Council of Vienne, Muslims, Nostra Aetate #3 ?

[jam070406]

How do we reconcile Nostra Aetate #3’s teaching that Muslims are held in esteem, for prayer, almsgiving etc. with previous teaching, such as the Council of Vienne, that states the practices of Muslims cannot be tolerated, without displeasing the divine majesty, because it is an offense to God and causes scandal?

Nostra Aetate #3, Vatican II:

1. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Council of Vienne:

[25]. It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.

ewtn.com/library/councils/vienne.htm#03

:ehh:

 

[Barbkw]

1. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Notice the counting off of what we as Christians can esteem in Islam and what is left unsaid.

1. adoration of one God (purposely written to acknowledge they don’t believe in the Trinity)
2. their submitting to the Abrahamic law (which Jesus fulfilled)
3. Honoring of Mary (yet they fail to worship Jesus or acknowledge Him as Lord)
4. Judgement day of God (in which Jesus will judge the heavens & the earth)
5. Moral life and worship of prayer, alms and fasting (excluding the religous practices which encourage terrorism and acts of violence against non-Muslims.)

 

[George_Stegmeir]

How do we reconcile Nostra Aetate #3’s teaching that Muslims are held in esteem, for prayer, almsgiving etc. with previous teaching, such as the Council of Vienne, that states the practices of Muslims cannot be tolerated, without displeasing the divine majesty, because it is an offense to God and causes scandal?

Nostra Aetate #3, Vatican II:

1. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Council of Vienne:

[25]. It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.

ewtn.com/library/councils/vienne.htm#03

:ehh:

Your premise, based on something that occured 700 years ago is ridiculous. The Church has progessed spiritually and socially since that time, and in any case, the pronouncements and dictats of the most recent council, Vatican II overides all such prior edicts. Based on your logic, it would be OK to draw and quarter felons and burn protestants (heretics) at the stake!

 

[jam070406]

Your premise, based on something that occured 700 years ago is ridiculous. The Church has progessed spiritually and socially since that time, and in any case, the pronouncements and dictats of the most recent council, Vatican II overides all such prior edicts. Based on your logic, it would be OK to draw and quarter felons and burn protestants (heretics) at the stake!

Your premise sounds dangerous. You’re claiming that Vatican II overrides any past councils? What else did the Church get wrong in the past that our now modern enlightened minds know better?
I’m not referring to punishment of heretics by state authorities btw, I’m talking about Islam, which was once condemned as a danger to the Faith being now held in esteem.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Yes. I suggest that you discuss this with a priest, especially a Dominican or a Jesuit.
By calling up an ancient Council dictat and attempting to apply it to the modern Church, you are committing a serious error, and if you are just doing this for argument, the argument is worthless because it is not applicable to the modern Church.
Also, any argument against the changes instituted by V II or the misinterpretation of them is bordering on heresy, and has no business on this forum.

 

[Nita]

Your premise sounds dangerous. You’re claiming that Vatican II overrides any past councils? What else did the Church get wrong in the past that our now modern enlightened minds know better?

Regulations can change; attitudes can change; it’s doctrines that cannot change. There is no doctrine involved.
The Church did not necessarily “get it wrong in the past”. That may well have been the best guidance on the part of the Church (to Catholic rulers of Catholic countries) for that particular time, place, and circumstances. I’m not sure the situation even exists anymore of a distinctly Catholic nation ruled by a Catholic monarch/s or princes.

I’m not referring to punishment of heretics by state authorities btw, I’m talking about Islam, which was once condemned as a danger to the Faith being now held in esteem.

It was, and still can be, a danger to the faith – yet we can still hold in esteem the Islamic beliefs and practices that are good and true.

 

[jam070406]

Regulations can change; it’s doctrines that cannot change. The Church did not necessarily “get it wrong in the past”. That may well have been the best guidance on the part of the Church (to Catholic rulers of Catholic countries) for that particular time, place, and situation. I’m not sure the situation even exists anymore of a distinctly Catholic nation ruled by a Catholic monarch.

It was, and still can be, a danger to the faith – yet we can still hold in esteem the Islamic beliefs and practices that are good and true.

Thanks for your kind response.
It was much more charitable then the previous poster.