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

[JReducation]

Can anyone bridge the gulf between these two documents?

I think that I see where the confusion arises. In the Council of Viennes, the discussion is about those who worshipped the prophet Mohammad. This is contrary to the revelation. The Council is correct in issuing a decree that forbids such practice and forbids that Christians be exposed to them.

Of course, we have to remember that athe world community was also much smaller at that time and that most monarchs were Catholic. Today, such a prohibition would not have any weight with political leaders. But it was appropriate for the time, because the Church had that kind of influence over political leaders. Again, the issue is the worship of Mohammad.

In the 20th century writings the discussion is not about those who worship Mohammad, but about Muslims who worship the God of Abraham. It is perfectly legitimate to say that those who worship the God of Abraham are part of Salvation History.

When you go back and read John Paul’s statement on Islam, he poses the weaknesses of Islamic theology and the strength of Islamic faith and spirituality.

Such popes as Gregory VII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are focussing on Muslims who worship Allah, not those who worship Mohammed.

The parallel situation exists among some Catholics who have raised our veneration of Mary to the level of a “divine” cult. They bypass Christ and the Church for Mary. There are Muslims who bypass Allah and worship their own ideology and their interpretation of Mahammad, to the point that they go out and commit grave crimes against humanity.

Just as we do not attribute Marian fanaticism to Catholicism, we do not ascribe Islamic fanaticism to Islam. These people, on both sides are members of their faith, but live it very incorrectly.

The other thing is that these popes did know about the Councils that came before them. They are not ignorant of them, nor are they arrogant men who are trying to overrule them. They are very holy men who are addressing a point that is not addressed in those councils, which is the identity of Allah.

Anyone who believes that these men are overruling previous councils or are ignorant of them is very seriously mistaken.

Again, the difference betweent the statements is the object of the statement. In the Viennes statement the object is the worship of Mohammad. In the other statements the object is the identity of Allah and the love for Allah that faithful Muslims have.

These are different statements speaking about the same religion, but about different aspects of that religion.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Jacafamala]

AGAIN, your opinion on one hand, the teaching of the Church on the other…hmmm.

No, that is most certainly not the traditional teaching of the Church. You are wrong about that.

You take one poorly phrased line from a document and hold it up as the teaching of the Church. But it’s not.

 

[JReducation]

Oh, don’t give me any of that drivel. They worship a different god.

How do you know this? There is your opinion and that of five pope and a synod of bishops.

If we combine their knowledge of theology and their knowledge of the history of the Church, it is possible that combined they know much more than we do.

These are not ignorant men who are making this statement. They are not heretics or radical thinkers. In fact, they are some of the brightest men in the history of the papacy and very holy men who dearly love the Church.

We have to weigh in all of these elements before we are dismissive. Along with that we must also weigh in the possibility that they may know how to read the statements of previous councils and popes better than we do, because they are more familiar with Church history and have had greater contact with the original sources than most people on CAF. John XXIII was a Doctor of Church History. Paul VI was a Doctor of Canon Law and Doctor of Systematic Theology. John Paul II was a Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Mystical Theology. Benedict XVI is a Doctor of Franciscan Theology, Doctor of Augustinian Theology and a Doctorate in Systematic Theology.

Then there are the bishops and their advisors who formed the synod that wrote Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate. Let’s not forget St. Pope Gregory VII who was also a scholar and lived in the 11th century. He was trying to make peace with the Muslims in 1070 and recognized Allah as the God of Abraham in a letter written for the Muslims.

Let’s be careful not to be quickly dismissive.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[603304529]

JR.

I have a question for you. Say we were to admit that the Muslims worship the same God as we do: albeit, with a completely messed idea of God, and Heaven, and pretty much everything that Catholics believe.

Will you admit then, that even if they do have the same God, that Islam will not save any man’s soul, and in fact, if someone were to go to Heaven having lived a faithful Islamic life, then he would be saved IN SPITE OF his religion and not because of it?

Would appreciate your views on that.

Ta

 

[Tsuwano]

JR.

I have a question for you. Say we were to admit that the Muslims worship the same God as we do: albeit, with a completely messed idea of God, and Heaven, and pretty much everything that Catholics believe.

Will you admit then, that even if they do have the same God, that Islam will not save any man’s soul, and in fact, if someone were to go to Heaven having lived a faithful Islamic life, then he would be saved IN SPITE OF his religion and not because of it?

Would appreciate your views on that.

Ta

I realize this is addressed to JR, but I’m a bit confused by the question. Does Islam, or the Catholic Church for that matter, claim that it is the savior of men’s souls? Also, I was under the impression that we are saved in spite of sin and because of God’s grace more than religion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The world’s only hope of salvation is Jesus Christ. He is the only source of salvation, His Passion and Death the only sufficient sacrifice for the remission of sins. If anyone is saved, they are saved by Him. His Grace is mediated to the world through the Catholic Church. Any elements of santification or truth found in any other form of Christianity or in any other religion are already the possession of and are derived from the Catholic Church. Thus, if a person is saved, they are saved by Christ through His Church. That isn’t a reason for pride, since it’s all by grace anyway. We have the fullness of the Light, the very fullness of Truth (though we still see “through a glass dimly”), but it is a Light in which we still stumble and a Truth we all to often fail ourselves to grasp.

 

[RyanML]

The world’s only hope of salvation is Jesus Christ. He is the only source of salvation, His Passion and Death the only sufficient sacrifice for the remission of sins. If anyone is saved, they are saved by Him. His Grace is mediated to the world through the Catholic Church. Any elements of santification or truth found in any other form of Christianity or in any other religion are already the possession of and are derived from the Catholic Church. Thus, if a person is saved, they are saved by Christ through His Church. That isn’t a reason for pride, since it’s all by grace anyway. We have the fullness of the Light, the very fullness of Truth (though we still see “through a glass dimly”), but it is a Light in which we still stumble and a Truth we all to often fail ourselves to grasp.

AMEN!

Personally, I don’t understand why so much energy is given to debating whether Muslims worship the true God or not. It’s irrelevent. If they don’t, they need to be evangelized and converted to Jesus Christ. If they do…they still need to be evangelized and converted to Jesus Christ. Some might argue that finding and sharing what we hold in common leads to more postitive dialogue. But, is it fruitful? If we’re engaging in interreligious dialogue for the sake of dialogue then it was a failure even before it was begun. The Church has always and everywhere taught that when we dialogue with those outside of Christ and His Church, we do so with the sincere hope that God will give them the grace to see the truth and be converted.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

AMEN!

Personally, I don’t understand why so much energy is given to debating whether Muslims worship the true God or not. It’s irrelevent. If they don’t, they need to be evangelized and converted to Jesus Christ. If they do…they still need to be evangelized and converted to Jesus Christ. Some might argue that finding and sharing what we hold in common leads to more postitive dialogue. But, is it fruitful? If we’re engaging in interreligious dialogue for the sake of dialogue then it was a failure even before it was begun. The Church has always and everywhere taught that when we dialogue with those outside of Christ and His Church, we do so with the sincere hope that God will give them the grace to see the truth and be converted.

The relevance is this: the Church has spoken on it and we are to think with the mind of the Church, we are called to think with the mind of the Church. There is no such thing as a bad question, but there are all sorts of bad conclusions. If our conclusion is different from the Church’s conclusion, somehow at odds with the Church’s conclusion, then that is problematic. I have struggled myself with various Church teachings. When I can’t wrap my brain around something, I think, “Who am I to set myself against the wisdom of the Church, to Whom was given Christ’s promise of binding and loosing, to Whom He promised the Holy Spirit, who would lead Her into all Truth?” That’s just my way of dealing with it.

You are quite right, all the world, Jews, Moslems, schismatics, heretics (both material and formal), apostates, animistis, agnostics, aetheists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccan’s, Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, those Appalachian snake handlers, all of them, need to be converted to Christ. And Catholics…chief among whom is ME!. We shouild pray for conversion upon conversion, each one deeper than the last.

 

[Tsuwano]

AMEN!

Personally, I don’t understand why so much energy is given to debating whether Muslims worship the true God or not. It’s irrelevent. If they don’t, they need to be evangelized and converted to Jesus Christ. If they do…they still need to be evangelized and converted to Jesus Christ. Some might argue that finding and sharing what we hold in common leads to more postitive dialogue. But, is it fruitful? If we’re engaging in interreligious dialogue for the sake of dialogue then it was a failure even before it was begun. The Church has always and everywhere taught that when we dialogue with those outside of Christ and His Church, we do so with the sincere hope that God will give them the grace to see the truth and be converted.

What you say is true, but another reason for interreligious dialog is to discover the ways God is already present within that faith and culture and to allow that presence to inform and clarify our own faith. Of course we don’t dialog merely for the sake of talking. We dialog in order to inform and to be informed, to make our own faith more comprehensible to others and to more clearly comprehend the faith of the other, to make the discovery of God a mutual endeavor rather than a one sided claim of ownership, to listen as well as to speak. We do indeed dialog with the sincere hope that God will grant grace to the other to recognize the truth of our faith and turn to the Lord, but we also do so with the sincere hope that we will not be blind to the ways God reveals himself to us through the faith experiences of the other. We approach the other in humility, certainly aware of the great gift we possess in our faith, but mindful that our understanding of God’s revelation can always increase and that we can learn something of God from those who do not share our faith. Possessing the truth is not the same thing as understanding the truth, and that is what interreligious dialog can help us accomplish.

 

[Lisa44]

I think that I see where the confusion arises. In the Council of Viennes, the discussion is about those who worshipped the prophet Mohammad…

Mohammad is the prophet of Islam.

In the 20th century writings the discussion is not about those who worship Mohammad, but about Muslims who worship the God of Abraham. It is perfectly legitimate to say that those who worship the God of Abraham are part of Salvation History.

Firstly, Muslims revere Muhammad as he is their prophet and they can’t NOT revere their prophet and be Muslims.
You are trying to divorce Islam from Muhammad, which I dont think is prudent. You are saying that Muslims who worship Allah (without Muhammad) can be saved. There is no such thing.

When you go back and read John Paul’s statement on Islam, he poses the weaknesses of Islamic theology and the strength of Islamic faith and spirituality.

What pray tell, is the strength of Islamic faith and spirituality?

Such popes as Gregory VII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are focussing on Muslims who worship Allah, not those who worship Mohammed.

There is no such thing as Muslims who don’t worship Muhammad. Again, you are trying to resolve the discrepancy between the earlier teaching that Muslims cannot be saved, and the new teaching that the plan of salvation includes the Muslims, with the theory that the earlier muslims worshipped Muhammad and the modern ones do not.

The parallel situation exists among some Catholics who have raised our veneration of Mary to the level of a “divine” cult. They bypass Christ and the Church for Mary. There are Muslims who bypass Allah and worship their own ideology and their interpretation of Mahammad, to the point that they go out and commit grave crimes against humanity.

Ok, now you are really out on a limb. All Muslims worship three things - Allah, his prophet muhammad, and his holy book the Koran. It has always been that way in Islam. The crimes you are referring to I presume are the killing of innocents. And here we come to the touchy subject in Islam and the reason why moderate Muslims do not protest against fundamentalist ones is because the command to kill C&J comes directly from the Koran. And the example comes directly from the actions of Muhammad. Sure there are more begnin verses in the Koran but which ones abrogate which ones there is no agreement on in Islam.

Just as we do not attribute Marian fanaticism to Catholicism, we do not ascribe Islamic fanaticism to Islam. These people, on both sides are members of their faith, but live it very incorrectly.

Your claims are untenable in light of Islamic history and scripture. (which is my nearing conclusion about Vat II and Islam is that those who wrote it did not consult experts on Islamic faith and history. And therefore wrote into Catholic doctrine, mistakes about Islam). You must understand that Islam has always been intolerant of J&C. You must look at Islamic culture, even sharia. Understand, that no where in Islam is the bible venerated. No where in Islam is the open practice of other religions tolerated. Basically, they took a hard line against what they think are heretics, - J&C and they held firmly to their beliefs. Christianity on the other hand, watered down its faith and now is in a dangerous position of having no branch to stand on because the base of the tree is being hewn down. The base of the tree being salvation through Jesus.

The other thing is that these popes did know about the Councils that came before them. They are not ignorant of them, nor are they arrogant men who are trying to overrule them. They are very holy men who are addressing a point that is not addressed in those councils, which is the identity of Allah.

No one said the Popes are ignorant of the Catholic faith. However, they are making a common mistake. The same mistake the Dalai Lama made when he said “you can’t blame Islam on Muhammad”. meaning, you can’t attribute all the violence and intolerance to Muhammad. Well, my friends, that is exactly the author of it. And if you don’t believe me read the hadith. He routinely murdered people who disagreed with him and every Muslim who has read hadith knows this. Its not a secret. That is why “moderate” muslims don’t have a leg to stand on and why they don’t protest the “fundamentalist” muslims.

Anyone who believes that these men are overruling previous councils or are ignorant of them is very seriously mistaken.

Then how do you explain the earlier statements that there is no salvation outside of Jesus and his church, with the new statements that muslims are included in the plan of salvation? How do you explain it other than to say the early church condemned Muhammad exclusively, and the modern church is evoking the God of Abraham? If you want to chose that defense then you must show me how Islam can be divorced from its prophet? And you must show me how Muslims who worship Allah, can be saved except through complete ignorance of the bible and Jesus’s message to humanity.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Shin]

y. And therefore wrote into Catholic doctrine,

Far from it! Merely pastoral statements for diplomacy, that can easily and clearly be dealt with.

Though I can see some people -want- it to be Catholic doctrine, a little too much.

A spade is a spade.

 

[Lisa44]

Far from it! Merely pastoral statements for diplomacy, that can easily and clearly be dealt with.

Though I can see some people -want- it to be Catholic doctrine, a little too much.

A spade is a spade.

Hi Shin,
Isn’t an ecumenical council considered doctrine? Are we not bound to believe in them?

 

[603304529]

I realize this is addressed to JR, but I’m a bit confused by the question. Does Islam, or the Catholic Church for that matter, claim that it is the savior of men’s souls? Also, I was under the impression that we are saved in spite of sin and because of God’s grace more than religion.

Mate, you sound a little mixed up about things.

Christ is the Head of His Church. We are saved by Christ - through His Church. He transmits His grace to us through His Mystical Body, through His Church. Hence, we are saved through the Church, through our religion.

God’s grace is NOT transmitted through any other religion other than the Catholic religion.

passes the mike back to JR

 

[JReducation]

JR.

I have a question for you. Say we were to admit that the Muslims worship the same God as we do: albeit, with a completely messed idea of God, and Heaven, and pretty much everything that Catholics believe.

Will you admit then, that even if they do have the same God, that Islam will not save any man’s soul, and in fact, if someone were to go to Heaven having lived a faithful Islamic life, then he would be saved IN SPITE OF his religion and not because of it?

Would appreciate your views on that.

Ta

There are three points that merit consideration here. All are taught by the Church.

1. Invincible ignorance frees man of culpability. It is understandable that many Muslims and people of other faiths have heard the Gospel message, but have a very hard time “wrapping their head around it.” In other words, for many Muslins, the beliefs of the Catholic Church are sinful. The really have a hard time understanding how we can believe certain things. They don’t accept many of our teachings, because they do not want to sin. These are clear cases of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance does not always mean that one has not heard the Gospel. It can also mean that one does not fully understand it. The fact that a man or woman wants to avoid sin and does so is consistent with Catholic teaching. Therefore salvation is really coming to that person through a truth that is Catholic, the desire to avoid sin at all costs.
2. The other understanding of the Church in the cases of other faiths is that the truth is not fully present, but there are “shadows of truth”. Such is the case with Islam. There are many Islamic beliefs and practices that are part of the Catholic faith. Those are the shadows of truth. The Church teaches that Christ can use them to save. We cannot deny Christ access to any means that he wants to use to save. As Catholics we believe that God wants to save man until his last breadth. God’s greatest desire is to bring man into union with him in Heaven. Therefore, in his mercy, God can use those shadows of truth to save a person who is faithful to the bit of truth that he knows and follows faithfully. In that case the person is being saved by truth, which is Catholic, not by Islam. But the individual does not know it.
3. The third theological position of the Church is that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, the Church can be present in other faiths, even if it’s in very small elements. The Church is a mystery that we do not fully understand and will not fully understand until we reach Heaven. But we know that Christ founded the Church from the cross and gave his life for her. We also know that he gave his life for all men and women. Through the work of the Holy Spirit the grace of the Church reaches out beyond the physical Church. Her faith in God and his mercy permeates the hearts of good men and women who do not yet know Christ as we know him. It is through this grace and their fidelity to it that Christ saves them. In other ways, these people are not being saved by their Muslim faith, but by the graces of the Catholic Church that they do accept and live by. If they fail to accept even these few graces available to them, then they are completely shut off from the Church. We cannot know what is in the heart of every man and women, Muslim or other.

The answer is that Christ saves all of us through the Church, despite ourselves, not just Muslims. This is one of the most beautiful aspects of our faith and the reason why we want to bring others into our faith, the fact that God loves us so much that he will save us despite us. All that we have to do is to assent to the little that we know and be faithful to the commandments that we have been priviledged to understand.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Lisa44:
The veneration of Mohammad and the worship of Mohammad are not the same thing. The Church is not talking about the worship or veneration of Mohammad, she’s talking about the worship of God.

If you read Crossing the Threshold of Hope, someone quoted part of it in a previous post, John Paul II says that there is a weakness in Muslim Theology, which comes from Mohammad. Obviously, there is a weakness in Mohammad’s theology. But he also says that there is a strength in Muslim spirituality. He makes it a point to identify the prayer life of the Muslim people, their faith in the God of Abraham, their belief in a final judgment, their belief in God as Creator of all things.

You may believe that you can’t separate the worship of Allah from the veneration of Mohammad, but the Church believes that you can and that we Catholics must do so.

These were not just diplomatic statements made by the council. These were statements of faith. They are part of the Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, a document that was written to explain the Church’s place in the plan of salvation. As the Church speaks about her place in the plan of salvation she also speaks of others who are encompassed in the plan. These were very profound theological reflections by a synod of bishops and promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

Contrary to what one poster has said, Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes were not written for the sake of diplomacy. They were written for Catholics, to help us understand the Church and what the Church has been for 2,000 years. These documents built on the writings of previoius councils and the early Fathers. They are not a diplomatice treatise. To say so is an offense to the documents and the holy and learned men who spent years writing them, including our current pope who helped write every section on Islam, because of his great love for Islam.

Fraternally,

Br, JR, OSF

 

[603304529]

JR. I think you are a very dangerous person.

You have said that the Catholic Church is present in other faiths. “However, the Church can be present in other faiths, even if it’s in very small elements.”

It is very wrong of you to be spouting this stuff - you are aiding and abetting the modernist march towards Utopia.

The Catholic Church is ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. The Catholic Church is not present in other religions. They might believe some things that Catholics believe, but they are not Catholic. They deny certain truths of the Catholic faith. Therefore, they are not in union with the Church. They have broken from the True Body of Christ.

Someone is either Catholic or they are not. There is no other true faith other than the Catholic faith. This whole concept of other religions not having the fullness of the truth is a novelty. It is a modernist attitude, that has infected the Church and shaken Her to the very foundations. We hope and pray for Her full and unequivocal return to Tradition.

It is true that someone may be saved even if they are visibly outside the Catholic Church. But I can’t believe that you said “all that we have to do is to assent to the little that we know and be faithful to the commandments that we have been priviledged to understand.”!

We must constantly strive to find the Truth. Invincible ignorance is likely to be pretty hard to prove in this day and age. The Truth is available to anyone who searches for it.

“You are either for Me, or against Me”.

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”

 

[JReducation]

JR. I think you are a very dangerous person.

If I’m a dangerous person, so must be Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They all have made these observations in their writings and teachings.

It was Father Joseph Ratzinger who wrote that the Muslims have a place in Salvation History.

It was John Paul II who wrote that the Church is present in some mysterious way in other faiths.

It was Paul VI who promulgated the writings of Fr. Ratzinger.

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who wrote that Christ uses other faiths to save men.

It is Pope Benedict XVI who is repeating what four other popes have said, “Allah is the same God as the God of Christians and Jews”.

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who suggested that the Vatican enter into a theological dialogue with Muslim theologians and it was Pope Benedict XVI who two weeks ago called the new mosque in Jordan a sacred place. Check out the tape on EWTN.

None of these men are modernists and all have a deep respect and love for tradition.

I believe that you are out of line by saying that I am a dangerous person. I also believe that such a comment is rude and you are never to speak to me in such a manner again.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

JR. I think you are a very dangerous person.

It is very wrong of you to be spouting this stuff - you are aiding and abetting the modernist march towards Utopia.

“You are either for Me, or against Me”.

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”

Insuts and buzzwords. Perhaps you should have also quoted, “By their fruits you shall know them”. JR has never done nothing but show charity and reflect Church teaching and you, well, your posts speak for themselves. If he is dangerous, then the Church of Jesus Christ is dangerous.

 

[603304529]

If I’m a dangerous person, so must be Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They all have made these observations in their writings and teachings.

It was Father Joseph Ratzinger who wrote that the Muslims have a place in Salvation History.

It was John Paul II who wrote that the Church is present in some mysterious way in other faiths.

It was Paul VI who promulgated the writings of Fr. Ratzinger.

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who wrote that Christ uses other faiths to save men.

It is Pope Benedict XVI who is repeating what four other popes have said, “Allah is the same God as the God of Christians and Jews”.

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who suggested that the Vatican enter into a theological dialogue with Muslim theologians and it was Pope Benedict XVI who two weeks ago called the new mosque in Jordan a sacred place. Check out the tape on EWTN.

None of these men are modernists and all have a deep respect and love for tradition.

I believe that you are out of line by saying that I am a dangerous person. I also believe that such a comment is rude and you are never to speak to me in such a manner again.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Of course John XXII, Paul XI and JP2 were all very dangerous men! They have enabled this error to take a foothold in the Church. They called the second Vatican Council, without any particular reason except to let some fresh air (smoke of Satan?) in to the Church. They withdrew the Oath Against Modernism. They promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae. They did all they could to suppress the TLM. They did all they could to suppress tradition. I cannot believe that JR said “all have a deep respect and love for tradition”! How can you say that JR?? The New Mass is a break with tradition.

We wait and pray that Pope Benedict/Ratzinger has changed his spots. I think we can be hopeful, given his recent kind gestures towards Tradition.

This new teaching that the Catholic Church can be found in other religions is a break with tradition, isn’t it? Does it go against what has been taught in the past? Yes it does. So it causes a rupture in the hermeneutics of continuity, or whatever the New Speak for it is.

Can anyone refute what I have written, re: salvation of Muslims, is contrary to what the Church has always taught? ie, can anyone find anything in the teachings of the Church, prior to the 1960’s that taught this position?

We cannot say “oh well, cause they don’t understand, they’re invincibly ignorant, and they’re gunna go to heaven”. This is the wrong attitude, and it is not a Catholic attitude.

I’m sorry you don’t like me pointing this out, but a spade is a spade.

 

[JReducation]

Of course John XXII, Paul XI and JP2 were all very dangerous men! They have enabled this error to take a foothold in the Church. They called the second Vatican Council, without any particular reason except to let some fresh air (smoke of Satan?) in to the Church. They withdrew the Oath Against Modernism. They promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae. They did all they could to suppress the TLM. They did all they could to suppress tradition. I cannot believe that JR said “all have a deep respect and love for tradition”! How can you say that JR?? The New Mass is a break with tradition.

We wait and pray that Pope Benedict/Ratzinger has changed his spots. I think we can be hopeful, given his recent kind gestures towards Tradition.

This new teaching that the Catholic Church can be found in other religions is a break with tradition, isn’t it? Does it go against what has been taught in the past? Yes it does. So it causes a rupture in the hermeneutics of continuity, or whatever the New Speak for it is.

Can anyone refute what I have written, re: salvation of Muslims, is contrary to what the Church has always taught? ie, can anyone find anything in the teachings of the Church, prior to the 1960’s that taught this position?

We cannot say “oh well, cause they don’t understand, they’re invincibly ignorant, and they’re gunna go to heaven”. This is the wrong attitude, and it is not a Catholic attitude.

I’m sorry you don’t like me pointing this out, but a spade is a spade.

I’m not offended by your beliefs. I find your rudeness offensive.

I also find it interesting that you did not list Benedict XVI on you list of dangerous people, since it was Fr. Joseph Ratzinger who wrote the statement that said the Muslims have a part in Salvation History. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who persuaded Pope John Paul II to allow him (Ratzinger) to create the Commission on Catholic and Muslim Relations, because he dearly loves the Muslim people. It was Pope Benedict XVI who made the recent statement that Allah is the same God as the God of Christians. It was Pope Benedict XVI who less than a month ago was standing in a mosque in Jordan and referred to it as a sacred place, because it is a house of prayer.

As to the past, it was Pope Gregory VIII who sent the Franciscans to Palestine to serve the Christians with the understanding that they were not to engage in prosteletyzing the Jews or the Muslims, but could receive them into the faith, only if they came on their own. And it was Pius X who created the Franciscan Commisereate of the Holy Land, whose purpose it is to do two things:

1. Care for the shrines entrusted to the Catholics in the region
2. Care for the social needs of the Muslims, Christians and Jews, not convert them, because he did not want to violate the aliance that St. Francis had made with the Sultan in the 13th century. After St. Francis “failed” to convert the Sultan who said that he would become a Christian that day if all Christians were like Francis, Francis negotiated with the Sultan to allow the friars a free passage to Palestine through Morrocco and promised that the friars would not allow any harm to come to the Muslim people and would obey the law.

Recently, Pope Benedict referred to this peaceful co-existence in his speech when he arrived in Jordan and when he spoke to the Christians and Muslims at the Queen of Peace Center in Jordan.

I don’t understand why you did not include St. Francis, St. Gregory VII, Bl. Mother Teresa and Pope Benedict XVI on your list of dangerous people.

I have to disagree with you on this one. If you were to tell me that the Church is pushing Islam as an equal to Catholicism, I would then agree that it is incorrect. But the only statement that the Church is making is that Allah is the same God that we worship.

If that’s the statement made by the popes, then everything else that has been brought up from previous documents and councils is unnecessary, because that was not what those councils and documents spoke about. They spoke about Islamic theology. There is no question that Islamic theology is sadly lacking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF