Qestion to EC re.: possible future UNION between EO & RC

[mardukm]

No, my dear friend, it is your position that can be pinned down, but I never confuse your schemas with the actual doctrine of the Church, and if I did I would probably have to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

So you are claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that the God of Islam IS the God of Christianity without any qualification? Where is your documentary proof from MAGISTERIAL sources? We’ll be waiting.

By the way, I do not believe that the “god” of Islam is the true God, and I say this as one who studied Islamic theology as a part of my history degree.

Fine, but so what? Has the Catholic Church ever taught that the God of Islam is “the true God.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I suggest you re-read your recent posts that involved interaction with dzheremi.

Again, I’m not aware that we ever discussed particular points of doctrine in the past several days. Can you please point them out/ what doctrines we discussed, since you seem so sure we did?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

So you are claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that the God of Islam IS the God of Christianity without any qualification? Where is your documentary proof from MAGISTERIAL sources? We’ll be waiting.

I am saying that present day magisterial pronouncements do not coordinate with older magisterial pronouncements, which is why the position of the Church - at its highest and lowest levels - is confused.

Fine, but so what? Has the Catholic Church ever taught that the God of Islam is “the true God.”

It is hard to say really. It all depends upon how one interprets the documents of Vatican II that touch upon the issue.

 

[Apotheoun]

Again, I’m not aware that we ever discussed particular points of doctrine in the past several days. Can you please point them out/ what doctrines we discussed, since you seem so sure we did?

Blessings,
Marduk

I did not say that you talked about the two issues that you brought up in this particular thread. Please re-read your most recent posts with dzheremi.

 

[mardukm]

I am saying that present day magisterial pronouncements do not coordinate with older magisterial pronouncements, which is why the position of the Church - at its highest and lowest levels - is confused.

Please offer us a comparison of older Magisterial documents about the God of Islam with the present-day Magisterial pronouncements, and offer us an explanation of how they “confuse.” See, it is at this point that brother Dzheremi is never able to go beyond. Which is the source of disagreement with him. He can never give solid Magisterial support for his opinions, but maintains without any reason. I hope it is not the same with you.
Could you please offer a response to this, or at least give links so we can compare these “older Magisterial documents” about the God of Islam with “present-day Magisterial pronouncements?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

OK, so it is not actually about what the Magisterial documents themselves literally say, but about the interpretations people impose on them?

Come on, you know that interpretation is always involved when reading a text. That is one reason why sola scriptura does not work.

 

[mardukm]

I did not say that you talked about the two issues that you brought up in this particular thread. Please re-read your most recent posts with dzheremi.

That’s what you and I were originally talking about - particular doctrinal issues that eventually come down on one side or the other to mere dismissals with a few choice adjectives, without any reasons given.

Are you talking about something else now?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Come on, you know that interpretation is always involved when reading a text. That is one reason why sola scriptura does not work.

That is true. But, you must admit, there is always a simply literal interpretation, and others that are not. A literal reading of the Magisterial texts does not go beyond an admission of those 5 points that we share with Muslims about God. What are the justifications for imposing a LESS literal reading.

Btw, if you are willing, maybe we should move this discussion to a new thread?

I have to go, anyhow. If you agree with the above suggestion, please start a new thread, and I’ll respond when I return.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

Please offer us a comparison of older Magisterial documents about the God of Islam with the present-day Magisterial pronouncements, and offer us an explanation of how they “confuse.” See, it is at this point that brother Dzheremi is never able to go beyond. Which is the source of disagreement with him. He can never give solid Magisterial support for his opinions, but maintains without any reason. I hope it is not the same with you.

It is probably easier to focus on the newer ones, since they are more readily available, and you will get many different responses from reading just them. For example:

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’” (CCC 841, which references Vatican II’s LG 16; cf. NA 3)

Mardukm, do you believe that Muslims “together with us adore the one, merciful God”? I do not believe that to be true.

How can Muslims adore the one true God when they explicitly reject the fact that God is a Trinity of persons? I do not believe that they can.

Moreover, what is the only acceptable act of worship ever offered to God? As a matter of divine faith I hold that the only acceptable act of worship ever made was the sacrifice of Christ. The shadows were fulfilled in the reality.

Do Muslims worship the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit? No, how can they seeing that they reject the dogma of the Trinity.

Can a man worship the Father without the Son? St. John in his 1st epistle says that it is impossible to have the Father without the Son, and so, regardless of what the bishops at Vatican II said, I do not believe that it is possible to adore the Father without the Son.

Mardukm, how do you answer these questions?

 

[dvdjs]

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’” (CCC 841, which references Vatican II’s LG 16; cf. NA 3)
… do you believe that Muslims “together with us adore the one, merciful God”? I do not believe that to be true.

How can Muslims adore the one true God when they explicitly reject the fact that God is a Trinity of persons? I do not believe that they can.

Moreover, what is the only acceptable act of worship ever offered to God? As a matter of divine faith I hold that the only acceptable act of worship ever made was the sacrifice of Christ. The shadows were fulfilled in the reality.

Do Muslims worship the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit? No, how can they seeing that they reject the dogma of the Trinity.

Can a man worship the Father without the Son? St. John in his 1st epistle says that it is impossible to have the Father without the Son, and so, regardless of what the bishops at Vatican II said, I do not believe that it is possible to adore the Father without the Son.

Sorry to butt in, but this is a great example. It seems simple enough, and illustrates the same kind of problems that makes discussions on other threads mushy.

1. The Muslims worship one merciful God, the Creator, the God Abraham. The quote from the CCC (841) says: “those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God” . At this level, there is literally nothing to disagree with.
2. "How can Muslims adore the one true God when they explicitly reject the fact that God is a Trinity of persons? "
   Now you switch from the attributes: one, merciful, Creator, to include the attribute “true”. This is a *huge * change. I think that because of their rejection of the Trinity, it must be said that that have incomplete ideas of the true attributes of the God whom they worship, and that they also erroneously reject true, revealed ideas. In humility, we too by the way, must also acknowledge that our ideas are not complete. Human lack of knowledge or even misconception does not change God. He is the same no matter however limited we are in understanding him. The key point is that the attributes listed by the CCC are in fact held in common by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. But other attributes are not, hence the CC cannot and does not talk about “‘true’ God”. There is no suggestion that it does.

Indeed, directly pertinent to your question of worship, the CCC says:

843
the 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."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

The statement that they adore the one God (8401) in no way implies that the worship is orthodox. Indeed 841-2 vitiate any such immediate inference.

Overall, you seem too eager to disagree. As written 841 - taken literally - is not what you object to. You object to things that are not there - the idea that their theological understanding of God is “true”, and that their worship is Orthodox. But those ideas are not in the text they are inferences of your own and are not grounds to disagree with the text.

 

[milidrag]

Since this is the internet and I can’t hear the tone of your voice, I’m not sure if this was meant as a compliment, or as sarcasm. But I’m sure you’re a good person, full of love for God and neighbor, so I’ll presume the positive and say Thank You!!!

There was nothing sarcastic in my tone, it would be extremely inappropriate (and mean). It was a genuine thanks to your genuine effort.

If I ever use sarcasm no one reading my sarcastic message will have any doubt about if it was actually used or not, because it would be quite apparent and obvious.

 

[milidrag]

Interesting. Can you name one such a h(eres)ierarch and affirm that you heard him professing filioque, nor a hearsay about it?

There is a great difference between claiming that filioque can be understood as orthodox, and actually professing it. Consequently, your initial statement could be understood as bearing a false witness.

…

Another problem that I’ve run into is when Orthodox automatically assume that the filioque or the Immaculate Conception is heresy before they even know all the facts about these doctrines (I’m deliberately not using “dogma” here) and the historical circumstances that gave rise to them. …

Well, there is equally a chance an Orthodox understands it and rejects it, and I would say it is more likely the case. See, from a RC source:

ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/dullesthefilioque.pdf

page 38, Chapter C, the first paragraph.

 

[milidrag]

Do you fully understand the Latin doctrines of the filioque, Immaculate Concpetion and Original Sin, from a Latin perspective? If so, then I respect your difference of opinion.

Your question is ambiguous and to answer positive it would require from me to assert that I am infallible. But I can say that I’ve heard many Latin arguments (all?) re.: filioque and it just strengthened my belief that I can’t accept neither filioque, nor the theology behind it.

Re.: OS & IC - the latter is an excellent solution of a non-existing problem, arising from different understanding of OC. While I’m not sure if this can actually be reconciled or not, I’d leave the debate open if that can be tolerated.

 

[milidrag]

Orientale Lumen Conference VIII, “Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue: What’s Our Bottom Line”, 2004. …

LOL.

The authority of that gathering, and the orthodox representatives particpating, is about the same like you and me sorting out the problems of currency swaps on stock exchanges wordlwide over a coffee in a restaurant.

 

[milidrag]

I didn’t participate in the poll because my understanding does not perfectly align with either choice. I perceive that EC’s are living out the reality of the first millenium Church more faithfully than the EO are (and not just with regards to the fact of communion with Rome). …

There was nothing in the pool related fo ‘first millenium’. It’s related to 'now" (that could be traced back to 1590) and 'future.

 

[milidrag]

Hello milidrag and greetings,
…

Thanks. I meant to ask ECs, not us, or RCs, but your response is welcome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cecilianius,

But even then, Marduk, is your understanding of purgatorial fire the same as the Latin belief in purgatorial fire? Ever since the scientific revolution no Catholic layman Latin or otherwise would ever have been so silly as to believe in purgatorial combustion - it’s an image, like hell-fire, used to describe the pain of sense and the pain of deprivation both present in the purification process.

If you believe in a “psychological” experience of pain (granting that we have no brains in Purgatory to feel pain), in the sense of which physical pain is the best analogue to experiences we already know of for the suffering that the pure soul goes through in its purgation, and if you grant that the soul undergoing purgation longs to purify itself and enter Heaven, then you believe the Latin doctrine of purgatorial fire.

I say “no Catholic laymen” because I can’t vouch for Latin theologians. They’re stuck up on “material fire” and all its Aristotelian implications which should have been thrown out with the advent of science three hundred years ago.

As a Catholic and an Oriental, I do believe that God punishes His children when they sin. This is part of the Oriental phronema that we share with the Latins. I also believe that in the afterlife, purification or perfection of the soul can occur through suffering (obviously not in a physical way).

This, I fully accept as a Catholic and Oriental, and it is as far as Catholic dogma teaches.

But Latin theologoumena on the matter go beyond this. I have met Latin Catholics here on CAF who still believe in a literal fire (in the Apologetics Forum), and the idea of temporal calculations for indulgences. But the greatest distinguishing factor between the Oriental and Latin belief, despite the similarities, is that suffering/punishment in the Oriental phrenoma is purely medicinal, whereas the Latin Tradition, while maintaining the same, nevertheless has an element of retribution involved. But, as stated, I fully understand that these are Latin theologoumena, and is not even official teaching, much less dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Todd,

Thank you for your question.

It is probably easier to focus on the newer ones, since they are more readily available, and you will get many different responses from reading just them. For example:

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’” (CCC 841, which references Vatican II’s LG 16; cf. NA 3)

Mardukm, do you believe that Muslims “together with us adore the one, merciful God”? I do not believe that to be true.

How can Muslims adore the one true God when they explicitly reject the fact that God is a Trinity of persons? I do not believe that they can.

Moreover, what is the only acceptable act of worship ever offered to God? As a matter of divine faith I hold that the only acceptable act of worship ever made was the sacrifice of Christ. The shadows were fulfilled in the reality.

Do Muslims worship the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit? No, how can they seeing that they reject the dogma of the Trinity.

Can a man worship the Father without the Son? St. John in his 1st epistle says that it is impossible to have the Father without the Son, and so, regardless of what the bishops at Vatican II said, I do not believe that it is possible to adore the Father without the Son.

Mardukm, how do you answer these questions?

Brother Dvdjs gave you a wonderful explanation of the teaching of the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here the same things from the lips of St. Peter, our first Pope:
We must obey God rather than men. And the God of our fathers raised Jesus…

I suppose you would correct St. Peter for claiming that the Jews and the Christians believed in a common God, but that God had revealed Himself more fully to Christians, a revelation that Christians wanted to share with their Jewish brethren.

And also from the lips of St. Paul:

Men of Israel, and you that fear God, listen. The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great…Brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us has been sent the message of his salvation.

I can’t imagine that when St. Paul spoke of God to the Jews, he understood himself to be speaking of a different God, though the Jews had not yet believed in Jesus Christ as God. But obviously you can.:nope:

Men of Athens I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed alon,g and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, “to an unknown god.” What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it…"

St. Paul even understood that the unknown God that the Athenians worshipped was the same God that Christians worshipped. But they needed the revelation given to Christianity for them to fully understand and worship the one, true God.

That’s exactly how I understand what the Catholic Church teaches. The teaching of the Apostles to the Jews and the Greeks, is the exact same teaching that the Catholics offer to the Muslims - namely, the God that you worship, the God of Abraham, has revealed more of Himself than you know, and that revelation is being offered to you by the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Your question is ambiguous and to answer positive it would require from me to assert that I am infallible. But I can say that I’ve heard many Latin arguments (all?) re.: filioque and it just strengthened my belief that I can’t accept neither filioque, nor the theology behind it.

Would you be willing to discuss the matter. I’d like to see just how much you know about the Catholic teaching on filioque. Start a thread on it. I and others would be more than willing to participate. Also, please start one on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception. I would also like to see just how much you know about the Catholic teaching on these matters. If you want me to start it, let me know.

These have been threshed out many times, but people are more likely to learn by participation in a discussion rather than merely reading. Remember, our purpose here is to understand each other, not to proselytize.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

LOL.

The authority of that gathering, and the orthodox representatives particpating, is about the same like you and me sorting out the problems of currency swaps on stock exchanges wordlwide over a coffee in a restaurant.

I used to believe that the EO teach that the laity can judge their God-ordained bishops. I was often told that EO do not believe this, so, despite evidence to the contrary, I relented in that belief. But reading you compare a commission of bishops to “you and me” seriously gives me second thoughts.

Blessings,
Marduk