Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?

[GaryTaylor]

We can call any teaching.

I don’t want to call it anything but what its is, and CAF called it “pastoral”

Do you know the difference of the three? That’s all I want to know, because I “kinda” do. And no I don’t follow absolute petrine thinking, was raised in it though. I get them and clearly.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Related article by Robert Spencer who CAF quoted above.

catholicexchange.com/do-catholics-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god

I generally agree with what Spencer says in this article, although I’m not sure I entirely agree with a couple of his conclusions, but I do think this paragraph captures the essence of what I’ve been saying:
Robert Spencer:

Pope Callixtus III, in a somewhat similar spirit, in 1455 vowed to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.” Neither this statement nor that of Lumen Gentium rise to the level of a dogmatic definition, but is it possible for Islam to be a “diabolical sect” that at the same time adores the “one and merciful God”? Certainly, for it is always possible that their adoration of the one and merciful God may be wrongly directed, marred by wrong emphases and outright falsehoods.

Now I don’t think I would classify all of Islam as a “diabolical sect,” however, I do think that term is appropriate for the radical extremist groups within the religion (i.e. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.). The essential point of the bolded part though is what I was saying earlier, that is, claiming Christians and Muslims worship the same God and that Islam is a false religion are not mutually exclusive propositions.

I think the confusion is coming in due to the limitations of the English language, because the phrase “same God” can mean a couple of different things. When I say we worship the same God what I mean is that we (Christians) acknowledge one eternal, all-powerful, and ever-living God and offer worship to Him. Muslims acknowledge one eternal, all-powerful, and ever-living God and offer worship to Him. Therefore, we necessarily worship the “same” God in that sense. On the other hand, our views and beliefs about that one God are radically different in many respects, so in that sense we do not worship the “same” God.

Perhaps it would be best to qualify the statement as follows: Christians and Muslims worship the same God; however, Christians (specifically Catholics) authentically worship God as He is and in the manner He commanded (i.e. our worship is salvific in nature), whereas Muslims worship God as they erroneously believe Him to be (i.e. their worship is not salvific in nature, although some Muslims may be saved if they are invincibly ignorant).

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t want to call it anything but what its is, and CAF called it “pastoral”

Do you know the difference of the three? That’s all I want to know, because I “kinda” do. And no I don’t follow absolute petrine thinking, was raised in it though. I get them and clearly.

Now you’re talking nonsense.

You are actually trying to propose that CAF has more authority than an Ecumenical Council? Please…

That’s hilarious.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I generally agree with what Spencer says in this article, although I’m not sure I entirely agree with a couple of his conclusions, but I do think this paragraph captures the essence of what I’ve been saying:

Now I don’t think I would classify all of Islam as a “diabolical sect,” however, I do think that term is appropriate for the radical extremist groups within the religion (i.e. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.). The essential point of the bolded part though is what I was saying earlier, that is, claiming Christians and Muslims worship the same God and that Islam is a false religion are not mutually exclusive propositions.

I think the confusion is coming in due to the limitations of the English language, because the phrase “same God” can mean a couple of different things. When I say we worship the same God what I mean is that we (Christians) acknowledge one eternal, all-powerful, and ever-living God and offer worship to Him. Muslims acknowledge one eternal, all-powerful, and ever-living God and offer worship to Him. Therefore, we worship the “same” God in that sense. On the other hand, our views and beliefs about that one God are radically different in many respects, so in that sense we do not worship the “same” God.

Perhaps it would be best to qualify the statement as follows: Christians and Muslims worship the same God; however, Christians (specifically Catholics) authentically worship God as He is and in the manner He commanded (i.e. our worship is salvific in nature), whereas Muslims worship God as they erroneously believe Him to be (i.e. their worship is not salvific in nature, although some Muslims may be saved if they are invincibly ignorant).

You have to read Spencer with an open mind. He’s very critical of Islam. Right I have been thinking exactly as you are here. I think of Creation as all from one in this sense. Not an explicit meaning of who we worship. But a point of communication which is a reality regardless who each specific group thinks they worship, in this sense the monotheism is for sure. I’m very skeptical about going much farther than that. In this sense this a learned behavior with traditionalists. We were all taught just as Father Serpa is speaking on. And with different degrees of emphasis on an individual basis. Admittedly I don’t follow a strict traditional agenda, but I do understand them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s closer to what is being said with CAF and with the Roman Catholic Church Cardinal above and Pope Benedict most recently.

“There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough.” --Pope John XXIII

“The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church”. --Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the Council, October 11, 1962

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.”

“it was one of the programmed items [of the Council] not to give solemn dogmatic definitions.” Pope Paul VI, March 8, 1972

“Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (Pope Paul VI on Jan.12, 1966, A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

“Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” -Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience

“The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, -Pope Benedict XVI, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17, 1988).

More elaboration is needed, the purpose of teaching another is to clearly define. Also what is the known in this regard as spoken of above, the existing infallible doctrines are indeed intact. Thus no–salvation which is further defined with ignorance.

So in this sense we have to proceed to understand.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

So in this sense we have to proceed to understand.

You are not proceeding to “understand.”

You are proceeding to mis-understand.

You are using an argument first proposed by the SSPX to justify their own disobedience and schismatic acts. The Church has rejected this fallacy; consistently for 30+ years.

That red herring has been a carcass for more than 30 years, and still stinks.

You are still distracting from the original question of the thread here.

Trying to prove that the Second Vatican Council did not have the authority to teach dogma or doctrine is, always has been, and always will be, absurd.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are not proceeding to “understand.”

You are proceeding to mis-understand.

You are using an argument first proposed by the SSPX to justify their own disobedience and schismatic acts. The Church has rejected this fallacy; consistently for 30+ years.

That red herring has been a carcass for more than 30 years, and still stinks.

You are still distracting from the original question of the thread here.

Trying to prove that the Second Vatican Council did not have the authority to teach dogma or doctrine is, always has been, and always will be, absurd.

Please stop insisting on I have any view other than what I stated. Our brothers and sisters are exactly that.

Actually no, there is their understanding and then is the Traditionalist understanding “within” the Church, and then there are those of us who view this in in the middle as I I’ve explained, high petrine. So if you would like to clarify I would be glad to listen. I mean we all know what the Popes said “about” the council. I don’t see where we can place emphasis on other than what they did in this regard. And take there recent advice and talk about it. That’s how we arrived at clearly understanding for example the IC.

 

[FrDavid96]

Please stop insisting on I have any view other than what I stated. Our brothers and sisters are exactly that.

Actually no, there is their understanding and then there is the Traditionalist understanding “within” the Church, and then there are those of us who view this in in the middle as I I’ve explained, high petrine. So if you would like to clarify I would be glad to listen. I mean we all know what the Popes said “about” the council. I don’t see where we can place emphasis on other than what they did in this regard. And take there recent advice and talk about it. That’s how we arrived at clearly understanding for example the IC.

Gary,

It’s very simple.

The point you keep trying to make is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’ve spent more than a reasonable amount of time trying to explain it to you.

Since you choose to reject the Church’s teaching (clearly articulated), that’s your choice. I cannot force you.

But I can assure you that trying to prove the Church’s teaching wrong, or trying to prove that the Church does not teach what the Church clearly articulates as such, serves no useful purpose.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As far as the point in question of the OP, I summed up what I thought about it in the paragraph above. Which is open to dialogue as the Pope stated.

" I think of Creation as all from one in this sense. Not an explicit meaning of who we worship. But a point of communication which is a reality regardless who each specific group thinks they worship, in this sense the monotheism is for sure. I’m very skeptical about going much farther than that. In this sense this a learned behavior with traditionalists. We were all taught just as Father Serpa is speaking on. And with different degrees of emphasis on an individual basis. Admittedly I don’t follow a strict traditional agenda, but I do understand them"

The conversation in the thread then proceeded to what I “had” to believe in regard to the OP title. So at this point as demonstrated I see this differently, then came the question of authority which I feel was imposed at that point of the discussion Then we arrived where we are now after some confusion which I guess is a regular in misunderstanding on forums.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The point you keep trying to make is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church…

Impossible for the simple reason I defined less than they did and refuse to read further into what they did not define and certainly is not binding.

I’ve spent more than a reasonable amount of time trying to explain it to you…

And we both arrived at this point and clearly.

Since you choose to reject the Church’s teaching (clearly articulated), that’s your choice. I cannot force you…

Explained above.

But I can assure you that trying to prove the Church’s teaching wrong, or trying to prove that the Church does not teach what the Church clearly articulates as such, serves no useful purpose.

I’m not trying to prove anything wrong, I demonstrated this restrictive belief in regards to what must be believed and is clearly misrepresented by many simply isn’t so.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fact is this (point debated in the thread)

A} There is one God(Catholic teaching, Aquinas-Scotus)

B) Monotheists all worship one God (unknown what God they worship or how they worship) point being there is one God still

C] We all worship the same God.( not explicitly true because of the “unknown” above.}

As I stated throughout the thread this proposed understanding thus formula here stated as “infallible” simply is not.

Its a rhetorical argument, that is all it is.

 

[ephesians2]

Answer to the OP according to Jesus (Savior) Christ (Anointed) is straight forward-

“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

Answer according to Saint John is clear-

" Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

If a person denies the true nature of Jesus Christ, that is the spirit of Antichrist. If you read the 3 letters of St. John (as well as Jude) it is stated clearly. The Gospel of St. John, specifically Chapter 8 is an intriguing read.

 

[FrDavid96]

Answer to the OP according to Jesus (Savior) Christ (Anointed) is straight forward-

“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

Answer according to Saint John is clear-

" Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

If a person denies the true nature of Jesus Christ, that is the spirit of Antichrist. If you read the 3 letters of St. John (as well as Jude) it is stated clearly. The Gospel of St. John, specifically Chapter 8 is an intriguing read.

Have you read the OPs question? Because your “answer” doesn’t even address the actual question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fact is this (point debated in the thread)

A} There is one God(Catholic teaching, Aquinas-Scotus)

B) Monotheists all worship one God (unknown what God they worship or how they worship) point being there is one God still

C] We all worship the same God.( not explicitly true because of the “unknown” above.}

As I stated throughout the thread this proposed understanding thus formula here stated as “infallible” simply is not.

Its a rhetorical argument, that is all it is.

Ok I think we put the infallible point of the argument aside to view the rhetorical points.

Guys there are two truths here, A B and C both arrive at a truth and truth on split paths. My question is why do we want to promote the strict thinking of the OP when we know there is the “other” truth.

The other truth is realized simply by how all of us in fact worship, and are taught is a sin to worship otherwise. Its dangerous to suffice.

Further the Orthodox and the Traditionals, and the Protestants and so forth highly contest the restrictive view as I am. For good reason,

 

[Tom_Baum]

O My Jesus,
Forgive Us Our Sins,
Save Us From The Fires Of Hell;
Lead All Souls To Heaven,
Especially Those In Most Need Of Thy Mercy.
Amen.

Interesting prayer if one actually thinks about what is being prayed for.

O My Jesus, — I like to add O our Jesus
Forgive Us Our Sins, — us, not just some of us
Save Us From The Fires Of Hell; — Save us, not necessarily keep us
Lead All Souls To Heaven, — All as in ALL, pretty small c catholic I would say
Especially Those In Most Need Of Thy Mercy. — what a beautiful thought
Amen. — I believe

It would be nice if more people did believe what this simple prayer simply prays for.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Ok I think we put the infallible point of the argument aside to view the rhetorical points.

Guys there are two truths here, A B and C both arrive at a truth and truth on split paths. My question is why do we want to promote the strict thinking of the OP when we know there is the “other” truth.

The other truth is realized simply by how all of us in fact worship, and are taught is a sin to worship otherwise. Its dangerous to suffice.

Further the Orthodox and the Traditionals, and the Protestants and so forth highly contest the restrictive view as I am. For good reason,

If I am understanding your question correctly as “why would we want to promote the view that Christians and Muslims both adore the one and merciful God,” then I would say it is for the reason expressed in paragraph 843 of the CCC:

843The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

The Church recognizes those kernels of truth (however small or large they might be) present in other religions as a common ground from which we can then proceed to share the good news of the Gospel. If we can find a common ground to start from, then IMO the chances for a fruitful discussion are increased. As the old saying goes, you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

So, with Muslims that common starting ground is that we both agree that there is one eternal and ever-living God, the maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. Further we can agree that we both profess this one true God to be the God that revealed himself to Abraham. From this common starting ground we can then proceed to a more nuanced discussion of who exactly the God of Abraham is.

This is exactly the approach used by St. Paul in evangelizing the Athenians in Acts 17:

22Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said:

“You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. 23For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands, 25nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything. 26He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, 27so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us. 28For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ 29Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination. 30God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent 31because he has established a day on which he will ‘judge the world with justice’ through a man he has appointed, and he has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.”

32When they heard about resurrection of the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, “We should like to hear you on this some other time.” 33And so Paul left them. 34****But some did join him, and became believers. Among them were Dionysius, a member of the Court of the Areopagus, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

By finding a common starting ground in something that the Athenians already believed in, St. Paul was able to start a dialogue with some, and was even able to fully convert others on the spot. If he had come at them guns a blazing saying that their religion was from the pits of hell and that they all worshiped Satan, do you think that they would have been as eager to listen to him? I know I don’t.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I am understanding your question correctly as “why would we want to promote the view that Christians and Muslims both adore the one and merciful God,” then I would say it is for the reason expressed in paragraph 843 of the CCC:.

This is absolute in its complete understanding, one Author of Life.

Both propositions grow outward from point B. Where the unknown exists. In Pauls exegesis and in the Church’s expression both points exist in understanding

St Paul begins the address with ‘“To an Unknown God” I see that in every respect you are very religious. What therefore you unknowingly worship.

The CCC reversed the process and concludes with “unknown shadows”. there’s a “completeness” a whole of picture.

Theres no whole picture in the strict non explicit rollout, for that is the very reason the ding hits everyone when your confronted with your proposition as to well why don’t you worship “with” them. Now the truth is injected and the word “unknown” becomes injected by “imperfect worship” I ask what is imperfect worship, as we see there are members “in” our Church who worship imperfect and we worship with them. Protestants we worship with them also to a degree as discussed.

You don’t worship with muslims being the final of the sequence to which you do not worship with, nor can you, or you would be imperfectly worshipping in sin, or the unknown.

In all this we still need to see the CCC mission which is Matthew 25 in social teaching, and more to the point the critical paragraph in the encyclical of Pope Francis. It calls for us to stop beating muslims over the head with the past. That doesn’t mean erase the past, it means know the past and proceed with a complete understanding in Matthew 25 and the CCC complete chapter in question.

Its why so much resistance follows from all Christians. They may not put there finger right on it. They know instinctively the being of something not quite true.

The argument is brilliant, and as far back as I could google its the same fought struggle in the rollout. Its time we get everyone involved and correctly. Its fine to show them and insist on the one model. But to reject theirs is not to acknowledge them at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The CCC is a acknowledgement of the strong, uncompromising monotheism present in Islam and that in creation they are intimately entwined in Gods creation and time itself thus the finality of time. Our quest for peace and justice is perhaps one of our only common goals, at the same time we also hold that their knowledge of Him is incomplete for in Jesus Christ only is the truth fulfilled, Nevertheless the overall effect is also of the religion’s impact on the secular world and religious world in both physical and spiritual. in this sense the social interaction of all us and each religion becomes critical as does the social message of Christ and the civil morality of Christianity. Thus we need to be as passionate about promoting and defending our faith as they are with theirs. only in the mindset of the social moral message of Christ. Before anyone can spread the faith, they have to have the faith and understanding in this regard, and be mindful that in regard to Islam you would be within a most difficult situation to think to evangelize as time bears witness. So then for example as mentioned many times here with Pope John Paul II and a particular encyclical, he must read in a more open scope and in understanding his witness to faith.

" Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.

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” "

evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/World%20Religions/Islam/pope_john_paul_ii_on_islam.htm

General Audience of Wednesday, 19 November 1997

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01121997_p-18_en.html

 

[Bahaitruth]

According to Bahaullah both Moses and Mohammad claimed to be God.

Bahaullah and the Bab saw Moses’s encounter with Bush on Sinai and Mohammad’s ascent to heaven in Miraj on flying donkey as symbolic hints of their self-claims to Divinity.

YHWH/EL is the voice of Moses (and Abraham) and Allah is the voice of Mohammad, just as Father is the voice of Jesus.

 

[PRmerger]

According to Bahaullah both Moses and Mohammad claimed to be God.

Bahaullah and the Bab saw Moses’s encounter with Bush on Sinai and Mohammad’s ascent to heaven in Miraj on flying donkey as symbolic hints of their self-claims to Divinity.

Nothing could be more anti-thetical to Judaism than any man claiming to be God.

That is why the Jews rejected Christ.

And if Moses really had been claiming to be Divine, the Israelites would have attempted to stone him, as they did with Jesus.

Rather, the Jews understood correctly that Moses was a prophet, and never claimed to be God, and thus Moses is revered by the Jews.