Quanta Cura+The Syllabus of Errors

[John_19_59]

From the CCC.
“The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.”

So when Vatican II and the CCC say that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God - where is the charity in that?

We do not worship the same God.

We each profess to worship a supreme being, but they are not the same God.

We worship God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

They profess to worship a “God” who explicitly told them that Jesus is not God, did not die for our sins and does not offer salvation.

Our God did not tell them this!

Pius X in “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” says that it a modernist error to say Muslims have a true experience of God.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

This document is one example of pre-council teachings contradicted by the some of the teachings of Vatican II and the CCC about the relationship with and the value of other religions.

There is no way that Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the Vatican II documents about other religions are compatible.

No wonder the Church is the way it is.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We do not worship the same God.

Thank your for you opinion. As a student of theology, having studied Islam, I disagree with it, and so does the universal ordinary magisterium which met in the ecumenical council of Vatican II, which Jesus’ words apply, “He who hears you, hears me.”

So, I’m weighing your rather personal yet unsupported opinion against my own studies, along with the words of an authoritative ecumencial council of the magisterium, and it seems there’s little compelling reason to think you have a clue what you are talking about.

The Muslims worship the God of Abraham. Isn’t the God of Abraham, the Eternal Father of Christianity? I think so. They certainly commit grave sin in rejecting Christ as their Savior, objectively speaking. And as such, they, as well as all men need to be evangelized. But to accuse the ecumenical council of error based upon your flimsy opinion is not convincing at all.

 

[starrs0]

I agree when one begins to doubt and question the authority Magisterium and the Pope one is skating on very thin ice.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Look more closely at what St. Pius X taught…

[Modernists] assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. … It is this experience which, when a person acquires it, makes him properly and truly a believer… Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? In fact that they are to be found is asserted by not a few. And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 14)

Taken in context, St. Pius X is condemning the proposition that all religious experiences make men "properly and truly a believer." What is condemned is this “doctrine of experience” which asserts *the pagan and Muslim alike are “properly and truly a believer” based upon their experience. *The magisterium has never taught contradictory to this condemnation, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Vatican II stated:

[The Church] proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. …

[The Muslims] adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. (Nostra Aetate)

Catholicism views these non-Catholic religions as provisional, insofar as they contain a “ray of truth” and lead to the fuller truth of Catholicism. Catholicism also views them as insufficient, insofar as they assert a way of salvation apart from Christ and his true Church.

Vatican II simply recognized that Muslims worship the God of Abraham. This is as laudable as recognizing the Jewish worship of the God of Abraham. Yet, both religions are an incomplete and objectively erroneous understanding of God in light of the the fuller revelation in Jesus Christ. Insofar as any man rejects Christ and his true Church, they worship in error, not in truth. This is the teaching of the Church today as it was in Pius X’s day.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book *Truth and Tolerance, *discusses the question, “Does respect for others mean all religions are equally true?” The answer (NO) ought to be clear to anyone who has ever loved and respected another who held a different religion. I know many family and friends, who I deeply respect and love, yet I believe they are absolutely wrong about their theology. We can respect, treat charitably and patiently, and above all evangelize those who err in their theology. Muslims are no exception.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In his book, *Truth and Tolerance, *Cardinal Ratzinger argues that Christianity has always held that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is definitive. The divinity of Jesus is “the real dividing line in the history of religions,” which makes sense of “two other fundamental concepts of the Christian faith … conversion and mission.”

Cardinal Ratzinger asserts that two attitudes are proper to non-Catholic religions: 1) provisional, and 2) insufficient:

… one may address them as being provisional and, in this respect, as preparatory to Christianity and, thus, in a certain sense attribute to them a positive value, insofar as they allow themselves to be regarded as precursors. They can of course also be understood as insufficient, anti-Christian, contrary to the truth, as leading people to believe they are saved without ever truly being able to offer salvation. The first of these attitudes was shown by Christ himself with respect of the Old Testament. That this may also, in a way, be done with regard to all other religions has been clearly shown and emphasized only in recent times. We may in fact perfectly well say that the story of the covenant with Noah (Gen 8:20-9:17) establishes that there is a kernel of truth hidden in the mythical religions: it is in the regular “dying away and coming into existence” of the cosmos that the God who is faithful, who stands in a covenant relationship not merely with Abraham and his people, but with all men, exercises his providential rule. And did not the Magi find their way to Christ (even if they did so only by a round-about way, by way of Jerusalem, and by the Scriptures of the Old Testament) by means of the star, that is, by means of their “superstition”, by their religious beliefs and practices (Mt 2:1-23)? Did not their religion, then, kneel before Christ, as it were, in their persons, recognizing itself as provisional, or rather as proceeding toward Christ? (ibid.)

 

[John_19_59]

This is truely bizarre and proof of a “diabolical disorientation” in the Church!

Is the following true?

The God we worship - sent the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed, and that angel explicity told him that Jesus is not divine, did not die on the cross, did not rise from the dead and is not mankinds salvation?

Is it true?

NO!

Would any single Muslim agree that they worship Jesus Christ, true God and true man? Would any single Muslim agree that they worship the Father of Jesus Christ? Would any single Muslim agree that the Holy Spirit is God?

NO!

Islam is a lie - created by by the father of all Christ deniers!

…and every single Pope before 1958 would have agreed with that. I don’t care what Vatican II or the CCC or the “Magisterium” says. The Church before 1958 said Islam was a false religion worshipping a false God (eg. see St Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis). What does that say about the “Magisterium” (sic)?

Whatever entity was talking to Mohammed, it was not God the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. How could it be? Is God a liar?

I will stand before God on judgement day and say the same.

 

[John_19_59]

I agree when one begins to doubt and question the authority Magisterium and the Pope one is skating on very thin ice.
**
Go tell it to the ordinary Catholics who lived through the Arian crisis!

 

[John_19_59]

Catholicism views these non-Catholic religions as provisional, insofar as they contain a “ray of truth”

Never mind the “ray of truth”!

What about the “floodlight of lies”!

The Devil loves to mix the truth with lies.

The Masons are loving all this.

 

[John_19_59]

“Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love”

Let me not forget the love in the truth!

The truth is that every religion except the Catholic religion is a false religion, and charity (love) dictates that we call all men to that true religion for the salvation of their souls.

(You know if I wrote this in 1910 no one would bat an eye-lid - so much for unchanging “truth”).

But the again - “truth” is a modernist concept.

“Diabolical disorientation”.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

john_19_59,

The truth is that every religion except the Catholic religion is a false religion, and charity (love) dictates that we call all men to that true religion for the salvation of their souls.

I believe this is what Cardinal Ratzinger said above, if you bothered to read it. The Magi (magicians) were following their false religion when it led them to Christ. The pagan centurian, Cornelius and his family were God-fearers but neither Christian nor Jew when the Holy Spirit poured out upon them prior to their explicit confession of faith in Jesus. Seems pagans can have implicit faith afterall. Their “false religion” while both provisional and insufficient, led them to salvation in Christ. And this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

You seem to defiantly dissent with the Holy Father, yet for some reason imply that you are more Catholic than he.

I repeat what Pope St. Pius X states of those who follow a counter-magisterium apart from the pope: “**one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. **(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)”

There can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.

Seems you pick and choose when to submit to the teachings of St. Pius X and when to disregard his allocutions.

The traditional Catholic view is stated clearly by Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, who affirmed in agreement with St. Robert Bellarmine:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.[John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

And from another doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Catherine of Sienna:

For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil. (Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

 

[John_19_59]

There can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.

Umm! St Paul, St Athanasius, St. Hilary, and St. Robert Bellarmine might beg to differ.

It depends what the Pope does.

Doesn’t it.

If the Pope teachs error then we resist. It’s our duty. How do we judge if he teaches error?
Well if his teaching contradicts previous teachings is a good sign don’t you think.

Preaching “syncretism” is an error that must be resisted. When the Pope makes ludicrous statements like “May St John the Baptist protect Islam” then we have to resist. When Vatican II and the CCC say Muslims worship the same God as us, we need to resist.

Pray for the Pope, may God have mercy.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.

Umm! St Paul, St Athanasius, St. Hilary, and St. Robert Bellarmine might beg to differ.

It depends what the Pope does.

So now you oppose Pope St. Pius X too? Was he a modernist too???

What the Pope DOES is a far different matter than what he formally and authoritatively teaches. St. Robert Bellarmine and Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman agree in this respect, but it seems this teaching (and St. Paul’s, et. al) just zoomed right by you. St. Athanasius never dissented from papal teachings and certainly would never have dissented from the teaching of an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, which he asserted was SUFFICIENT to refute heretics.

Your opposition to Pope St. Pius X’s allocution is astonishing.

If the Pope teachs error then we resist.

I disagree that anybody has the faculties to judge that the pope has taught error, excepting another pope. St. Catherine teaches that Divine obedience can never be contrary to obedience to the Holy Father. That’s the traditional Catholic view of a doctor of the Church that I hold. If any pope has taught error, it will be corrected by a later pope, not a self-appointed counter-magisterium such as yourself.

The pope, when he teaches authoritatively and formally to the universal Church, he is to be submitted to because these words apply: “He who hears you, hears me” even if not solemnly pronounces doctrine. The teachings of an ecumenical council, according to St. Athanasius, is sufficient to refute heretics. I agree with him and cite the documents of Vatican II against your counter-magisterial views.

How do we judge if he teaches error?

We cannot. You are a member of the Taught Church not the ***Teaching Church. ***The **Taught Church is obliged to submit to the doctrines of the Teaching Church, whether it pertains to ecclesiasticl discipline or matters of faith and morals, whether definitive dogma or not.**It is the sole authority of the magisterium in union with the Vicar of Christ to authentically interpret Scripture and Tradition. You don’t have such authority. Nor does any bishop have the faculties to judge the Vicar of Christ. Unam Sanctum states: “every human creature … by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

It is clear that your opinion of the magisterium is far different than what the magisterium actually teaches. You make the same mistake that Fr. Leonard Feeney made when he accused Pius IX of teaching heresy in the 1950s. Yet, you are just as erroneous as he was.

What the Holy Office said regarding Feeneyism is sufficient to authoritatively refute your error as well…

…dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

… it is beyond understanding how [one who] presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities

… let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

[Letter of the Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pope Pius XII, Aug. 8, 1949]

 

[John_19_59]

I disagree that anybody has the faculties to judge that the pope has taught error,

So which Pope before 1958 taught that we worshipped the same one God as Muslims?

I can point to Popes who said the opposite.

The only faculty I need is the ability to see contradiction.

We do not worship the same God - its an impossibility for the reasons previouly stated.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave:

I disagree that anybody has the faculties to judge that the pope has taught error, excepting another pope.

Now, what exactly to you mean by that? Surely you do not mean that no one is able to discern if a Pope teaches error. If a Pope were to say Jesus was not God, would you be unable to discern the error in that statement?

I think what you mean is that you do not believe anyone has the faculty to declare the Pope to be a heretic, except another Pope. But certainly you realize that if a Pope teaches error we can judge his statement, or teaching, to be erroneous. It is not as though we would have to say “well, the Pope said Jesus is not really God, so I guess I’ll have to wait for the next Pope to come along to find out if he is right”. That is lunacy.

 

[TNT]

itsjustdave1988:

So now you oppose Pope St. Pius X too? Was he a modernist too???

What the Pope DOES is a far different matter than what he formally and authoritatively teaches…

** I disagree that anybody has the faculties to judge that the pope has taught error, excepting another pope.** St. Catherine teaches that Divine obedience can never be contrary to obedience to the Holy Father. That’s the traditional Catholic view of a doctor of the Church that I hold. If any pope has taught error, it will be corrected by a later pope, not a self-appointed counter-magisterium such as yourself.

Now, I think I understand what you are trying to say. BUT, a pope is not infallible in all that he proposes as a theologian. There’s gotta be some good reason that the inspired Gospel had us read “get behind me Satan”. And his actions may also be criticized from “I resisted him to the face”. If the pope can never be criticized, or a judgement call made, then Tradition (other than obedience and it’s hyperbole) is less than worthless to the laity, or lower clergy or bishops for that matter. We would be as Mormons where the current prophet trumps all historical teaching, thus making it void.
I would ctiticize the judgement of any pope who consistently installed the likes of Weakland, Mahony, Ryan, Lynch, et al as Good Shepherds over millions of my unsuspecting sheep. Then do nothing about it until their scandals become public and criminal.
I would criticize any pope who promotes the Ecumenism that has been condemned ad nauseam by all the popes who taught on it, if that pope would not explain why it was sinful, then became a pinnacle of virtue.
I would critcize any pope who knew of practicing homosexual clergy, and refused to flush them out of the Ordained…
I would never be convinced to do otherwise, because I see these as a form of sin which must not be tolerated upon the Church. In fact I see it as a Christain Duty in Charity to admonish.
A brain dead Catholic is no Catholic at all. He has become a cult member.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John_9_59,

The only faculty I need is the ability to see contradiction.

Martin Luther and every heretic in the past 2000 years thought the same of their competence. Yet, their dissent from the pope only proved they lacked holiness, as has every self-proclaimed magister who dissented with the formal and universal doctrine of the Roman Pontiffs througout history.

Rsiscoe,

Welcome back to the forums. Hope you had a wonderful Lent and Easter.

RSiscoe:

Now, what exactly to you mean by that? Surely you do not mean that no one is able to discern if a Pope teaches error.

John_19_59 said “judge,” didn’t he? You can discern all you like, but the opinions of the Taught Church are never more than speculative unless they are also promulgated by the authority of the Teaching Church. When a pope declares that the God of Abraham is not the God of Christianity, then I’ll agree with our misinformed brethren on the matter.

The speculative opinions, no matter how learned, of the Taught Church are not equivalent to the authority of the interpretation of Catholic doctrine held by the living magisterium. What is John_19_59 competence in dogmatic theology? Does he have a doctorate degree of dogmatic theology? Even if he did, is he ordained and vested with the Divine authority to authentically interpret Scripture and Tradition? Is he among God’s ordained shephards or is he merely among the sheep?

He clearly rejects Pope St. Pius X’s allocution, and that is enough for me to view his thesis as erroneous.

Religiosum obsequium of what is taught by the ordinary magisterium is not just a post-Vatican II teaching, but a traditional Catholic concept, one that is discarded by many of today’s Lefebvrist apologist, it seems.

Dr. Ludwig Ott’s pre-Vatican II introduction to dogmatic theology, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *states,

Only those [doctrines] are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

You may be competent to speculate, but you are not competent to judge the orthodoxy of the doctrines of the Vicar of Christ and the college of Bishops in union with him. Neither are excommunicated clergy, such as Bernard Fellay competent to judge the Roman Pontiff and the episcopal college on matters doctrinal.

Who is the “competent expert” that has the authority to judge and declare that the doctrines of a General Council “rests on error?” Who has the competence and authority to decide the heretical nature of a General Council whose orthodoxy was voted upon by the overwhelming majority of the college of bishops, and whose teachings and ecumenical character was approved and accepted by three consecutive popes? I’d like to meet this person. I’d like to know what his credentials are. To have such competence, he must be Divine.

The formal and authoritative teachings promulgated universally by the solemn and ordinary magisterium are Catholic doctrine. The authority to authentically interpret Sacred Scripture an Sacred Tradition is vested SOLELY upon the living magisterium. And among those vested with magisterial authority, "*there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope" (Pope St. Pius X), *which is precisely what St. Catherine, Ven. Newman, et. al. taught ALL BEFORE Vatican II.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, *LUMEN GENTIUM, *25)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TNT:

Now, I think I understand what you are trying to say. BUT, a pope is not infallible in all that he proposes as a theologian. …

I AGREE!!! (Dave pick’s himself up off the floor and continues …)

There’s much that this pope can be criticized for, yet, I’m loath to do so considering the man’s grave health. Nor can I ever pretend to criticize this or any Roman Pontiff with much confidence as he is a man who has dedicated his entire life to the Church, and I’m just a poor slob who left the Church for many years and has, by the grace of God, studied his way back into Catholicism. I have a long ways to go before I even come close to the distinguished studies of our beloved Pontiff.

I agree with criticisms described in the following *This Rock *article by Fr. Brian Harrison (boy, I like Fr. Harrison’s writings)…

Will Pope John Paul II Be Styled “the Great”?
By Fr. Brian W. Harrison
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310fea2.asp

I also agree with several assertions of this article from *This Rock *(boy, I like this magazine)…

**A Man of Vatican II **
’Be Not Afraid’ Looms over the Popes Thought
By James Hitchcock

Specifically,

“John Paul II seems to think that patient teaching and exhortation are sufficient to correct … errors.”

“Unfortunately, during John Paul II’s pontificate, the governing function has fallen into desuetude. He seems to have an almost principled reluctance to exercise his disciplinary powers.”

“motivated by a great vision yet uncertain how that vision can be realized, convinced that, if he only articulates his vision strongly and repeatedly, it will capture the minds and hearts of the people.”

From my perspective, I know who the earthly captain of the ark of salvation is, and I know he knows more about steering the ark than I do. When I find myself thinking that he’s steering us toward disaster, I remember that it is not my competence to wrest the wheel from the captain, as if I could steer the ark better than he. I’m just one of his crew. I can certainly manifest my opinion, as St. Catherine of Sienna did, charitably within the institutions of the Church, humbly accepting the decisions of the lawful pastors. Yet, my opinion is far authoritative among the sources of Catholic dogma. I simply trust God will keep the ark of salvation on course without my having to ever participate in a mutiny.

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.”

 

[John_19_59]

Martin Luther and every heretic in the past 2000 years thought the same of their competence. Yet, their dissent from the pope only proved they lacked holiness, as has every self-proclaimed magister who dissented with the formal and universal doctrine of the Roman Pontiffs througout history.

itsjustdave1998,

Then perhaps you can explain to me how Lumen Gentium and the CCC do not contradict previous Catholic teaching when they both say Muslims worship the same One God as we do.

dissented with the formal and universal doctrine of the Roman Pontiffs througout history
**
Has the post 1958 Church dissented from its own teachings?

“Mortalium Animos”, “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” and the Syllabus of Errors in particular.

Unlike Luther I am not inventing new doctrine and leaving the Church, I am in fact defending Church teaching - the prefectly sound teaching before 1958.

Is it OK for a Catholic to live by the teaching taught before 1958?
It’s the same truth - surely?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John_19_59,

You asked:

Then perhaps you can explain to me how Lumen Gentium and the CCC do not contradict previous Catholic teaching when they both say Muslims worship the same One God as we do.

First, you’re going to have to establish that Lumen Gentium and the CCC have contradicted a *de fide dogma *of Catholicism, because only *de fide *dogmas are immutable Catholic teachings.

As I thumb through Dr. Ludwig Ott’s* Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* and Henry Denzinger’s *Enchiridion Symbolorum *I don’t find any General Council or papal pronouncement that declared that the object of Muslim worship, erroneous as it is, is actually directed toward a different God than that of the God of Abraham.

Perhaps you can find the councilar or ex cathreda declaration that you are thinking of, then we can begin to actually discuss it.

It seems instead that you have started with YOUR OWN theological perspective as though it was DE FIDE DOGMA and begin to argue from there. I’ve studied dogmatic theology for many years, and have studied Islam as well. I disagree with your as-of-yet unsupported thesis that Islam’s God is not the God of Abraham. It’s unsupported in the sources of Catholic dogma.

Certainly Islam’s religion is false, and their understanding of the God of Abraham is false. But so is Judaism’s understanding and worship false. Does that mean Judaism doesn’t worship the one true God because they have false ideas about the nature of God? Obviously thay commit grave sin by rejected Christ. But you seem to contend that the *object *of their worship is not God. If that is you thesis , than it is very weak, dogmatically speaking.

1. De fide dogma. From a dogmatic theology viewpoint, the theological certainty of a thesis is based upon the authority of the teaching (counciliar, papal, etc.) and the frequency of the teaching. The greater the authority and frequency, the higher the level of theological certainty. Thus, de fide teachings are found in general councils and ex cathedra definitions (solemn magisterium), as well as non-definitive teachings of many popes, councils, and doctors (ordinary universal magisterium).
2. Catholic doctrine. Less than de fide teachings (ordinary magisterium) are found in papal encyclical, pastoral letters, etc. which communicate doctrine but using words that are non-definitive. Such teaching still is authoritative, and every Catholic is obliged to accept this teaching with *religiosum obsequium *of intellect and will.
3. Pius opinion. Less authoritative teachings are well-founded yet speculative opinions which do not contradict magisterial doctrine. This is such things as Molinist versus Thomist view of predestination, grace, and free will. They are among the realm of free opinion, not official doctrine which requires religious assent.
4. Tolerated opinion. Less authoritative still is those opinions that are weakly founded, yet still remain in line with Catholic doctrine. These are called *tolerated. *They are far from acceptable to most Catholics, yet are not censurable.
5. Heterodox opinion. Moreover, there are opinions that are contrary to magisterial teachings. These are heterodox opinions and are untolerable, contary to Catholic doctrine, some of which expressly condemned as erroneous, yet not expressly condemned as contrary to de fide dogma (heretical).
6. Heretical opinion. Further still, there are opinions that are contrary to de fide dogma. These are properly called heretical. Such opinions have already been expressly condemned by the magisterium, are are clearly contrary to *de fide *dogmas of Catholicism.

Your thesis seems to fall under “heterodox opinion,” in my view, given the lack of magisterial support that you have been able to provide and given that a General Council has, in a non-definitive manner, expressed that Muslims worship God even though they do so erroneously and without understanding what they worship. Insofar as they disregard God’s will that they worship in accord with his Son’s teachings, they commit grave sin. Insofar as they do this voluntarily, with full advertence and perfect consent of will, they they are guilty of mortal sin.

The doctrine expressed in a General Council was accepted by three consecutive popes as orthodox Catholic doctrine. The Muslims, in other words, are like the Samaritans, described by Jesus as worshipping what they do not understand.

Where do you place your thesis in the categories I’ve described above, and why? What magisterial support and frequency has convinced you that your thesis is anything above “heterodox opinion?”