Did the Pope say that God and Allah are the same person?

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi JKirk,

Let me reword the question. In the past, Popes called them “infidels” which means non-believer. Now, the Popes are calling them believers and saying they worship god together with us.

My question was, how can they be both infidels and believers? You answer because they pray to the same god as us. You are only repeating what the present popes are saying.

I am asking you how it is possible, that present popes can reverse their position on Muslims? Do you know?

The popes may have called them “infidels,” but they did not deny that they pray to the God of Abraham. They are infidels in that they do not acknowledge Christ as God, do not acknowledge the Trinity, etc. They believe (and thus are believers) in the God of Abraham, but they’ve got it wrong, just as the Jews have got it wrong, the Protestants have got it wrong, the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have got it wrong. They’ve all got it wrong, but they pray to one God, the same God to whom we pray. No position has been reversed. Definitions have been explained, meaning has been clarified, but nothing reversed.

In any matter of faith and morals about which there is a question, we cannot come to a conclusion apart from the mind of the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi again

I have given you quotes from a previous ecumenical council calling Muslims infidels, sacrilegious etc… Your response is to say that Vat II doesn’t say anything different from past ecumenical councils?

Do you wish me to requote the Council of Viennes for comparison?

Are you saying that there is no change in our relationship with the Muslims as stated in Ecumenical councils?

There is no change in the differences that lie between us. VII may have put it more diplomatically, but VII has not said that the Moslems are correct. VII and the popes have correctly taught that Islam, one of the three great monotheistic religions, prays to the God of Abraham.

The Church cannot err, Lisa, and the Church cannot mislead you.

 

[Lisa44]

What is according to Thomas Aquinas is not always according to the Church or the Pope. Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi,

Oh, I didn’t know that. I thought he was a trusted authority. Thanks, oh, you forgot the Saint Thomas Acquinas.

(New Advent calls him Doctor of the church.)

 

[Lisa44]

…
As to the change in terminology, from infidels to believers, remember what Pope Benedict said to the world when he came to NYC and what he has been saying since he became the Pope. Faith without reason cannot exist. Reason is necessary to explain faith and faith enlightens reason.

What the popes Gregory VII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the synod of bishops did was to use reason to understand the Muslim faith. When they did, they came away with the an understanding that Muslims do believe in the same God as Christians and Jews. …

Hope you understand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi,
Are you saying that all the other Popes, like Clement V, had NO reason?

 

[Lisa44]

I’m not sure what you mean by infidel.

Hi TMC,

I was quoting it from the Council of Viennes. “infidel” Its not a term I came up with.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi,
Are you saying that all the other Popes, like Clement V, had NO reason?

Are you saying that the Church has mislead the faithful and that Christ has failed in His promise?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi,

Oh, I didn’t know that. I thought he was a trusted authority. Thanks, oh, you forgot the Saint Thomas Acquinas.

(New Advent calls him Doctor of the church.)

SAINT Thomas Aquinas is largely responsible for the Church’s intellectual schema. He is not absolute because he did not have the charism of infallibility that the Pope and the Bishops teaching in union with him have. St. Augustine is also an important doctor of the Church, but not everything he said has been taken as infallible truth. Saints aren’t infallible.

And if you’re going to be picky…you mispelled “Aquinas.”

 

[Shin]

Blessed Pope Urban II, Council of Clermont
Quotes and Excerpts

Most beloved brethren: Urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God chief bishop and prelate over the whole world, have come into these parts as an ambassador with a divine admonition to you, the servants of God. I hoped to find you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be. But if there is in you any deformity or crookedness contrary to God’s law, with divine help I will do my best to remove it. For God has put you as stewards over his family to minister to it. Happy indeed will you be if he finds you faithful in your stewardship. You are called shepherds; see that you do not act as hirelings. But be true shepherds, with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For** if through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up for you with God**. And after you have been bitterly scourged with remorse for your faults-, you will be fiercely overwhelmed in hell, the abode of death. For according to the gospel you are the salt of the earth [Matt. 5:13]. But if you fall short in your duty, how, it may be asked, can it be salted? O how great the need of salting! It is indeed necessary for you to correct with the salt of wisdom this foolish people which is so devoted to the pleasures of this -world, lest the Lord, when He may wish to speak to them, find them putrefied by their sins unsalted and stinking. For if He, shall find worms, that is, sins, In them, because you have been negligent in your duty, He will command them as worthless to be thrown into the abyss of unclean things. And because you cannot restore to Him His great loss, He will surely condemn you and drive you from His loving presence. . .

Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. . .

For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. **Moreover, Christ commands it. ** . . .

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the **infidels **and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let them eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide.”

. . .

Deus vult!

 

[TMC]

Hi TMC,

I was quoting it from the Council of Viennes. “infidel” Its not a term I came up with.

My point is that infidel has meant different things to different people at different times. The most common usage is “someone that does not accept the divinity of Jesus,” which is probably the meaning the Council had in mind. That term would certainly include Jews.

But the last couple of pages of this thread are missing the point. No one (at least none of the Catholics) are saying that the Muslim belief is correct or as good as the Catholic faith. What I am saying is that the errors of the Muslims have nothing to do with the identity of God. The fact that Muslims misapprehend God’s teachings does not mean they worship a different God.

Look at it this way. We all seem to agree that the God Abraham worshipped is the same God that the Jews worshipped in Biblical times and still worship today, right? And that God is the same God that Christians worship. If you read the Old Testament, you will see that ancient Jews held all kinds of beliefs that are rejected by Christians today, and that many of those beliefs are still held by Muslims. If the ancient Jews could believe in “plural” marriage and still worship our God, why can’t the Muslims? If the ancient Jews could believe that God mandated various rituals and codes and still worship or God, why not the Muslims? The quality of worship does not change the essence of God.

Let me ask you a different question. Do you believe that when an average pious Muslim prays he means to pray to the one true God?

 

[Stylites]

This strikes me as a bit indifferentist. Almost like it doesn’t matter what we believe about God as long as we all believe in God. This is not what our Lord taught.: “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in TRUTH. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in TRUTH” (John 4: 23-24). We can’t separate our worship of God from the truth of who He is as revealed by Jesus Christ.

My point was simply that if some self-avowed Catholics choose to not adhere to the authority of the Church then there are other ways to view the Truth which She teaches. St. Paul did write that those who do not adhere to the Law and who do what the Law requires are a Law unto themselves, and their deeds alone will justify them. Was St. Paul then an ‘indifferentist’ (whatever that means)? No,

I prefer to leave the judging of others’ souls to God, and humbly accept the authority of His Church.

 

[Stylites]

From John Paul II in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”:

. . .

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.

Nevertheless, the religiosity of Muslims deserves respect. It is impossible not to admire, for example, their fidelity to prayer. The image of believers in Allah who, without caring about time or place, fall to their knees and immerse themselves in prayer remains a model for all those who invoke the true God, in particular for those Christians who, having deserted their magnificent cathedrals, pray only a little or not at all.

. . .

 

[Lisa44]

Are you saying that the Church has mislead the faithful and that Christ has failed in His promise?

Hi JKirk,
I wish to reserve my judgement until I have sought hard to understand the issue.
Regarding Christ, his promises, all of them, will always and everywhere be true.

SAINT Thomas Aquinas is largely responsible for the Church’s intellectual schema. He is not absolute because he did not have the charism of infallibility that the Pope and the Bishops teaching in union with him have. St. Augustine is also an important doctor of the Church, but not everything he said has been taken as infallible truth. Saints aren’t infallible.

And if you’re going to be picky…you mispelled “Aquinas.”

Hi again,
Thank you for clarifying for me. We will then ignore the quote from St. Aquinas for now and focus on the ecumenical councils which are binding. And thanks for correcting my spelling too.

 

[RyanML]

My point was simply that if some self-avowed Catholics choose to not adhere to the authority of the Church then there are other ways to view the Truth which She teaches. St. Paul did write that those who do not adhere to the Law and who do what the Law requires are a Law unto themselves, and their deeds alone will justify them. Was St. Paul then an ‘indifferentist’ (whatever that means)? No,

I prefer to leave the judging of others’ souls to God, and humbly accept the authority of His Church.

No one is judging. No one is saying that all Muslims are going to hell. Those that are invincibly ignorant of the truth and follow the lights they are given may indeed be saved. But if they are saved, it is still by grace through Jesus Christ, not because there is any merit in Islam. What Pope John Paul II said in his book, he said as a private theologian, not in his teaching authority as pope. It is perfectly fine for a Catholic to disagree with the Pope in matters of opinion if it does not contradict the teaching of the Church.

St. Paul was certainly not indifferent concerning religion. Although he found shadows of the truth in other religions, he made it quite clear that salvation can be had in no other than Jesus Christ. He even warned us against those who came preaching another gospel that did not proclaim Christ as the one Lord and Savior.

 

[Lisa44]

If I may return to my earlier post about the Council of Viennes, because its relevant to the issue of what is an infidel, and how did this earlier council understand the relationship between Christians and Muslims.

(JKirk, thanks for your replies, they are excellent, but, if you will indulge me I’m not out of the woods yet).

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.

Taken from above:

it says the Muslims:

meet to adore the infidel Mahomet,
loudly invoke and extol his name,
make public declarations in his honour,
venerate the place of a buried Saracen,
and, flock to the place of a buried Saracen (pilgrimage),

Then the Pope commands Christian princes to:

not tolerate such practices,
forbid such practices,
obligation to take care that their subjects remove it (burial place),
forbid public invocation of name of Mahomet,
forbid anyone to make pilgrimage or give countenance to pilgrimage,
and, chastize those who act otherwise.

Now, why? Why does the Pope instruct the Christian princes to do thus? The reasons he gives are:

its an insult to “the holy name” and a disgrace to the Christian faith.
It brings disrespute on our faith and scandal to the faithful.
These practices displease the divine majesty.
And, they prevent the reward of eternal happiness

Now lets examine the Vatican II Council…in my next post…

 

[Lisa44]

LUMEN GENTIUM

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

This document says the plan of salvation includes the Mohamedans.
Whereas, the Council of Viennes orders Princes to prevent their worship:
“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.”

NOSTRA AETATE

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.
   Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

The above states that Mohamedans “take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees”
This contrasts with the Council of Vienne which states that they submit to nothing which will bring salvation.

Can anyone bridge the gulf between these two documents?

 

[Stouts989]

Take as another example many Christian sects which have wrong ideas about God, such as the Mormons. They certainly entertain flakey ideas about God. Do they worship a different God? Of course not.

Actually Mormons do worship a different God. The God they worship is an exalted man from another planted/universe.

 

[Stouts989]

The Catholic Church did not give us the OT, but it did decide what writings would be included in it. Some Protestants did later modify their canon to remove the so-called apocrapha.

Jesus tells us what the OT canon is in Luke 24:44 and Luke 11:49-51. I don’t see how this is so confusing.

Why the later writings after Malachi were added to the Septuagint is defiantly something I want to study and found out about.

Christianity existed for decades before any of those teaching were written down,

All of Paul’s letters are believed to have been written between 50-60A.D and all four Gospels and Acts to be written before 70A.D. That’s a time spend of only 30 years…hardly “decades” as you seem to assume.

 

[Stouts989]

Muslims do not reject the Old Testament prophets. They honor all the prophets of the Old Testament, and consider John the Baptist and Jesus to be prophets as well.

I’ve talked to Muslims about this personally. They do not recognized the OT prophets as the infallible Words of God. The only OT writings that recognized is the Torah and Psalms.

 

[TMC]

Drifting far afield of the topic, but all the same…

Jesus tells us what the OT canon is in Luke 24:44 and Luke 11:49-51. I don’t see how this is so confusing.

Uh, no He doesn’t. He refers to Moses and the prophets, but the New Testament does not contain a list of the books that should be included in the Old Testament.

Why the later writings after Malachi were added to the Septuagint is defiantly something I want to study and found out about.

Doesn’t this confirm what I just said above?

All of Paul’s letters are believed to have been written between 50-60A.D and all four Gospels and Acts to be written before 70A.D. That’s a time spend of only 30 years…hardly “decades” as you seem to assume.

Where I come from a decade is ten years and 30 years would be three ‘decades.’

There is some dispute over when each of the Gospels and Acts were written, but I think most Catholic scholars put John last at around 100 AD. (The Catholic Encylcopedia says 96.)

What you are leaving out is that the New Testament is more than the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels/Acts. The other Epistles were likely written much later.

 

[TMC]

I’ve talked to Muslims about this personally. They do not recognized the OT prophets as the infallible Words of God. The only OT writings that recognized is the Torah and Psalms.

They revere the other prophets as valuable, but believe that only Mohammed’s writings are clearly and perfectly transmitted. In other words, you are correct in that they do not believe that all of the ancient prophets are infallible.

Christian belief in the value of the Old Testament is not so different. Christians believe that the ancient prophets communicated faithfully that which they were inspired to communicate. But Christians believe that the fullness of revelation comes only from Jesus, so the Old Testament must be read to accord with the teachings of Christ. Christ himself told us that the Mosaic law was not perfectly transmitted, noting that Moses’ law on marriage and divorce was not from God, but a result of Moses giving in to the hard hearts of men. (Matt 19:5).