Do all "monotheisms" worship the same God?

[pnewton]

That is true. But Jesus was a guy with a body - of course he could be an object of reference. The Trinity and the Islamic deity are not visible entities, and so the argument doesn’t apply here.

I disagree. Visibility is not relevant. Existence and personhood is.

This alone shows that we can’t believe people whose “god” is different than ours, even if he calls himself God or Christ.

That begs the question.

Aquinas was speaking of the teachings of Muhammad -

He was speaking of the behavior of Islam. Yet I think his point should apply here. Why listen to what Islam says about whether they worship the same God when the Catholic Church has spoken?

. The majority is NOT necessarily right

At an ecumenical council like Nicea, they are. That is why disagreeing with the conclusions of the Church council is more akin to Arius than Athanasius. When you add the subsequent support of this from the last three popes, I have no doubt what the Catholic Church teaches on this. Why are you trying to convince me that the Church is wrong?

As to Wiccans and others, I will leave that question open until the Church again speaks, though I still think the issue is more one of definition than substance.

 

[ReaderT]

I disagree. Visibility is not relevant. Existence and personhood is.

If that’s the case, then who’s to say Islamic Allah and Christian God are the same? Even by your own standard (personhood), our God is three Persons while theirs is only one.

 

[pnewton]

If that’s the case, then who’s to say Islamic Allah and Christian God are the same?

That would be the Catholic Church, as happened in Lumen Gentium and our last three popes.

 

[fide]

You are conflating doctrinal and pastoral Councils. They are different. I found this - to consider and double check, perhaps:

The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at an Ecumenical Council. To ensure that the teachings at doctrinal Ecumenical Councils are true and contain no error, the Holy Ghost is solemnly invoked at such Councils. As Pope Pius IX taught on March 12, 1870, at the time of Vatican Council I:
“The Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Ghost… it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what is to be believed.”

Doctrinal Ecumenical Councils form part of the Church’s solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. By the solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost, each and every doctrinal teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium is assured to be infallible.

Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway. All pastoral pronouncements, even those of Ecumenical Councils which are partly doctrinal and partly pastoral, form part of the Church’s day to day Ordinary Magisterium. Thus, what is taught in a pastoral pronouncement is not assured to be infallible.

[Vatican II: Renewal Or A New Religion]

continued in Part II…

 

[fide]

fide:

. The majority is NOT necessarily right

At an ecumenical council like Nicea, they are. That is why disagreeing with the conclusions of the Church council is more akin to Arius than Athanasius. When you add the subsequent support of this from the last three popes, I have no doubt what the Catholic Church teaches on this. Why are you trying to convince me that the Church is wrong?

As to Wiccans and others, I will leave that question open until the Church again speaks, though I still think the issue is more one of definition than substance.

Part II:

It is a consequence of the Church’s infallibility that the doctrine contained in any new teaching must not contradict doctrine that had previously been taught “always and everywhere” in the Church. If a new “teaching” does contradict what was taught before, then the new teaching is obviously not infallible. This is confirmed by the infallible proclamation of Vatican Council I on July 18, 1870:
“For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of Faith [Tradition], and might faithfully set it forth.”

Thus we may conclude from this that if a “teaching” proposed to us by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is contrary to previous Church teaching, then the new teaching is not infallible, not from the Holy Ghost, and is not to be believed or obeyed.

Archbishop Felici, the Council’s General Secretary, at the closing of Vatican II, confirmed that we must judge the infallibility of individual pronouncements made by Vatican II by comparing them with previous Church teaching (emphasis ours):
“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic [infallible] definitions; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” (Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter, “Ecumenism is a Fraud”, Autumn 1988, p. 3; also New Jersey Catholic News, Autumn 1987, p.2).

The Pope said that Vatican II was not Infallible.
Pope Paul VI, at the close of Vatican II on Dec. 7, 1965, confirmed that the Council did not make infallible pronouncements. He said that the Council
“as much as possible wanted to define no doctrinal principle of an extraordinary dogmatic sentence.”
Later, on Mar. 8, 1972, the same Pope repeated that
“it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions.”
The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not infallible was given by Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that:
"Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

 

[pnewton]

You are conflating doctrinal and pastoral Councils

Am I, or is it a false distinction brought about by dissidents from the Church? It is interesting that this distinction does not apply to any other council. It is also notable that the last council issued both pastoral and dogmatic documents. I do not accept there are two definitions of dogmatic, or that what the church calls dogmatic is not in fact dogmatic. It seems this sort of theory always comes up on traditionalists type sites, which is one problem with always reading that which you agree with. It tends to confirm opinions to the point they seem like fact.

I am sorry to waste your time, but there simply is no way you are going to carry more weight that Lumen Gentium. I have to say it worries me that with all the lost in the world the effort that traditionalist who dissent on this or that go to trying to convert those of simpler faith that just believe what the Church teaches because the Church is the teacher. Surely this has no part in the Great Commission.

 

[Dovekin]

The following, from John Paul II, is what people like bp Schneider, Cardinal Burke and others are fighting against. I do not understand why, but if you read their materials, you should understand what is being discussed.

In this unity in mission, which is decided principally by Christ himself, all Christians must find what already unites them, even before their full communion is achieved. This is apostolic and missionary unity, missionary and apostolic unity. Thanks to this unity we can together come close to the magnificent heritage of the human spirit that has been manifested in all religions, as the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate says. It also enables us to approach all cultures, all ideological concepts, all people of good will. We approach them with the esteem, respect and discernment that since the time of the Apostles has marked the missionary attitude, the attitude of the missionary. Suffice it to mention Saint Paul and, for instance, his address in the Areopagus at Athens. The missionary attitude always begins with a feeling of deep esteem for “what is in man”, for what man has himself. worked out in the depths of his spirit concerning the most profound and important problems. It is a question of respecting everything that has been brought about in him by the Spirit, which “blows where it wills”. The mission is never destruction, but instead is a taking up and fresh building, even if in practice there has not always been full correspondence with this high ideal. And we know well that the conversion that is begun by the mission is a work of grace, in which man must fully find himself again. John Paul II. Redemptor Hominis 12

 

[EndTimes]

I have noticed that in the New Testament there are hymns to Zeus adapted to God by Paul and even in the Old Testament psalms and hymns originally for Baal or El of Canaan had been adapted to Yahweh.

You’ll have to show me before I’d accept that…

 

[pnewton]

The following, from John Paul II, is what people like bp Schneider, Cardinal Burke and others are fighting against.

As I see it, one of those three is a saint, was a pope, and one of the greatest minds and humblest spirits thue Church has known.

 

[fide]

I am greatly concerned, and not happy about it, that so much of the world’s agenda has creeped and continues to creep into the Church. From what I have read (and I’m continuing to research this - or try to - because I too am suspicious of what I used to call “the rad-trads” who seemed to me to be another kind of protestant, seeking to remake the Church in to something less than true.) - but from what I have read, every Ecumenical Council prior to Vat II was, explicitly and unambiguously, a doctrinal Council that opened with an explicit prayer to the Holy Spirit for the guidance to address this or that doctrinal issue or issues. Vatican II was planned not to seek to correct a heresy or other doctrinal threat, and began with no such formal prayer fo the Spirit, which would have prepared all attending for the charism of infallibility.

In fact, as I read, Vat I - which addressed the issue of infallibility explicitly, as I suppose you know, made clear that in infallible statements from a Council and Pope, or from a Pope on his own, clarity and unambiguity was essential to that which IS infallibly defined and declared. (And if I may say so, this current Pope makes my head swim in his ambiguity and lack of clarity on matters doctrinal and pastoral.)

So my point is, Vat II was a singular, unique Council which did not define itself as doctrinal per se, but addressed issues having both pastoral and some doctrinal significance, along with language that did not claim infallibility, but if anything, the opposite. An even the ordinary Magisterium must remain true to what is and has been the Faith of the Church. An embrace of Islam was certainly not part of Catholic Faith before “modernism” and the secular sense of “what’s the big deal? A religion is a religion” pressed itself upon her.

The difference between doctrinal and pastoral teachings has great implications at an Ecumenical Council. To ensure that the teachings at doctrinal Ecumenical Councils are true and contain no error, the Holy Ghost is solemnly invoked at such Councils. As Pope Pius IX taught on March 12, 1870, at the time of Vatican Council I:
“The Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Ghost… it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what is to be believed.”
Doctrinal Ecumenical Councils form part of the Church’s solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. By the solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost, each and every doctrinal teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium is assured to be infallible.
Because pastoral pronouncements are neither “true” nor “false”, and because they must be expressed in language that is vague and ambiguous, they cannot be the subject of infallibility. Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost simply cannot be solemnly invoked at a strictly pastoral Council, because the pastoral pronouncements could not be infallible anyway.

 

[fide]

There are, I agree, some who fight against the Living Truth with what is almost an “idolatry of words” - persons who treasure prescripts from the past while missing the core treasure of Truth that was written into them. “Sola Scriptura” protestant evangelicals do this, and end up condemning Truth in their defense of what is, bottom line, their sterile interpretations of the words.

And at the other end of the army marching in opposition to Holy Truth, attacking the Church along with the SS evangelicals, are those in an “idolatry of antiquity” seeing “the Church” as true to the extent that it is old and predictable, but predictably unthreatening as an old well-worn habit: comfortable, undisturbing.

Truth is living, and ever fruitful - dynamic, pure, uncompromising, Love. There is a crisis come upon the Church - and this is troubling. If we do not hold close to the Holy Spirit, and Him who sent Him, we will be vulnerable targets for an enemy who has been at work since the Beginning, to sabotage the plan, the intention, the work of God: His Church, His People. We must be faithful to HIM - no matter the cost. Only in HIM is the Church safe. Faithful not to the Church we imagine, or want, or are “used to”, but to the Church of His Heart and Will and Intention.

 

[Dovekin]

We must be faithful to HIM - no matter the cost. Only in HIM is the Church safe. Faithful not to the Church we imagine, or want, or are “used to”, but to the Church of His Heart and Will and Intention.

Vatican II was truly a Council of the Holy Spirit. The opening prayer does not ask for infallibility, but is no less a sure commitment to the Holy Spirit.

We stand before you, Holy Spirit, conscious of our sinfulness, but aware that we gather in your name.
Come to us, remain with us, and enlighten our hearts. Give us light and strength to know your will,
to make it our own, and to live it in our lives.
Guide us by your wisdom, support us by your power, for you are God, sharing the glory of Father and Son.
You desire justice for all:
enable us to uphold the rights of others; do not allow us to be misled by ignorance or corrupted by fear or favour.
Unite us to yourself in the bond of love and keep us faithful to all that is true.
As we gather in your name may we temper justice with love,
so that all our decisions may be pleasing to you, and earn the reward promised to good and faithful servants.
You live and reign with the Father and the Son, One God, forever and ever. Amen.
Opening Prayer at the Second Vatican Council

 

[pnewton]

Vatican II was truly a Council of the Holy Spirit. The opening prayer does not ask for infallibility, but is no less a sure commitment to the Holy Spirit.

Then there also is the confirmation of our last three popes on this issue. I think it important to remember that Arianism did not die right after the Council of Nicea. Those that dissented from the decision assented to the direction of the Holy Spirit, but not all. They continued to preach their dissent.

 

[goout]

The rebellion against the respect and unification of all peoples is an offense against basic Christian principles and an offense against Christ himself.
Christ himself came for the salvation of all people even to the point of death at their (our) hands.

And we would hold ourselves in higher safety and esteem that Christ? It’s good to note that the strongest condemnations in scripture are aimed at those who profess to be in the fold.

 

[otjm]

The Wiccans and the antichrist worshipers have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam being a monotheistic religion.

Again, I will note FWIW, you are Orthodox. I don’t intend to get into a side distraction; I have no clue as to what the theologians in the Orthodox Church have to say about Islam.

The Catholic Church holds that there are three great monotheistic religions - Judaism, Islamism and Christianity. The Church does not say that all three religions agree on all or even most attributes of God, but they all agree on a significant number of them. The fact that humans can disagree about the attributes of God says a whole lot less about God than it does about humans.

Wiccans are a very minor subset of a break-off from Christianity primarily, and include an amalgam from other subsets of religious thought. Likewise those who worship an antichrist are a break-off from Christianity - as are those who worship the devil - none of which have any impact on the question of Islam worshiping the same God as the Jews and the Christians.

 

[otjm]

If that’s the case, then who’s to say Islamic Allah and Christian God are the same?

The Catholic Church, as asked and answered.

The Jews worship the same God ans Catholics; it was not revealed (with clarity) to them prior to Christ. The fact that they did not accept Christ and could not understand the Trinity does not make the worhiping a different God; it simply means their understanding of the attributes of God is lacking. Still the same God.

And in that, both the Jews and Islam share a lack of understanding of all the attributes of God; that definitely does not mean they worship a different God.

 

[OneSheep]

I am greatly concerned, and not happy about it, that so much of the world’s agenda has creeped and continues to creep into the Church.

Perhaps this is your most basic concern in all this? I’ll address it.

The Holy Spirit speaks through a number of different sources. She spoke through the Platonists when Augustine was writing his works. She spoke through secular science at many times in Church history. She spoke through civil and human rights movements when church teachings on slavery and the death penalty were stagnant.

We trust that our hierarchy discerns the Spirit. It’s not up to us individuals, nor individual bishops.

It behooves us all to take a humble approach, correct?

 

[fide]

Thank you for your opinions. I do agree that humility is a beautiful virtue, easier to suggest than to live.

 

[ReaderT]

Again, I will note FWIW, you are Orthodox. I don’t intend to get into a side distraction; I have no clue as to what the theologians in the Orthodox Church have to say about Islam.

We say it’s a false religion with a false god. We think this should be abundantly clear to everyone.

In fact many Greek and Russian cupolas have the Cross over an upturned crescent-moon to represent the triumph of Orthodoxy over Islam:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Wiccans and the antichrist worshipers have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam being a monotheistic religion.

My point is: why does Islam have the same “god” as the Christian God?

• Because they’re monotheists? — So are many Witches, with all their curses and occult powers.
• Because they’re monotheists and Abrahamic? — So will be the antichrist. And also devil-worshippers for that matter.

So I see no reason why Islam is different. But I won’t reply any more, since it seems the discussion has about run its course.

 

[Feanor2]

Islam cannot be supernatural from God - it cannot be.

I get that you think that but that is not the teaching of the Church.

The Church authoritatively teaches that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God.