which is the last thing the people ignorantly trapped in that perfidious “religion” need.

What they need is people to just tell them the truth and quit playing word games for their feelings, world opinion, or some modernistic travesty which models itself on what can only be called relativism; muslims need Truth- not the appearance of live-and-let-live, for that shall only kill them.

 

[jonbhorton]

Apparently we can’t edit more than 20 minutes after posting?

What I was trying to add

starting at the crv… link:

theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/benedicts_blunder_time_for_muslims_to_emphasize_the_positive/

It allows them to get away with continuing to argue such blasphemy as this:

masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/xtians.htm

Well worded and “charitable” as it may be, it’s still blasphemy.

Even worse, we get committees put together on “inter-faith dialogue”, which, according to this article: ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/chrstnsmslms.HTM
includes such things as recognizing pagan feasts:

The first message sent to Muslims for the feast of 'Id al-Fitr, which concludes the month of fasting of Ramadan, appeared in 1967. Since then, with the single exception of 1970 — probably for practical reasons — a message has regularly been sent each year to Muslims on this occasion. Since 1973 the message has been signed by the President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, but in 1991, after the first Gulf War, the late Pope John Paul II signed the customary message himself. …

For the local Churches, the message becomes an occasion both to strengthen existing bonds of friendship and to create new ones."

Friendship? What friendship? Have these people actually read the koran? There is no friendship between muslims and Christians. Muslims won’t have it, if they’re actual “pious” muslims and follow the koran and hadith. Unless a knife in the back is considered a friendly act, maybe.

and

To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Declaration Nostra Aetate, the Foundation organized a first reunion of former award holders, held in Rome this pas 26-29 September. One of the participants, a university lecturer, spoke of the need for “a Qur’anic Nostra Aetate”.

Well, at least we have them perverting their own textual beliefs in the name of dialogue. That’ll win em.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I think the point of Jesus’ affirmation of ‘YHWH’ was lost on more than a few posters. The point isn’t that they utter it, its that they acknowledge it.

And Miriam in Hebrew is the same as Mariam in Greek. But the New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew, was it? It was written in Greek. ‘Mary’ is a legitimate extraction of Mariam.

And finally, in the case of Arabs using ‘Allah’ for ‘God’ (of which there can only be one) instead its proper, pre-Islamic use for ‘god’, well, that was one of more tactful points of what was written, the usurping of a meaning to suit an ends as much as a means. It’s classic PR move. I’m that context, and don’t take this out of context as I am so familiar with the tactics of too many people in these forums, but in THAT context, the Muslim use of Allah is no different than the sodomites use of 'Gay".

Their practice was the same, "hey, this word has a meaning to that group of people, so we’ll just take it for ourselves, reapply the word to suit our goal, and let everyone else adapt. Its like in another forum here, they boldly proclaim that they are re-defining marriage to be inclusive of gay marriage. They’re doing exactly the same thing with words that Mohammed did.

Ps. I love the story of how Mohammed and his first wife “discerned” that he was speaking with an “angel” of god.