How is this not heresy?

[Niblo]

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[AlNg]

This all speaks in favor of Filioque

Right. That is why I have read where an Eastern Orthodox Christian has said that Roman Catholics do not worship the same God as does the Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Eastern Orthodox do not worship a God where the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

 

[ReaderT]

Marcion was condemned and anathematized because of his rejection of the God of Israel. The Trinity was not an explicit issue in his day (~160 ad). His Gospel was not as much of an issue as his attempts to define a canon without the Hebrew scriptures; substituting his Gospel for the 4 gospels seemed like a shadow of that rejection of the God of the Jews.

While you may have difficulties with this analogy, there are far more difficulties with your accusations of heresies. You rely on private interpretations of scripture that the Church has long rejected. You do not seem to know Islam well enough to characterize it correctly.

Dovekin, I’ve already read the Quran from cover to cover and started a second time through. I know Islam quite well. Marcion rejected the God of Israel and was rightly condemned, because the God of the Old Testament was the same God as the New Testament: the Trinity.

Do you honestly believe that the Israelites in the Old Covenant worshipped a different God? Because by your reasoning that must be what you think.

Catholic, I already answered this question. The Orthodox believe Abraham worshiped the Trinity, as did David, and Daniel.

Muslims worship God whom they believe is the all-powerful creator of the universe. This is certainly true.

I agree, they do believe Allah is the all-powerful creator.

Now you’re slandering the Catholic Church. Nowhere does the Church document compromise the belief about the Holy Trinity. Furthermore, Paul explains in Scripture:

Let me post again the statement from the document:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.

The “god Muslims adore” is called Allah. Allah says repeatedly in the Qur’an that:

1. He has no son (2:116, 4:171, 6:101, 9:30)
2. Belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is false (4:157-159).
3. Belief in the divinity of Christ is blasphemy (5:72).
4. Belief in Jesus Christ as ‘the Son of God’ is grave error (19:35; 10:68).

For the Roman Church nevertheless to say “They adore the creator of heaven and earth” is astounding, shocking. At the very least you should find this language problematic because of how careless it is, let alone the implications it makes.

for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge.

“ We know that “We all possess knowledge .” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. -1 Cor. 8:1-3

I agree.

The Creator is the Holy Trinity even though all do not know that the Creator is the Holy Trinity.

I agree.

 

[ReaderT]

I think your concern is the same concern I had when I read that document. It is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as saying that Muslims and Jews don’t need Jesus because they also worship the same god as us, just differently.

Yes, and even more than that:

1. Muslims adore Allah - Allah is the “god” of the Muslim religion.
2. The document says “they adore … the All-Powerful Creator of Heaven and Earth”
3. Allah has no Son, denies the Resurrection, and denies Christ. This is not the “All-Powerful Creator of Heaven and Earth.”

Like I said to someone else above, the language is problematic just based on how carelessly it’s crafted, let alone the greater implications it’s making.

Did not Church regard Arians as Christians (although heretics) and understand they adored same God we do, although in wrong way? What about Adoptionists, Sabellianists, Noetianists and Patripassianists? What about Macedonianists? I could name so many Trinitarian heresies, and yet they were perceived as teaching error about One True God. They did not have their own gods- there was no Zeus or Thor, but there was erroneous understanding of Triune God.

I’ve always thought it was clear that they did have their own (fictional) gods. Arius denied Christ’s divinity - he called Christ the “greatest of creatures” but not deity. But that’s not a real god he’s worshipping because we know Christ is divine.

Arians were, after all, received into First Ecumenical Council and even had valid vote as Bishops! Every Arian Bishop (present) had one valid vote in the Council, implying they were viewed as part of the Church, before Arianism was condemned heresy.

Exactly - the key word is before. The First Ecumenical Council was called to settle this question, if I’m not mistaken. And the decision was: Arius is outside the Church.

 

[ReaderT]

God is not divisible. He cannot be divided into thirds. He is perfectly simple. What can be known from reason, without believing revelation, is what belongs to this unity of essence,

I know that but you get my meaning:
If you neither know/come to/have God the Father or God the Son, how can you claim to worship the same God?

To maintain your position, you must either fall under the first anathema above or the second anathema (by denying that the Trinity of Persons can be known by those without faith).

I agree with you that the Trinity is the Indescribable One. Saint John Chrysostom said “A comprehended God is no God.” But I haven’t been talking about understanding God. Nostra Aetate says “they adore” / worship our God, which is impossible because they don’t worship God the Son.

Muslims worship God whom they believe is the all-powerful creator of the universe. This is certainly true. A Muslim’s sincerity cannot be faulted if they do not know the good news of the gospel and that Jesus is the savior of the world…

I agree that they believe Allah is the creator of the universe. It’s even great that they curb their wills and believe the universe doesn’t revolve around them. But that doesn’t make their beliefs true, regardless of how sincere they are about them.

There are Wiccans who are also monotheists, but their one deity is the Goddess, the Queen of Witches, who works through spells and sex magick. Are they also worshipping the same god as us? Apparently many here say yes because (as @catholic03 wrote) “they arguably maintain the most important belief - that only one powerful almighty creator (God) exists”, but common sense tells us there’s no way they worship the Christian god.

 

[ReaderT]

Those will be my last posts in this topic. I’ve stated my position and we’ve gone through the same arguments several times with several people.

 

[Minks]

ReaderT:

that God is the Holy, Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity. And anyone who doesn’t worship Him, is worshipping a fiction. Or a demon. Or themselves.

The Jews do not accept the Holy Trinity, are they worshipping a false God?

Paul asked:

“is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”- Romans 3:29-3

The Bible quote you gave us says, “…since there is only one God…”

Please explain why you asked if Jews are worshipping a false God. What are the steps in thinking that led you to ask that question?

 

[Dovekin]

The “god Muslims adore” is called Allah.

Al lah means The El, derived from Elohim, one of the names of God used in Genesis. The God they worship is the God of Abraham. Your denials of that are as inappropriate as Marcion’s. More inappropriate if they are rooted in your inability to understand Arabic.

 

[catholic03]

Catholic, I already answered this question. The Orthodox believe Abraham worshiped the Trinity, as did David, and Daniel.

Like the Muslims they did not know the full nature of God. Never does it say they worshipped the Trinity.

 

[Gab123]

Those will be my last posts in this topic. I’ve stated my position and we’ve gone through the same arguments several times with several people.

‘Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” -Acts 10:34

 

[Gab123]

Please explain why you asked if Jews are worshipping a false God. What are the steps in thinking that led you to ask that question?

TReader claimed that if people did not knowingly worship the Trinity they are worshipping a false god

 

[Minks]

@Gab123

In case you’re not notified, the tagging feature didn’t seem to be working just now.

Written questions are so easily misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying for me. I thought you were asking the question from your point of view, which seemed inconsistent for you. Now I understand that you were questioning the other post.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Right. That is why I have read where an Eastern Orthodox Christian has said that

Right. They were wrong. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware retracted his statements about Filioque and said that it is problem of semantics and language- and that Bishop is much more skilled in Orthodox theology than most of us there, I’d say. Many Orthodox Bishops over the years have said the same, John Beccus being prime example, but also many others who would profess “from the Father through the Son” which is original meaning behind Filioque anyway. Also, I provided Biblical arguments- you did not, you just provided opinion of some people which has absolutely zero value if not supported by anything. We do not share common Magisterium, we do not believe in same Church being infallible, so using that argument towards me is plain wrong.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But that’s not a real god he’s worshipping because we know Christ is divine.

He worshiped God the Father though.

And the decision was: Arius is outside the Church.

Because of wrong understanding of God, not necessarily because he worshiped different one.

There are Wiccans who are also monotheists, but their one deity is the Goddess, the Queen of Witches, who works through spells and sex magick.

That is very different than omnipotent Abrahamic God. I’d say Abrahamic religions in certain sense do worship same God (or at least try to!). Their understanding might be incorrect but indeed they are a Christian heresy. Usually, Christological disputes do not change fact there is sincere belief in Christ himself, though attributing him different role. Regardless of how true it was, Miaphysites were shunned by Diaphysites. Diaphysites would, however, never say that Miaphysites worshipped different God. Neither would Orthodox say about Catholics based on Filioque.

Fact Muslims did argue we blasphemed Allah by attributing him Son meant that they believed we shared focus on one deity, but we misunderstood it. Therefore, they did try to worship Christian God in their misled way- this is probably the best argument from their side, seeing we worship same God than them with different understanding, but it could work both ways. Nevertheless, one who loves God is known by God and despite their misled ways, they do try to worship God of Abraham and they do love Him and show Him respect- whenever they do recognize Him, that is.

 

[Genesis315]

Not to beat a dead horse, but one cannot acknowledge the Son without knowing Him by faith, but God can be worshiped without this knowledge that comes from faith. But that faith is a supernatural gift. Simply to adore God means (to use the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s definition) “In the strict sense, an act of religion offered to God in acknowledgment of His supreme perfection and dominion, and of the creature’s dependence upon Him.” As I mentioned earlier, this relates to the most basic act of natural justice toward God, “to render God the worship due to Him as the source of all being and the principle of all government of things.”

Whatever other errors found in Islam, Muslims do offer acts of religion in acknowledgment of God as Creator and first principle of all things. In light of this, the famous counter-reformation Thomist theologian, Fr. Francisco Suarez, comments on St. Thomas as follows:

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III

Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.

This honor can be concurrent with dishonor without justifying that dishonor. The Roman Catechism (of Trent), for example, gives this as the reason for the second part of the first commandment (what Protestants make to be the second):

Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. This the Lawgiver subjoins, not because it is not sufficiently expressed in the affirmative part of the precept, which means: Thou shalt worship me, the only God, for if He is God, He is the only God; but on account of the blindness of many who of old professed to worship the true God and yet adored a multitude of gods. Of these there were many even among the Hebrews, whom Elias reproached with having halted between two sides, and also among the Samaritans, who worshipped the God of Israel and the gods of the nations.

In light of all that, I think these words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman sum up this whole debate:

John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

The statement that Muslims adore God should not be taken for more than it is. Like the Samaritans, they worship the one God in that natural sense–but they only know of Him, while we know Him and worship Him in spirit and truth. In the case of Muslims, the Christian missionary does not need to turn them away from idols, but rather to bring them the light of faith in Christ and to elevate their worship in the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlNg]

“from the Father through the Son” which is original meaning behind Filioque anyway.

Since that is the original meaning accepted by both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, why doesn’t the Roman Catholic church change the creed to per filium instead of filioque? I thought that the Roman Catholics were supposed to be making every effort to achieve full communion with the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Roman Catholics were supposed to be making every effort to achieve full communion with the Eastern Orthodox?

Why so? Every effort does not mean abandoning tradition. Per Filio is acceptable theology-wise, but Latin tradition and 1000 year old Patrimony holds Creed with Filioque. It would be same as making Eastern Catholics abandon their tradition- wrong. If theology is not faulty, why is there problem with the Creed anyway?

 

[AlNg]

It would be same as making Eastern Catholics abandon their tradition

That has been done, since before VII, the Ruthenian Eastern Catholic church had the filioque.

If theology is not faulty

Some Orthodox have a problem with the filioque, so it is a problem for many of them.
Why not promote good will, reunion and full communion by changing the filioque to per filium? After all, per filium is accepted by both sides with no problem.
You are in favor of promoting good will are you not?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That has been done, since before VII, the Ruthenian Eastern Catholic church had the filioque.

And was that not wrong? Imposing something is one thing- on the other hand if Ruthenians would adopt Filioque themselves, that would be their concern.

Some Orthodox have a problem with the filioque, so it is a problem for many of them.

Yes, but some Protestants have problems with icons or sacraments, should we abandon those too? After all, most Orthodox that have problem with division just do not understand theology behind it.

Why not promote good will, reunion and full communion by changing the filioque to per filium? After all, per filium is accepted by both sides with no problem.
You are in favor of promoting good will are you not?

I am in favor of promoting good will, but that would create unnecessary division. EF, Latin Mass, could not be changed like that without causing uproar and hence it would still be present in the Latin Rite. As of now, most Orthodox theologians accept that Filioque is fine theologically- what Orthodox do protest against is imposition of Filioque in the Creed. Changing it to per filium does not eradicate that problem. Furthermore, changing Creed to conform Orthodoxy is still going against Latin tradition which is now millennium old. Good will is important but secondary to integrity of the Church. I was once advocating such change, but now I see that it would be basically pleasing those outside the Church and dividing those inside it.

 

[LilyM]

OrbisNonSufficit:

It would be same as making Eastern Catholics abandon their tradition

That has been done, since before VII, the Ruthenian Eastern Catholic church had the filioque.

If theology is not faulty

Some Orthodox have a problem with the filioque, so it is a problem for many of them.
Why not promote good will, reunion and full communion by changing the filioque to per filium? After all, per filium is accepted by both sides with no problem.
You are in favor of promoting good will are you not?

We cannot promote good will at the expense of fullness of truth. And if one part of the Creed can be altered in that way, why not every other part as well?