Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicSoxFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe well have something “definitive” soon. I don’t think so though. :nope:

Goodnight
 
After seeing this marathon since yesterday, I am glad I am of Little Knowledge. 😊

To me it is not that complicated. The One God we all Worship, at the moment in slightly different ways.

But still One God! 😃 👍 🤷

It is hard to let go of what we once thought as right, but this is a part of life. We know so little but think we know so much :eek: Look at the One that was the ultimate Humility, the One that Possessed All knowledge, Look at how it was shared!

Unity and Love is the key, the rest appears to be quite divisive! 🤷

God Bless all - Regards Tony
 
“Now, both Lumen Gentium 16 and Pope Francis’s words have a “pastoral rather than doctrinal purpose”. Their aim is to build interreligious bridges by generously acknowledging whatever can be found to be true in other faiths—not to make precise pronouncements about their theology. That said, Lumen Gentium is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and even casual statements from a pope (be it this one from Francis or similar ones made by his predecessors) shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

Just as clearly, though, we cannot say that the God in whom Muslims profess to believe is theologically identical to the Christian God. For the most obvious example, their God is a “lonely God,” as Chesterton put it, whereas ours is a Trinity of persons. Beyond that difference, in the divine economy our Gods are also quite different: most pointedly in that ours took human nature to himself and dwelt among us on earth, whereas the Muslim God remains pure transcendence. To Muslims the idea of an incarnation is blasphemy.

catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god

Perhaps someone will speak “clearly” also and we won’t have to resort to as the article states “I THINK”! or “unknown”.
 
“an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and even casual statements from a pope” For sure not binding as I have been saying. I’m quite confident all these scholars would actually use the word “worship” instead of “adore” also. And they are quite effective at stating “exactly” what they mean when they chose to I notice also .

I think you reading far much into this. And I don’t know anyone who disagrees but a few here who ironically believe its a “false doctrine”.

And when you want to take the time how false turns to truth in such a case I listen. How about CAF good enough? Cardinal good enough?

Whos word are you going to take? “Ordinary magisterium”. I’m sorry I tried to make this case for extraordinary here with traditionalists. It cannot be done. I’m not so sure I would relegate it to pastoral but perhaps they know better than I. 😉 Like I said I also had this debate and I actually don’t think that’s correct either. But I’ll go with CAF. 😉

“to build interreligious bridges by generously acknowledging (whatever)” “:unknown”

Would you like to actually “communicate” about this “now”?

“in the divine economy our “Gods” (plural) are also quite different: most pointedly in that ours took human nature to himself and dwelt among us on earth, whereas the Muslim God remains pure transcendence.”

So we have two different Gods we want to call the same?

Confusing position to say the least Would you to now say its “ecumenical” dialogue?

Nothing definitive yet? To great astonishment the link is CAF. Safe to say there’s many who like would like clarity on the point. Many, and not traditionalist, SSXP or Old Catholic, just regular old us.

Thanks.
 
tonyfish58 said:
After seeing this marathon since yesterday, I am glad I am of Little Knowledge. 😊

To me it is not that complicated. The One God we all Worship, at the moment in slightly different ways.

But still One God! 😃 👍 🤷

It is hard to let go of what we once thought as right, but this is a part of life. We know so little but think we know so much :eek: Look at the One that was the ultimate Humility, the One that Possessed All knowledge, Look at how it was shared!

Unity and Love is the key, the rest appears to be quite divisive! 🤷

God Bless all - Regards Tony
Click to expand...
Ha, ironically I get along very well with the muslims, always did. They make good coffee and a few of us regular old Catholics actually stop and converse with them weekly. They don’t believe they worship the same God as us as they don’t believe Jesus Christ is God. Are you saying they should agree with us because there is only one God?
 
FrDavid96 said:
So then, let’s look at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. That’s “Dogmatic” mind you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can clarify the above dilemma. This is why I asked about doctrine, I don’t know your experience in this. I do know all priests are not canon lawyers and so forth? But if you could I would appreciate if you would elaborate on pastoral, ordinary and the extraordinary in relation. I think it would go a long way to clarify.
 
GaryTaylor said:
“Now, both Lumen Gentium 16 and Pope Francis’s words have a “pastoral rather than doctrinal purpose”. Their aim is to build interreligious bridges by generously acknowledging whatever can be found to be true in other faiths—not to make precise pronouncements about their theology. That said, Lumen Gentium is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and even casual statements from a pope (be it this one from Francis or similar ones made by his predecessors) shouldn’t be taken lightly.”

Just as clearly, though, we cannot say that the God in whom Muslims profess to believe is theologically identical to the Christian God. For the most obvious example, their God is a “lonely God,” as Chesterton put it, whereas ours is a Trinity of persons. Beyond that difference, in the divine economy our Gods are also quite different: most pointedly in that ours took human nature to himself and dwelt among us on earth, whereas the Muslim God remains pure transcendence. To Muslims the idea of an incarnation is blasphemy.

catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god
Click to expand...
Related article by Robert Spencer who CAF quoted above.

catholicexchange.com/do-catholics-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god
 
GaryTaylor said:
Ha, ironically I get along very well with the muslims, always did. They make good coffee and a few of us regular old Catholics actually stop and converse with them weekly. They don’t believe they worship the same God as us as they don’t believe Jesus Christ is God. Are you saying they should agree with us because there is only one God?
Click to expand...
I am saying every one needs to think about it 😉 👍

God Bless and Regards Tony
 
tonyfish58 said:
I am saying every one needs to think about it 😉 👍

God Bless and Regards Tony
Click to expand...
I hope so as it would be and interesting conversation. I get the impression most muslims feel its against there faith to make such admissions to Christians. At least from what I have witnessed in person. I have seen a couple affirmative opinions on it though. I have also encountered Catholic’s of both mindsets. Myself and a good number of Catholics I have discussed this with bought up the first commandment. Not a point I bought up here but a concern or fear of offending the Lord, which is how I took them . But your right. And I get the impression muslims feel the same. I think this is an affirmation of their own faith though.

Peace
 
GaryTaylor said:
Are you saying they should agree with us because there is only one God?
Click to expand...
Oh and the point I stick to is the oneness of God. The conversation fairs better at this point. I believe its charitable not to impress upon Muslims that we worship the same God when they do not believe that. Probably good to proceed the same way with Catholics who do not believe the same. We don’t want any forced submission now do we?

Thoughts?
 
GaryTaylor said:
Oh and the point I stick to is the oneness of God. The conversation fairs better at this point. I believe its charitable not to impress upon Muslims that we worship the same God when they do not believe that. Probably good to proceed the same way with Catholics who do not believe the same. **We don’t want any forced submission now do we? **

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Agreed! “Forced submission” is bad policy all around–except for with toddlers and pets.
 
PRmerger said:
Agreed! “Forced submission” is bad policy all around–except for with toddlers and pets.
Click to expand...
Ha, the cat comes to mind, still working on oneness there also. Hey so since you came by to share your wisdom which of course I always thought the world of, let me ask since worship together come up. This is what I was saying earlier about seeing no reason to promote what we would not do. Or to affirm, in fact I think I used the same word. This argument seems to have no bottom to it.

“In the first place a Catholic has no business attending Protestant church services even occasionally. To participate in a heretical worship service and especially a communion service can be sinful for a Catholic because such an act is an affirmation of what we believe to be untrue. To attend an ecumenical service or a wedding or baptism is allowed, but Catholics are not allowed to attend such churches for the main reason of worship. Now if there are no Catholic churches in the vicinity on a Sunday, Catholics are allowed to participate in the Liturgy of Churches whose clergy are validly ordained such as the Eastern Orthodox Churches—including the reception of the Eucharist. Although we consider them to be in schism (not in union with the Pope) with the Catholic Church, such Churches are not heretical and share our basic beliefs.”

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Peace
 
GaryTaylor said:
Perhaps someone will speak “clearly” also and we won’t have to resort to as the article states “I THINK”! or “unknown”.
Click to expand...
The Church has spoken clearly.

You just aren’t listening.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Show me “exactly” where I am not listening.

Could you please explain: Pastorial. Ordinary and so forth as I asked?
Click to expand...
When the Church says “Dogmatic Constitution,” the Church means “Dogmatic Constitution.”

I hope you understand that the word “dogmatic” means a very high level of teaching indeed. It is a decree by the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church—the college of bishops, together with their Head, assembled in Ecumenical Council.

I keep posting it, but you just keep saying that it’s ambiguous. It is not.

This is a quote from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,

16…In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, 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…

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

Approved by a vote of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, assembled in Ecumenical Council (2,151 affirmative and 5 negative) and solemnly promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI on 21 November 1964

If you want a more detailed explanation of the level of assent required by Catholics, see here:
  1. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act”.
To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgement or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with those truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest’.

11,As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

Now, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is an expression of the Extraordinary Magisterium (an Ecumenical Council).

I will, however, take the liberty of “moving” the specific sentence “In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God” into the third category because this teaching is contained within the larger teaching (that the Church is the Light to the Nations) and therefore it is a supporting statement rather than being the central purpose of the Dogmatic Constitution.
 
Well, as I asked, and here there is a contradiction which is in your post.

“teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested”

“Now, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is an expression of the Extraordinary Magisterium (an Ecumenical Council).”

Also as stated by the CAF link its “pastoral”

Looking for clarification from you on the three.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well, as I asked, and here there is a contradiction which is in your post.

“teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested”

“Now, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is an expression of the Extraordinary Magisterium (an Ecumenical Council).”

Also as stated by the CAF link its “pastoral”

Looking for clarification from you on the three.
Click to expand...
Once again, your own arguments only hurt your position.

As I said at the end of my last post, I took the liberty of moving the sentence into the 3rd category because the sentence itself is a supporting one rather than being the central purpose of the Dogmatic Constitution.

If you want to say that I was wrong to do that, then you are saying that the teaching requires an even higher level of assent than the one I propose. It hardly helps your argument.

Your insistence on the word “pastoral” is also a non-starter. How many times do I have to point to the fact that the teaching is in a Dogmatic Constitution??? Can we call it “pastoral”? Of course we can. Just as we can call the infallible declaration on the Immaculate Conception “pastoral.” We can call any teaching of the Church “pastoral” because that’s the very nature of the Church. Saying that it is pastoral in no way whatsoever diminishes the fact that it is dogmatic (again, that’s why the Church calls it the “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.” 🤷

Your use of “pastoral” is what is known as an “appeal to false authority.” You are trying to use an argument proposed by the SSPX; an argument which the Church has soundly condemned for more than 30 years now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top