P
pnewton
Guest
We literally posted the same thought at the same time. I congratulate you on your keen insight!
- Status
We literally posted the same thought at the same time. I congratulate you on your keen insight!
J
jam070406
Guest
hmmmm, food for thought. Thanks.
J
jam070406
Guest
We literally posted the same thought at the same time. I congratulate you on your keen insight!
M
Matariel
Guest
I agree, good point. I now believe the Mohammedans worship the same God, although Mohammad was a false prophet.
J
JReducation
Guest
Mohammadās status has never been a question for Catholics, Jews and Orthodox Christians. All three agree that he was not a prophet. I do not include the Protestants in this party, because they have as many different understandings of Islam and Mohammad as they have of the Scriptures.
There are some interesting Catholic reflections on Mohammad; but they are all hypotheses, because we donāt have enough information about him. But there are two that I find particularly interesting.
Hypothesis 1: Mohammad had some kind of mystical experience, maybe similar to that of Paul; but his mind was closed. The political ideologies and culture of his time were in conflict with the truth that was being communicated. Thus his conversion to Christ was a challenge. In other words, he made a choice to hold on to his ideologies and remained closed to the fullness of grace. Whereas Paul opened himself to the grace of God and put aside his ideologies. But in both cases, it was God trying to communicate and both men are right in saying that God communicated with them. Paul assents and Mohammad adapts. There is a difference between assenting and adapting.
Hypothesis 2: Mohammad had some kind of psychological experience that he did not understand and could only explain through a blend of superstition and Judeo-Christian faith. Due to the weakness of his thesis, his disciples turned his ārevelationsā into ideologies that served the interests of the political and economic leaders of the Arab world.
What I find interesting in these hypotheses is that neither deny Godās mercy and Godās attempt to reach out to these people, just as he deliberately reached out to the Gentiles by drawing Paul into the faith. Neither hypothesis denies that the Muslims were called to the faith by God. But the āwould be apostleā (my term), did not respond with faith.
The reason that I find these interesting is because we often forget that even though Jesus did appear to Saul, he did have to give a free assent of faith. An apparition by Jesus is not enough to convert someone. The individual must freely assent, which Paul did. Paulās assent is not spoken about much, but it is a necessary fact for Paulās conversion.
What do others think?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Stylites
Guest
I am glad to hear that you are now in alignment with Church teaching. It will certainly help you in being an effective and charitable Christian witness to others when you no longer think they who are worshipping the God of Abraham are worshipping a devil.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I think it is hard to deny that Mohammed had some sort of experience, mystical or psycholgical, which changed his life and allowed him to see the world in a more spiritual way. I do not think Mohammed was an evil person, as many would have us think, but certainly was misguided in the interpretation of his experience and in his vision of himself as a prophet. It is also true that if evil has been done in Mohammedās name, much good has also been done, and many recognize a holiness in the man that has compelled them to seek holiness in their lives as well. I think Mohammed sincerely sought God in his life and his search, though incomplete from my perspective, still merits praise and should be seen as sincere. I believe the 2nd hypothesis you mention is more probable than the first, though I find the first one intriguing. I also think the experience of Mohammed and of Muslims who have drawn closer to God through the Koran is a challenge to those of us who are Christian. It is easy to dismiss the holy experiences of God that do not match the ways in which we believe God generally communicates with us. This is not to say that our own experiences are false or incomplete, but that our own understanding of God can always grow and mature beyond our present experience. There are holy men and women among the Muslims and our own faith should compel us to recognize that holiness.Mohammadās status has never been a question for Catholics, Jews and Orthodox Christians. All three agree that he was not a prophet. I do not include the Protestants in this party, because they have as many different understandings of Islam and Mohammad as they have of the Scriptures.
There are some interesting Catholic reflections on Mohammad; but they are all hypotheses, because we donāt have enough information about him. But there are two that I find particularly interesting.
Hypothesis 1: Mohammad had some kind of mystical experience, maybe similar to that of Paul; but his mind was closed. The political ideologies and culture of his time were in conflict with the truth that was being communicated. Thus his conversion to Christ was a challenge. In other words, he made a choice to hold on to his ideologies and remained closed to the fullness of grace. Whereas Paul opened himself to the grace of God and put aside his ideologies. But in both cases, it was God trying to communicate and both men are right in saying that God communicated with them. Paul assents and Mohammad adapts. There is a difference between assenting and adapting.
Hypothesis 2: Mohammad had some kind of psychological experience that he did not understand and could only explain through a blend of superstition and Judeo-Christian faith. Due to the weakness of his thesis, his disciples turned his ārevelationsā into ideologies that served the interests of the political and economic leaders of the Arab world.
What I find interesting in these hypotheses is that neither deny Godās mercy and Godās attempt to reach out to these people, just as he deliberately reached out to the Gentiles by drawing Paul into the faith. Neither hypothesis denies that the Muslims were called to the faith by God. But the āwould be apostleā (my term), did not respond with faith.
The reason that I find these interesting is because we often forget that even though Jesus did appear to Saul, he did have to give a free assent of faith. An apparition by Jesus is not enough to convert someone. The individual must freely assent, which Paul did. Paulās assent is not spoken about much, but it is a necessary fact for Paulās conversion.
What do others think?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Br. JR:Donāt you think that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have ever read the Qāran?
Where did they go wrong? Theyāre obviously theological scholars, not dummies.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I canāt speak for Pope Paul VI, but I do know Pope John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI know what theyāre talking about when it comes to the problems within Islam, the dangers of Islamism and the false teachings of the Qāran. A lot of their concerns have been published in articles in lāespresso:
Focus on ISLAM
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/islam?&eng=y
Summer Reading: How the Eight Hundred men of Otranto saved Rome
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/161401?&eng=y
Why the Real War is inside Islam
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/134561?&eng=y
Islam & Democracy, a Secret Meeting at Castel Gandolfo
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/45084?&eng=y
(The annual meeting with his students still takes place every August)
The Mayor of Bethlehem is Christian, but itās Hamas Thatās in Charge
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/44202?&eng=y
Islamist Terrorism: What the Vatican really thinks
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/8551?&eng=y
Beslan, the September 11 of the Christian Children, But the Church doesnāt see
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7912?&eng=y
Enemy Islam. An Interview with the Bishop of Rumbek, Sudan
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7044?&eng=y
Twenty-first Century African Slaves - in the Land of Islam
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7007?&eng=y
Imams at War: Models of Preaching Found in Six Italian Mosques
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6999?&eng=y
In the Focus on Islam Section, none of the links prior to 12 Oct. 2007 seem to be working. Iāve restored 7 of the links so you can read the articlesā¦
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael
J
JReducation
Guest
I think many people agree that some good came out of Islamic faith. People do pray. They take their faith very seriously. Some take it more seriously than many Christians.
I also understand that they have an imperfect or incomplete understanding of God and that they need to move toward the Church to reach the fulness of truth. But thatās a process that takes time and good example.
There is a great deal of truth in what youāre saying. I remember when I was in grad school studying mysticism. We had to read the works of William James. James had some very interesting psychological insights into the spiritual life. One of the things that he often said was that when a community is hungry for God it can often take a spiritual experience and blow it out of proportion and the way that itās done does not always equate to the experience. In other words, the spiritual experience can be distorted to meet the needs of that community or to fill in the gaps to the extent that truth can be lost in the process. This does not invalidate the experience, but it certainly clouds it.
I believe that this is the reality that the Church, saints and popes in the past were dealing with. They were dealing with an Islamic movement that was so fogged, that it was difficult to separate truth from fiction. This certainly sent up their red flags and put everyone on alert.
When we look at history that way, then we can calmly say that the understanding of recent popes, regarding Allah and Islam, is not a contradiction of the past understanding. But itās a clearer understanding, because the red flags are not flying. The Church is not being threatened by Islam as was the case when Muslims invaded Europe and took over Spain for 800 years. In those days the situation was grave, because they not only brought their faith into Christian Europe and the Holy Land, but they protected themselves by threatening others. It was an aggressive ācrusadeā that the Muslims led.
Today, we are seeing two kinds of Muslims, a very passive group that is actually being exploited and abused by a very aggressive and ideological group. Given everything that we are seeing happening in the Middle East, given the fact that so many Muslims flee from their own countries seeking refuge in the Christian world, we now have more exposure to the religious Muslims as well as the ideological ones who use religion as a political and economic tool to hurt and oppress others, including their own people.
This was not as clearly visible during the time of the Crusades or when the Muslims invaded southern Europe. Therefore, it was appropriate to see them as a threat, because they were. Today, we realize that Islam is not the threat, but fundamentalism is the threat. When we look around the world, we see fundamentalits among Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Atheists. When people embrace fundamentalism, they lose sight of the good that was part of the orignal message.
Maybe the second hypothesis is closer to the truth. Maybe Mohammed had some kind of a pschological/spiritual experience and it was blended with superstition, Judeo-Christian believes, and politics. My perception is that when you blend faith, sueprstition and political ideologies into one mix, you have potential to do great harm. I saw this in the Liberation Theology communities of South America when I was a missionary there many years ago.
Just some thoughts, nothing to take to the bank.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Thanks for the articles. Iāll go through them slowly, because itās late tonight. I just wanted to mention that the statement thatās in the CCC and in the Vatican II documents on Islam was written by then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and Pope Paul VI together.
Later, John Paul II in Cross the Threshold of Hope wrote a similar thesis.
Today, Benedict XVI is repeating what he helped Paul VI write.
On the other hand, there is no doubt in anyoneās mind that there is a faction that uses Islam for its own ideologies. The Holy Father spoke about that when he went to Jordan and Israel. But the same thing can be said about Christians, Jews and others.
My mother would often say that there was always going to be a loose canon in every group. She was always right.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
The CCC is an ex-cathedra statement.
A
Aramis
Guest
Hypothesis 3: Mohammed got a visionā¦ perhaps from God, perhaps from Satanā¦ it matters not. Mohammed saw the impending culture war, between the Christians, the Gnostics, and the Arab Heathens, and tried to emulate Christā¦ but not Christ of the Orthodox view, but Christ of the Gnostic view. In his lifetime, the last bastions of Christian Gnosticism were in Arabia. He took what he saw as a good mode but weak message, and created a message better suited to Gnostic praxis and Arabian culture. He seems, at first, to have genuinely believed that his version of the message would be accepted and unify Jew, Christian and Arab. But it appealed only to Arabs. And not even all of them.There are some interesting Catholic reflections on Mohammad; but they are all hypotheses, because we donāt have enough information about him. But there are two that I find particularly interesting.
Hypothesis 1: Mohammad had some kind of mystical experience, maybe similar to that of Paul; but his mind was closed. The political ideologies and culture of his time were in conflict with the truth that was being communicated. Thus his conversion to Christ was a challenge. In other words, he made a choice to hold on to his ideologies and remained closed to the fullness of grace. Whereas Paul opened himself to the grace of God and put aside his ideologies. But in both cases, it was God trying to communicate and both men are right in saying that God communicated with them. Paul assents and Mohammad adapts. There is a difference between assenting and adapting.
Hypothesis 2: Mohammad had some kind of psychological experience that he did not understand and could only explain through a blend of superstition and Judeo-Christian faith. Due to the weakness of his thesis, his disciples turned his ārevelationsā into ideologies that served the interests of the political and economic leaders of the Arab world.
What I find interesting in these hypotheses is that neither deny Godās mercy and Godās attempt to reach out to these people, just as he deliberately reached out to the Gentiles by drawing Paul into the faith. Neither hypothesis denies that the Muslims were called to the faith by God. But the āwould be apostleā (my term), did not respond with faith.
The reason that I find these interesting is because we often forget that even though Jesus did appear to Saul, he did have to give a free assent of faith. An apparition by Jesus is not enough to convert someone. The individual must freely assent, which Paul did. Paulās assent is not spoken about much, but it is a necessary fact for Paulās conversion.
What do others think?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
My personal belief is that Islam is
(1) essentially based upon Gnostic Christian praxis
(2) essentially tailored to preserve 6th C Arabian Culture
(3) inherently prone to xenophobia
P
palmas85
Guest
Would you say the same about Joseph Smith and William Miller?Mohammadās status has never been a question for Catholics, Jews and Orthodox Christians. All three agree that he was not a prophet. I do not include the Protestants in this party, because they have as many different understandings of Islam and Mohammad as they have of the Scriptures.
There are some interesting Catholic reflections on Mohammad; but they are all hypotheses, because we donāt have enough information about him. But there are two that I find particularly interesting.
Hypothesis 1: Mohammad had some kind of mystical experience, maybe similar to that of Paul; but his mind was closed. The political ideologies and culture of his time were in conflict with the truth that was being communicated. Thus his conversion to Christ was a challenge. In other words, he made a choice to hold on to his ideologies and remained closed to the fullness of grace. Whereas Paul opened himself to the grace of God and put aside his ideologies. But in both cases, it was God trying to communicate and both men are right in saying that God communicated with them. Paul assents and Mohammad adapts. There is a difference between assenting and adapting.
Hypothesis 2: Mohammad had some kind of psychological experience that he did not understand and could only explain through a blend of superstition and Judeo-Christian faith. Due to the weakness of his thesis, his disciples turned his ārevelationsā into ideologies that served the interests of the political and economic leaders of the Arab world.
What I find interesting in these hypotheses is that neither deny Godās mercy and Godās attempt to reach out to these people, just as he deliberately reached out to the Gentiles by drawing Paul into the faith. Neither hypothesis denies that the Muslims were called to the faith by God. But the āwould be apostleā (my term), did not respond with faith.
The reason that I find these interesting is because we often forget that even though Jesus did appear to Saul, he did have to give a free assent of faith. An apparition by Jesus is not enough to convert someone. The individual must freely assent, which Paul did. Paulās assent is not spoken about much, but it is a necessary fact for Paulās conversion.
What do others think?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If not why not?
L
Lev23
Guest
1way, you have a very good reason to be confused. It baffles me how many people, especially Christians, claim that God is the same as the Islamic Allah.
To claim that both faiths hold to the faith of Abraham is not true at all.
The God of Judasim and Christianity is the GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB.
Any Johhny-come-lately religion can call Abraham their father in faith, but the one true God made his promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
And to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is impossible to have hatred for His original covenant people(ethnic Israel) and to claim God is through with them. Islam today is focused on making the whole world believe Israel has no historical claim to the land of Israel.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is moving to restore the people and the land of Israel, as foretold by prophecy of scripture.
Allah has no plans for Israels full return to God.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Ok. You will need to read the Koran and read the hadith in order to know who Muhammad is. Also, if you are able to read about demons and evil spirits then you will have some idea how to identify what they are. I could tell you what I think happened in that cave, but you would not believe it until you had studied the material yourself and were able to arrive at your own conclusions. If you have already studied all pertinant Islamic sources and also delved into demons then I would be curious to know why you ādidnātā think that Muhammad was influenced by a demon.There are some interesting Catholic reflections on Mohammad; but they are all hypotheses, because we donāt have enough information about him. But there are two that I find particularly interesting.
Hi JR
Do you mean that you do not have enough information about him? Have you read the hadith?
Hypothesis 1: Mohammad had some kind of mystical experience, maybe similar to that of Paul; but his mind was closed. The political ideologies and culture of his time were in conflict with the truth that was being communicated. Thus his conversion to Christ was a challenge. In other words, he made a choice to hold on to his ideologies and remained closed to the fullness of grace. Whereas Paul opened himself to the grace of God and put aside his ideologies. But in both cases, it was God trying to communicate and both men are right in saying that God communicated with them. Paul assents and Mohammad adapts. There is a difference between assenting and adapting.
Hypothesis 2: Mohammad had some kind of psychological experience that he did not understand and could only explain through a blend of superstition and Judeo-Christian faith. Due to the weakness of his thesis, his disciples turned his ārevelationsā into ideologies that served the interests of the political and economic leaders of the Arab world.
What I find interesting in these hypotheses is that neither deny Godās mercy and Godās attempt to reach out to these people, just as he deliberately reached out to the Gentiles by drawing Paul into the faith. Neither hypothesis denies that the Muslims were called to the faith by God. But the āwould be apostleā (my term), did not respond with faith.
The reason that I find these interesting is because we often forget that even though Jesus did appear to Saul, he did have to give a free assent of faith. An apparition by Jesus is not enough to convert someone. The individual must freely assent, which Paul did. Paulās assent is not spoken about much, but it is a necessary fact for Paulās conversion.
What do others think?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
Catechisms are neither statements nor ex-cathedra, including the current one. It is a compilation of Church teaching, some of which is dogma, some not. That is the reason for the footnotes. It is a tool, and not to be taken lightly, but it is not an ex cathedra statement.
T
TMC
Guest
Of all the many arguments on this forum, this is probably the one that most amazes me. Are there really Christians of any degree of education that donāt understand this basic tenet of our faith? The answer is in the very first line of the Creed:
The Church spent a good bit of its early years fighting the belief that the Jewish God and the Christian God were different Gods. They thought it such an important point that they included it in the very beginning of the Creed. Are we now going to turn back 1800 years?
There is only one God. All those who seek to worship the true God worship the same God - there is only One. Some worship Him better than others. None worship Him perfectly.
The Church spent a good bit of its early years fighting the belief that the Jewish God and the Christian God were different Gods. They thought it such an important point that they included it in the very beginning of the Creed. Are we now going to turn back 1800 years?
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi TMC,
āAnd how do you knoooowww, that she is a witch?ā (monty python) sorry
So how do you know that there is One God? Probably you will rely very heavily, if not completely, on his revellation to the Jews. For instance, why do we not kill? Why do we not commit adultry? Well, its because we believe in Godās revellation to the mankind through the Jews, which at that time you were either a Jew or a noachide if you believed that God revealled himself.
Ok. So what if I were to say, God spoke to me, and he told me to kill. God spoke to me and he told me to commit adultry.
You would reply, well my dear child, God did not speak to you because he specifically told us that we āShall not Killā and āwe shall not commit adultry.ā
T
TMC
Guest
You have completely lost me. I know there is one God from multiple sources, including the Church, Scripture, Sacred Tradition and my personal faith experience.Hi TMC,
āAnd how do you knoooowww, that she is a witch?ā (monty python) sorry
So how do you know that there is One God? Probably you will rely very heavily, if not completely, on his revellation to the Jews. For instance, why do we not kill? Why do we not commit adultry? Well, its because we believe in Godās revellation to the mankind through the Jews, which at that time you were either a Jew or a noachide if you believed that God revealled himself.
Ok. So what if I were to say, God spoke to me, and he told me to kill. God spoke to me and he told me to commit adultry.
You would reply, well my dear child, God did not speak to you because he specifically told us that we āShall not Killā and āwe shall not commit adultry.ā
I donāt get what your question about killing and adultery have to do with anything, but I suppose my answer to you would be that I think you have misunderstood whatever message God has for you.
A
Aramis
Guest
letās examine the wording used by HH Benedict XVI in the moto proprio promulgating itā¦
MOTU PROPRIO
for the approval and publication
of the Compendium
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to all the People of God.
Twenty years ago, work began on the Catechism of the Catholic Church that had been requested by the extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops held on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council.
I am filled with heartfelt thanks to the Lord God for having given the Church this Catechism, promulgated in 1992 by my venerated and beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II.
The great value and beauty of this gift are confirmed above all by the extensive and positive reception of the Catechism among Bishops, to whom it was primarily addressed as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and, in particular, for formulating local catechisms. But it was also confirmed by its vast favourable reception in all segments of the People of God, who have come to know and appreciate it in more than fifty translations which to date have been published.
It is with great joy that I now approve and promulgate the Compendium of that Catechism.
The Compendium had been fervently desired by the participants in the International Catechetical Congress of October 2002, which gave voice to a need widely felt in the Church. My beloved Predecessor, recognizing this desire, decided in February 2003 to begin preparation of the text by entrusting the work to a Commission of Cardinals, over which I presided, and which was assisted by various experts. In the course of the work, a draft of the Compendium was submitted to all the Cardinals and the Presidents of Conferences of Bishops, the vast majority of whom evaluated the text favourably.
The Compendium, which I now present to the Universal Church, is a faithful and sure synthesis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains, in concise form, all the essential and fundamental elements of the Churchās faith, thus constituting, as my Predecessor had wished, a kind of vademecum which allows believers and non-believers alike to behold the entire panorama of the Catholic faith.
In its structure, contents and language, the Compendium faithfully reflects the Catechism of the Catholic Church and will thus assist in making the Catechism more widely known and more deeply understood.
I entrust this Compendium above all to the entire Church and, in particular, to every Christian, in order that it may awaken in the Church of the third millennium renewed zeal for evangelization and education in the faith, which ought to characterize every community in the Church and every Christian believer, regardless of age or nationality.
**But this Compendium, with its brevity, clarity and comprehensiveness, is directed to every human being, who, in a world of distractions and multifarious messages, desires to know the Way of Life, the Truth, entrusted by God to His Sonās Church.
**
Through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church, may everyone who reads this authoritative text recognize and embrace ever more fully the inexhaustible beauty, uniqueness and significance of the incomparable Gift which God has made to the human race in His only Son, Jesus Christ, the āWay, the Truth, and the Lifeā (Jn 14:6).
Given on 28 June 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the first year of my Pontificate.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
Bolding mine
It is āfaithful and sureāā¦and it is directed to every person. pretty much the key terms for invoking infalibility. And it was issued via a moto proprio.
It is the only catechism so promulgated.
- Status