P
panner
Guest
I am sorry to here, Prayers with you all.
The plan of salvation includes Muslims? Is Allah the same God as Yaweah?
- Status
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Sorry for your loss, I understand well…Praying
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
dzeremi, hiskid, panner, than you all my brothers in Christ. It’s been a tough day around here. I trust in God’s mercy and grace. Your prayers and kind words mean A LOT!
Thanks be to God for them.
Thanks be to God for them.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Sorry to really get back to you rather late----but I had tons of stuff to do.
Unfortunately, I have a life outside of CAF.
:thumbsup:Melkites are Eastern Catholics. One of Twenty-One or so denominations (beside the BIG Roman Catholic Main One) that make up the Catholic Church. We accept the Primacy of the Pope and are in Communion with Rome. Meaning----we ARE allowed to hold our own Liturgies and some of our own beliefs (mostly somewhat Orthodox in tone) but thre Pope still sees us as being part of the Catholic Community.
Melkites started out as Orthodox but 2-3 centuries ago they split off from the Orthodox Church because of a squabble between Pro-Rome Melkites who favored Patriarch Cyril and the Pro-Orthodox Melkites who favored another one—who was VERY unpopular, BTW. To make a long story short, Cyril lost in the “squabble” and went to Rome and was allowed to declare Communion with Rome and be part of Holy Mother Church. And we have been ever since. The term “Melkite” has also been applied strictly to the EC side as well ever since then also.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Like to add my prayers as well.dzeremi, hiskid, panner, than you all my brothers in Christ. It’s been a tough day around here. I trust in God’s mercy and grace. Your prayers and kind words mean A LOT!
Through the prayers of the Mother Of God, have Mercy On Us and Save Us. Amen.
A
Alphaandomega
Guest
gurney, you’re not far from the truth."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."
I know somewhere in the sacred vaults of CAF this issue has been debated. I couldn’t find it though. My hiney hasn’t been in a Catholic pew for more than two days and when re-reading the catechism, I run across section 841, quoted above.
We are told in Scripture that whomever denies the Son, denies the Father. This is the case with Islam. Those who know me on here well enough know that I rarely, I mean RARELY even mention Islam. But when I come across this in the catechism (along with indulgences and so forth) I breathe a heavy, heavy sigh.
This is a type of universalism, a type of openness to other religions that I think crosses the line. I’m seriously concerned about it. Allah is a distortion of the historical Old Testament God we worship. It is like looking at God through five layers of cellophane. Not only is the lineage with Ishmael a distortion and the view of Original Sin and salvation history, but God’s personality and his very heart are warped in the Koran to be something He is not. How can we say that Allah and Our God are the same? And especially in light of how the Koran totally rejects and blasts the concept of Trinity as evil, that only further alienates identification between the two?
I’m pretty much fresh back in the CC after a long walk in the wilderness. It’s stuff like this that keeps making me walk.
I’m sure this has probably been debated but, for my sake, can someone explain a way to deal with this horrible part of the catechism? I’m dying here…
The CC has been overly ‘desperate’ if I may use the word in her pursuit of ‘ecumenicanism’. One cannot adapt or accomodate wrong doing so as to be right. That logic itself is flawed. The name - allah has been proven again and again by historians and archaelogists alike to be the NAME of a pagan moon idol previously worshipped by the babylonians.
AND the arabic word or noun for ‘god’ is iLAH. The word ‘allah’ is used ONLY when made in reference to islam’s worship. It is a unique name that muslims insist on claiming to be the ONLY deity. “There is no god but allah” - in actuality is a challenge to Yah-weh. It is a rude affront that blasphemes the name of God.
P
PbloPicasso
Guest
Merry Christmas!Merry Christmas to you, too, brother. I concur with what you say here. It’s amazing that my wife and I, feet dragging because we’re tired of the spiritual conflict, crawled over to the Catholic parish here, went back to confession, and not 24 hours later I actually had a Catholic priest (!!!) online point out to me catechism 841 and instantly I wanted to puke. I had read it a long time ago but I think willed myself (LOL) to forget it and bury it!
It’s so frustrating that one, as a Catholic, has to swallow this stuff. It should be just pious opinion and no big woop. But it really is de fide being in the Catechism and Lumen Gentium 16. It’s a troubling piece of theology that is truly chilling. I don’t like it one bit.
And when I opened to the section on indulgences I felt light-headed. I sometimes wonder if I’m just not cut out for this Church
You are not required to believe that anyone is saved that is of another faith. We just need to be eccumenical in such a way as to help bring about truth and receive the respect, especially from people like Muslims that hate Christians to the point of killing us. Remember that the CCC is not necessarily infallible, but represents the resepectful views of bishops that have worked on it’s contents. Words are interesting and when translation takes place meanings can be lost. That is my charitable view towards bishops that attempted this statement.
No one is saved outside of the Church of Christ, period. If, and remember the key word hear is “if”, anyone is saved outside the Catholic Church, which is the Church of Christ, then they must no be invincibly ignorant. We should turn these souls over to the mercy of God. To wish they burn in hell is to be seriously lacking in charity and could get us in a jam with the Almighty. But no one can require you to believe that any Muslim will be saved. We should be careful though for the sake of Christians dominated under Islamic Law. Far too many innocent Christians have been slaughtered. But that does not excuse false statements. I’m just not sure if it’s clearly stated without closely examining the translation.
D
dzheremi
Guest
This is false. What is true is that Islam, and hence Muslims, makes very specific claims about God that mean when Muslims talk about Allah, they are talking about a deity that is different than when Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews talk about Allah.
The Arab kingdoms that existed before Islam was invented were Christian: The Lakhmids and the Ghassanids ruled large sections of what is now the “Muslim” Middle East, and established settlements which would be the basis for later Muslim-controlled places. Arabs are mentioned among those present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11) and St. Paul preached in Arabia after his conversion in Damascus (Galatians 1:17-18). The wife of Lakhmid king al-Mundhir III, Hind, was a Christian and established the monastery “Deir al-Hind” (Deir is Arabic for “monastery”) in Iraq, which was active into second century of Islamic domination of that country. Inside that monastery there was an inscription, put there by Hind, where she calls herself “the maid of Christ and the mother of His slave (her son, Amru) and the daughter of His slaves”. The Arabs of Al-Hira, the Ghassanid capital of the 5th-6th century in Iraq (south of modern Al-Kufah), were mostly Christian. Non-Christian Arabs called the “Ibad”, meaning “worshipers (of Christ)”.
These were all ARABS, and they all used the word “Allah” in their worship, no differently than Christians do today. As I am typing this, I am listening to a eulogy for Pope Kyrillos VI of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is sung in Arabic. Many phrases in it talk about “Allah” (a3tah Allah hikma = God gave him wisdom), and it sure as heck is not talking about Islam. Similarly, other Arabic-speaking Christians like the Maronites and the Greek Orthodox Arabs also use “Allah” to talk about God with no qualms, because they know who they are praying to. Christians have been using Allah for hundreds of years before Islam ever existed, and just because Islam makes insane claims like that Allah is a proper name or that Arabic is God’s preferred language doesn’t mean we’re going to stop using it or should consider not using it. Let’s not be tempted to match Islamic insanity with insanity of our own.
Madih for al-baba Kyrillos al-sadis (Coptic Christian using “Allah”)
“Allahu yarani” (God sees me) spiritual song for the recently blessed Brother Stephen Nehme (Maronite Christian using “Allah”)
“Irhamny ya Allah” (Have mercy on me, Oh God) sung by very famous Lebanese singer Majida El-Roumi (More Maronites using “Allah”)
“Ya Oum Allah” (Oh Mother of God) an Arabic hymn to Mary, the Mother of God, not Islam’s Allah. (Greek Orthodox Christian using Allah)
The word is not the problem. Islam’s false claims are the problem, and the source of the confusion that non-Arabic speakers have about the word “Allah”. But we had it first! (Okay, not me personally, because I am not an Arab, but Christians in general.) It is not our fault that some crazy man came 600 years later to try to strip God of His eternal Wisdom and His Holy Spirit, nor that the majority of his ethnic group decided to follow him and not the true God.
“ilah”, by the way, is also God, but is used in places were “Allah” would not fit, as “Allah” is always definite (it is assumed to be a contraction of the definite particle “al-” and “ilah”, but I don’t know if that’s true or not). While the usage of the definite article in Arabic seems a lot more flexible than in English, Arabic is like English in that you cannot possess a definite noun, grammatically speaking. In the same way that “my the God” would be wrong in English, in Arabic you must use “ilah” for a possessive meaning, like “My God” is “ilahi”. They’re the same word in so far as they mean the same thing (for Christians and Jews, NOT Muslims), but grammatically speaking it is wrong or redundant to use Allah in certain contexts.
A
Alphaandomega
Guest
This is false. There is no such thing as where the a simple noun like ‘ilah’ would not fit and then another word must used. That approach implies ‘uniqueness’ which implies that the word ‘allah’ is a unique noun used…in peculiar cases…specifically only for muslims’ references. Its an open admission of the “name-ness” of the word.
The name allah is also not a ‘contraction’ of two particles (like what many would like to deceive you into believing) because simple translations FROM arabic quran into english where the word ‘the-god’ appears are not translated into ‘allah’ either.
And how can it be “must be used in certain contexts” in some places and then also “wrong or redundant to use it in certain contexts”. That argument is not only illogical, it reeks of darkness in this argument for the use of a regular noun that just means God. God is God. Whether it is in this statement or in another.
Whether or not ‘christians’ use the word is irrelevant cos many are equally ignorant. And the last thing christians want is to propagate ignorance.
arabbible.com/t-Allah.aspx
.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Uh…this is actually the opposite of what I wrote: There are some places where Allah, since it is definite, would not be grammatically appropriate. I even gave one such example, as in the possessive form “ilahi”.
No it doesn’t. It has nothing to do with “uniqueness”. It has to do with definiteness.
I am not sure I understand what you’re trying to say here. If I am reading you correctly, you are accusing me of admitting that Muslims are somehow right when claiming that “Allah” is a proper name. This is clearly the opposite of everything I posted in reply to your false assertions.
As I stated, the idea that Allah is a contraction of “al-ilah” is a widely disseminated explanation of its source. It is not the only potential explanation, nor is it one that I am convinced by. It is also not deceitful.
What? It is not clear what you are saying here. Translations from the Arabic Qur’an into English do not use Allah? That is totally false. Popular translations like Yusufali, Pickthal, and Shakir all use “Allah” freely in English. Check USC’s searchable Qur’an available here, which gives all three translations for every verse of the Qur’an.
Because that’s how the language works…?
Again, because “Allah” is by default definite and hence cannot take possessive or other markers, “ilah” is used in those contexts in which the definite noun would be grammatically incorrect.This is really no different in principle than the way English works. You don’t ask why you can’t say things like “my the God” in English, do you? This is the exact same thing.
Speaking of illogical, how can something reek of a hue?
We are not talking about the existence of God, which is not something that Christianity and Islam disagree on. You made a statement about language and language use that is demonstrably false.
There is a lot of ignorance on display here, but it is not on the part of the Arabic-speaking Christians who use “Allah” in accordance with their traditions.
That website is ridiculous.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you know nothing about linguistics and do not speak Arabic. Maybe you should learn about these things before you post about them. It would help your arguments immensely.
Also, if you look at any Arabic Bible that is NOT the one on that particular site, you will find “Allah” everywhere. This is why the makers of that website need to explain why they do not use that word – because they recognize that they have deviated from every other Bible translation there is. That should tell you something about their claims.
1 فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ،
(The first verse of the book of Genesis. Note “Allah” in bold, exactly where you’d find “God” in English.)
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi. First of all I’m sorry about your grandma and sympathize with your loss. If it’s any consolation it’s a realization that death is a reality and it’s not the end of the story especially for believers.
I’d be not so much as repulsed or disturbed by CCC841 but rather in a selfish way irritated by this inclusion because it means I have to defend and spend unnecessarily much time to explain it. But I’d consider it insignificant and a minor aspect of Catholic teaching. It will not change my opinion whatsoever on Catholicism simply based on this one teaching.
What I can gather from this one stance of the CCC is that it has a stance regarding Islam. No matter how difficult it is to stomach this stance, I think I would go along with it rather than the alternative, that is, keep silent on the issue or stating downright that it is from the Devil and that Allah is not the same as Christian God.
As had been explained, 841 simply echoes what Muslims themselves claim to believe and that the One God that they worship is the Creator. In that it is the truth. The rest should not bring confusion to Catholics as we know very well the differences between our belief and them. We can also say that their knowledge of the One God is not complete and there are factual errors in their belief.
The reality in Islam is that there are truth, half-truth and downright lies. 841 does not address this however. The CCC simply teaches us on how to approach them, that is, we have to engage them and not confrontation. I think this is in the spirit of what St. Francis of Assisi did when he preached to the Saracens and Muslims sultan. Rather than fighting with them he engaged them. He did not seem to succeed though but as Christians we have no choice but to take this approach.
God bless.
Reuben
T
Timothy17
Guest
I will admit that, outside of what I wrote in my first post concerning the literal meaning of the text, what follows is my opinion and belief ; namely, those parts of my posts having to do with evangelization and apologetics. It seems to me logical that the Church would be desirous for the evangelization and conversion of so many souls and that, outside of such an understanding, the Catechism’s referenced paragraph is little more valuable than any given random fact.My own errors aren’t leading me anywhere and I have never had a problem with Holy Scripture contradicting. I see a holistic viewing of Scripture, Timothy.
You are creating a strawman with me; I did NOT say that the catechism is telling us that Allah is the Triune God. I didn’t claim Muhammad was a prophet for us either. But I am saying that the Church claims we both worship the same God. He may not be Triune, but they’re saying we worship the same God. How do I know that? Let me quote 841 yet again: together with us they adore the one, merciful God Where I come from, when someone says we’re wearing the same jacket, that means we’re wearing the same jacket. When someone tells me, “hey, you’re a Giants fan, I’m a Giants fan! We like the same team!” that means we like the same team. When someone tells me Muslims and Catholics “together with us adore the one, merciful God” that sounds pretty bad…
I’m not saying that the catechism is claiming that Islam = Catholicism. Never said that. But even with the context of 846, 841 is absurd IMO.
What I am saying is that they’re drawing conclusions that I find disturbing. They’re saying that Allah is the God of Abraham. He’s NOT. And they’re putting them first in line with this lofty respect and hope for salvation and I find that bizarre.
Also, I notice that you keep harkening to this apologetics angle from “Mother Church.” You’re saying that the Church is arming apologists with ammo, info about all the peachy-keen wonderful stuff about Islam so we Catholics can run out and convert them with the milk of kindness and all these grand things we have in common like Mary, Jesus, and Abraham, monotheism, etc.
The Church is not mentioning this stuff to give us ammo for conversion. The context clearly is no such thing. They are making a declaration of the fact that Muslims worship the God of Abraham as we do, they are foremost on the list to get saved without being Christians, in the plan of salvation.
And counting how many Muslims there are in the world, how does that mean they’re in God’s plan for our salvation? How about Mormons? There are millions of Mormons but I can’t see how Joseph Smith’s prophecies are part of the plan?
If Islam is part of the plan of our salvation, it must be eschatalogical, involving Muslims like Ajhmadinejad and other terrorist-sympathetic loons to bring about a nuclear war or apocolypse. That’s the only way I can envision God using Muslims to bring about anything. Islam has done nothing positive for this world that I can think of except bring death, hatred, war, terrorism, and alienation.
The last part of your post where you say that kernels of truth within Islam can bring salvation, that bothers me, with all due respect. There is ONE name under which we can all be saved—Christ Jesus. Kernels of truth in Islam cannot save, period. The Scriptures are clear on this. There are kernels of truth in most philosophies from communism to national socialism in Nazi Germany. Kernels don’t save. Christ’s name does.
In my own defense, I never said that we should somehow embrace Islam or praise it or do anything that would be scandalous. My argument is that, like the Church Fathers we should engage other religions, especially serious competitors to Catholicism, bringing to light their errors using the information we have, but also using those helpful aspects found withinin those religions that lend themselves to pointing them to the ultimate Truth of our religion. If we ourselves profess to have Christ, should we not also desire to share Him with others ? Certainly we are capable of finding and seeing him hidden, veiled, wanted, desired or implied in so much human activity that is conducted without the knowledge of Him : we are, after all, made in His image - and nothing can ultimately change that fact, though I wholeheartedly admit that vices, perversions, errors, sin, etc., can and does cause defect in our God-given nature. Still, it seems to me the Church Militant has a mission to bring about the conversion of souls using those resources God has given us.
Love men, slay error ;
Without pride, be bold in the Truth ;
Without cruelty, fight for the Truth.
- St Augustine
The above, frankly, is the sum of my apologetic / evangelization argument that I believe the Catechism is desiring to implant within us, especially in regards to Islam, but not only Islam, in regards to all other non-Catholic religions. Again, it is my opinion and personal belief that the information about Islam in the Catechism lends itself to apologetics and evangelization.
My condolences for the loss of your loved one.
Pax,
and may God bless you and yours,
Tim
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
Muslims must convert in order to be saved. Do yourself a favor and buy a copy of the Revised Baltimore Catechism and Mass No. 3 by Fr. Connell. That’s one of the very best catechisms you’ll ever find.Merry Christmas to you, too, brother. I concur with what you say here. It’s amazing that my wife and I, feet dragging because we’re tired of the spiritual conflict, crawled over to the Catholic parish here, went back to confession, and not 24 hours later I actually had a Catholic priest (!!!) online point out to me catechism 841 and instantly I wanted to puke. I had read it a long time ago but I think willed myself (LOL) to forget it and bury it!
It’s so frustrating that one, as a Catholic, has to swallow this stuff. It should be just pious opinion and no big woop. But it really is de fide being in the Catechism and Lumen Gentium 16. It’s a troubling piece of theology that is truly chilling. I don’t like it one bit.
And when I opened to the section on indulgences I felt light-headed. I sometimes wonder if I’m just not cut out for this Church
Lumen Gentium was not de fide and neither is every single paragraph of the CCC. Don’t worry so much about it.
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
Read what some saints said about Islam and Muhammad in particular: catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/islam/worship.htm
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sounds right, I don’t know who exactly its written by. But its seems the point is to focus on that which is different. I get that, its not a mystery today.
Yet the plan and very idea of Salvation is to save “all” Souls. Thus in falling short which we must, we save as many as humanly possible. Thus we arrive at the teachings of the Apostle Paul, and the thinking of the Bishop of Rome. To Pray for all sinners, because many fall short because there is no-one to pray far them. Or Saturdays reparation mass for Our Lady. Thats the thinking when Salvation is on the table. not so much whos saved. Theres “not” a multitude of ways to be saved. Wheres that teaching from?
The war of good and evil isn’t fought by man on the side of good with weapons. Let us not be weary in doing good, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not…Paul Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
I fail to see the confusion, the confusion is not with the writtings of Bible. The confusion is of mans tongue which deceives.
The plan of Salvation includes everyone through conversion. Its not a come as you are party. Theres only one path to God. Let us not speak falsely here. That path is through Jesus Christ.
The passing thoughts of man are of those who have a sort of faith, and they kind of believe. The think maybe the Bible might be correct or true or incorrect. Or they pick and chose that which they feel is right. Thats not faith in God, thats trusting in your own faith. Or to believe in Gods which are not devine. Or sort of believe in Supernatural.
I have no such conflicts. I have seen God and His work in this life. No-one had to force the Bible down my throat. I seen His work, I’m impressed, I believe in God! The path is clear its preached “here” daily, for all who care to listen and follow. Theres a welcome sign out and it always been out, only thing missing is those who desire not to believe. The need has always been here, the only thing missing is the desire. God invited man into communion with him since day one! Man is still refusing?
Christ said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” Its “you” that must open the door. Its called a give and take relationship. And is that not how all healthy relationships work?
Am I missing something?
The world has become a very confusing and dangerous place. But it didn’t happen overnight. And I propose we begin the return trip out of the woods. Because heres the truth, when you walk twenty miles into the woods? The return trip is also twenty miles back out. God doesn’t owe us a miracle. Those have come and gone as have the prophets. People chose not to believe. The Coptic in Egypt or Fatima. The Saints, Padre Pio, Whats it gonna take? What you hear is “Oh you don’t Have To believe that?” Really? So God performs a miracle, so you don’t have to believe it? I’m lost for words.
The only question is how long can we offend God before He has had enough? And here at the end we are fresh out of time. This time right here, now? This is it, this is the time to wake up. Its closing time, last call for souls. I’m not sure what lingo people will grasp. Or what language it will take. The only thing missing is the final curtain. But heres what I find amusing…You don’t have to believe? What it will take? Are we not circling the drain now?
We take full responsibility of the postion we find ourselves in. Thats the bottom line. Let me stop here since I drifted in thought. Might be relevant though!
Yet the plan and very idea of Salvation is to save “all” Souls. Thus in falling short which we must, we save as many as humanly possible. Thus we arrive at the teachings of the Apostle Paul, and the thinking of the Bishop of Rome. To Pray for all sinners, because many fall short because there is no-one to pray far them. Or Saturdays reparation mass for Our Lady. Thats the thinking when Salvation is on the table. not so much whos saved. Theres “not” a multitude of ways to be saved. Wheres that teaching from?
The war of good and evil isn’t fought by man on the side of good with weapons. Let us not be weary in doing good, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not…Paul Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
I fail to see the confusion, the confusion is not with the writtings of Bible. The confusion is of mans tongue which deceives.
The plan of Salvation includes everyone through conversion. Its not a come as you are party. Theres only one path to God. Let us not speak falsely here. That path is through Jesus Christ.
The passing thoughts of man are of those who have a sort of faith, and they kind of believe. The think maybe the Bible might be correct or true or incorrect. Or they pick and chose that which they feel is right. Thats not faith in God, thats trusting in your own faith. Or to believe in Gods which are not devine. Or sort of believe in Supernatural.
I have no such conflicts. I have seen God and His work in this life. No-one had to force the Bible down my throat. I seen His work, I’m impressed, I believe in God! The path is clear its preached “here” daily, for all who care to listen and follow. Theres a welcome sign out and it always been out, only thing missing is those who desire not to believe. The need has always been here, the only thing missing is the desire. God invited man into communion with him since day one! Man is still refusing?
Christ said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” Its “you” that must open the door. Its called a give and take relationship. And is that not how all healthy relationships work?
Am I missing something?
The world has become a very confusing and dangerous place. But it didn’t happen overnight. And I propose we begin the return trip out of the woods. Because heres the truth, when you walk twenty miles into the woods? The return trip is also twenty miles back out. God doesn’t owe us a miracle. Those have come and gone as have the prophets. People chose not to believe. The Coptic in Egypt or Fatima. The Saints, Padre Pio, Whats it gonna take? What you hear is “Oh you don’t Have To believe that?” Really? So God performs a miracle, so you don’t have to believe it? I’m lost for words.
The only question is how long can we offend God before He has had enough? And here at the end we are fresh out of time. This time right here, now? This is it, this is the time to wake up. Its closing time, last call for souls. I’m not sure what lingo people will grasp. Or what language it will take. The only thing missing is the final curtain. But heres what I find amusing…You don’t have to believe? What it will take? Are we not circling the drain now?
We take full responsibility of the postion we find ourselves in. Thats the bottom line. Let me stop here since I drifted in thought. Might be relevant though!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
BTW I like what you had to say Tim, and I agree. Personal feelings must be put aside for the greater good. Easier said than done when the daily news is horrific. Yet still…
Paul wrote…Let not the Sun go down upon your wrath!.
Paul wrote…Let not the Sun go down upon your wrath!.
C
Caldera
Guest
I always assumed that we are bound to believe the teachings on faith and morals in the Catechism, but other odds and ends such as 841, for example, were not necessarily required.
Early Christmas morning I caught the beginning of this thread, and my jaw dropped to the floor. lol I did a quick search on the internet and found a discussion on this topic that seemed to confirm that Catholics must indeed accept 841 on penalty of sin.
amnation.com/vfr/archives/007512.html
I also assumed that Lumen Gentium was dogmatic as the title states: “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium”, so by taking quotes from this and inserting into the Catechism, it would seem to be binding?
I did more digging and found this:
en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Vatican-II-2.htm
“What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of Vatican II? That, according to the two popes of the council, it was merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the essential Magisterium of the Church. In holding that understanding, Catholics are simply obeying the words of the two popes themselves. Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force, and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one’s Catholic faith.”
Hopefully, if this is accurate, it can bring a much needed sigh of relief.
Early Christmas morning I caught the beginning of this thread, and my jaw dropped to the floor. lol I did a quick search on the internet and found a discussion on this topic that seemed to confirm that Catholics must indeed accept 841 on penalty of sin.
amnation.com/vfr/archives/007512.html
I also assumed that Lumen Gentium was dogmatic as the title states: “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium”, so by taking quotes from this and inserting into the Catechism, it would seem to be binding?
I did more digging and found this:
en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Vatican-II-2.htm
“What conclusion, therefore, can be drawn about the authority of Vatican II? That, according to the two popes of the council, it was merely pastoral in nature and is not to be accorded the authority of the essential Magisterium of the Church. In holding that understanding, Catholics are simply obeying the words of the two popes themselves. Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force, and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one’s Catholic faith.”
Hopefully, if this is accurate, it can bring a much needed sigh of relief.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
To whom are you referring here, Gary?
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
To whom are you referring, Gary? Which men are you referring to and who is speaking falsely?
- Status