How to Explain the CCC 841

[GaryTaylor]

so some non Christians have no faith in the Holy Trinity, but simply in one God.

as we profess…

I believe in one God,

Explicit profession of faith. They [Islam] believe in one God. So we have to admit as we do there is only one God? So what other God is there?

 

[SJacob7]

‘Diminish’ it? Make it less ‘important’? Of course not! However, it does provide the audience to whom and about whom He was speaking. And, when the Church authoritatively interprets Scripture in a way that is mutually exclusive with your ‘all audiences and all people’ interpretation, then it’s clear which interpretation is in error.

It doesn’t matter what I believe; what matters is what the Church teaches. And yes, she teaches that those who are invincibly ignorant may attain to heaven.

Of course we are! However, we are not to apply it in ways that contradict Church teaching. Doing so explicitly means that we’re placing our personal interpretation of Scripture above the Church’s. :sad_yes:

Absolutely it still applies! But… it only applies to those to whom He applied it; and not, indiscriminately, to anyone and everyone – especially if that’s not how the Church interprets it!

Ok, maybe you can help me out here. In the quote below, Jesus is talking about the whole world, not just a certain group of people (context, right?). And states what the result will be if one doesn’t believe. How does the Church interpret it. To me, it clearly shows that one must believe or else they will be condemned.

Mark 16:15-16

15 He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[Genesis315]

Ok, maybe you can help me out here. In the quote below, Jesus is talking about the whole world, not just a certain group of people (context, right?). And states what the result will be if one doesn’t believe. How does the Church interpret it. To me, it clearly shows that one must believe or else they will be condemned.

Mark 16:15-16

15 He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Correct. From the CCC:

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43

However, the CCC also notes that “in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him” (CCC 848).

 

[Genesis315]

That being said, how can Muslims be said to believe in the same God that we do?

I’m assuming by “believe in” you mean “acknowledge the existence of” or “worship.” First, I think there should be noted the difference between worshiping God in Spirit and in truth, offering Him “true worship,” having supernatural faith, obeying Him, etc., and acknowledging God or worshiping God according to the virtue of religion (which is not a theological virtue, but a natural virtue that falls under justice).

St. Thomas defines this virtue in the Summa as “to show reverence to one God under one aspect, namely, as the first principle of the creation and government of things.” newadvent.org/summa/3081.htm

Can Muslims do this? They certainly worship “God” as First Principle and Supreme Governor of all things, but is it the same God we know? Can one acknowledge the one God without acknowledging the Trinity?

First, faith is required to acknowledge the Trinity. The Trinity cannot be reasoned out, as St. Thomas explains:
St. Thomas:

I answer that, It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (12, 4, 12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (Question 12, Article 12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons.

newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm

Therefore, we can know of God, as the Principle of all things, apart from faith, but we can only know of the Trinity with faith since it is a revealed dogma. The First Vatican Council also defined that God can be known from natural reason alone (Dei Filius, Canon 2.1) and St. Paul says, on account of this, those who do not acknowledge God (but worship idols, are atheists, etc.) are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

Therefore, one can acknowledge the one God and Creator of all things without having faith and acknowledging the Trinity. But do Muslims do this?

How can we say whether or not we are talking about the same thing? It is the essence of the thing that determines what it is. If we acknowledge the same essence, we acknowledge the same thing. What we can say about the essence of God is that it is the same as His existence. This is summed up as “God is” or, in His own words, “I AM” or “I AM who AM.” (Exo. 3:14).

This concept is formally referred to as the “aesity” of God. Essentially, aesity means self-existence. Aesity explains the metaphysical nature of God as a purely self-existent being that exists in complete actuality. God is not a being that is created by another god; neither does God create Himself into existence. Rather, God has always existed as an unchanging, completely actualized being. God has his Being of himself and to himself such that he is absolute being and the very definition of existence (see Acts 17:22-28). Since God’s existence is the same as his essence, it follows that God is existence. (Note: this is not to assert pantheism. All other beings participate in his existence on a contingency and thus do not possess the essence of God. Therefore, no other being can be said to be a god or share a part in the godhead since they exist solely on a contingency.) This concept is at the root of the definition of all of God’s other perfections because if God is absolute being he must logically contain in Himself all perfections of being.

Since God’s essence is existence, if one acknowledges His essence, one can only acknowledge He who exists–it is impossible to acknowledge a completely actualized being that is not the one and only God. Similarly, there cannot exist two of such beings, because then neither would contain in Himself all perfections of being.

The CE article on Essence and Existence explains this:

-If essence and existence were but one thing, we should be unable to conceive the one without conceiving the other. But we are as a fact able to conceive of essence by itself.
-If there be no real distinction between the two, then the essence is identical with the existence. But in God alone are these identical.

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

Since Muslims do conceive of God as being completely self-actualized, of being non-contingent, as having aesity (see this Muslim article, al-islam.org/GodAttributes/need.htm ), then they therefore can only be said to acknowledge the one God who exists and it is to Him that they honor and worship as First Principle and Creator according to the virtue of religion.

I would say therefore that we know God; they know of God. This is the difference between affective and speculative knowledge. St. Thomas makes this distinction in his commentary on John to reconcile Biblical passages where Jesus says one must know Him to know the Father with those where people without faith are said to know or worship God (such as those passages cited above from Acts and Romans). We worship God in Spirit and in Truth and serve Him in supernatural faith and charity, they acknowledge and worship only in a natural way.

This of course does not mean what they claim as His revelation actually is or that their religion dates back farther than it actually does, or that they are justified in everything they do, etc. Whether people do good or horrible things in His name does not change or determine who God is.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I don’t believe it’s that they don’t “accept the fuller understanding via further Revelation of the mystery of God.” They flat out reject the fact that Jesus in the Son of God. They choose to reject him.

I don’t see the distinction you are trying to make here? They reject him because they do not accept the fuller understanding/the fuller revelation.

So,is it possible to worship God and reject him at the same time? I don’t know.

They are worshiping God as he was originally revealed to us–that they accept. They are rejecting the fuller revelation which they do not accept. I think they’d accuse of idolatry. I’m just not sure how you arrive at the conclusion this original revelation of God is not the God we worship–it is–it is just that we have accepted the fuller revelation regarding Gods nature. That doesn’t change God or make him a different God. If there is a painting and from my vantage point I can only see a third of the picture, but think I’m seeing the whole picture, it doesn’t follow that I am looking at a different picture than you are just because from your vantage point you can see the whole picture. We are both still looking at the same picture.

Luke 10:16
*“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” *(This was Jesus speaking)

Who was Christ speaking to? To the 72 was he not? Is there a message here for us? Christ commissioned the 12 and we have apostolic succession don’t we? Who should we be listening to? Those successors shouldn’t we? Where does the CCC come from? The successors–yes? When we refuse to listen to those successors–who are we rejecting? Something to think about I think.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Yes, you are correct. Jesus was speaking to a select group. You can get that from the ‘context’. But does that diminish what he said? Is not what He said important today just as it was when He spoke it? Do you believe that to everyone (other than the group he sent out and spoke those words to) can reject Jesus without rejecting God?

Almost everything Jesus taught or spoke was to a group or a specific individual. Are we not to apply it in our own lives? If not, all we have is a history book of what He taught others. But the words He spoke to others DO apply to us today. When He said that to reject Him is to reject the one who sent Him applies today just as it always has. God doesn’t change!

Blessings

Yes and can one reject the teaching of the apostles successors today without rejecting Jesus and God? I think that is the questions you should be asking yourself.

The peace of Christ,
Mark