The plan of salvation includes Muslims? Is Allah the same God as Yaweah?

[Timothy17]

By highlighting that it is only the fact that they profess such (a roundabout way of saying that what they profess is not the truth), it is nothing but insulting nonsense. Really, what is the point of having this in the CCC? Any follower of any religious belief must, by virtue of their belief in it, profess that it is true, and hence what it says about salvation (or whatever the ultimate aim of the religion is) must be true. So why did the Vatican single out Islam and shower it with backhanded praises like this? Why not also include native African or American religions? They generally have some kind of supreme god, too, so what is said about Islam could apply to them, with about the same amount of creative thinking needed to paint Islam in any sort of positive light as the CCC stupidly does.

With regard to worshiping the same God as Christians: Someone is making false claims about God, and it isn’t Christianity. This whole “correct by default because they’re monotheists*” view is highly problematic. There are, after all, other monotheistic religions – why are THEY not “first among” the believers in the one true God? Sikhism and Zoroastrianism are two other monotheistic religions that could have been mentioned, and yet presumably were not because the writers of the Catechism were not familiar with them, or their low numbers don’t necessitate that the Vatican play nice with them as it does with Islam. So it is either ignorance or politics that has put this faith-destroying passage into the CCC.

*- but are they? The “shahada” (Islamic creed) is not correct if faith in Muhammad is not mentioned, and Islamic hagiography of Muhammad (to say nothing of all the times that he is associated with God in the Qur’an: God and his messenger…) can be argued to, in effect, deify the man through the back door. This is vociferously denied by mainstream Islam, which nonetheless apparently has no problems saying that Muhammad is pre-existent, or that the Qur’an is pre-existent, uncreated (in the way that we would understand to refer to God) but somehow not God. Islam’s monotheism is very strange that way…

While I agree in spirit with much of what you said, nonetheless, I am also tempered by the knowledge that the Church Fathers were not unknown to reference and praise particular pronouncements and beliefs of pagan religion, at least (to my knowledge) of the Roman and Greek pantheon : specifically those that were doctrinally or essentially in agreement with Catholic Christianity, particularly those prophecies of theirs that prefigured or foreshadowed a coming Christ-like figure.

I strongly recommend you consider the Church Fathers treatment of the Sybils, for example, and recall that at this time the major contendor with Catholicism was the synthesizing religions of Roman, Greek and Egyptian (and also some Persian) pantheons, superstitions and mythologies. Undoubtedly, it could have been scandalous for some who were just leaving those religions for the True Religion to hear - or hear of - such great and living Church authorities actually using and even endorsing particular beliefs of their former superstitution in the cause of Christianity ; nonetheless, they were speaking and teaching truthfully, and such truth rebounded to the glory of Christ and undoubtedly assisted in the victory of Christ’s empire over those false religions, for such is the mission of the Church Militant and glory of the Church Triumphant.

Edit - Added : P.S - There’s nothing more efficacious at silencing an opponent than embarassing them with their own beliefs, thus forcing that opponent to either begin to consent (and thus work forward with you based on that agreement) or otherwise force your opposition into giving a public spectacle of hipocrisy when they begin to distance themselves from, abandon or essentially contradict their own purported beliefs. The Church Fathers searched philosophies and other religions and sifted between the Truth and errors thereof, and using both, won argument after argument. There’s nothing stopping today’s learned Catholics and Catholic authorities from doing the exact same. It’s virtually a Tradition of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelism, its first known use being recorded in the Book of Acts for time immemorial by St Paul at the Agripa in Athens.

Pax,
Tim

 

[flower_of_God]

Everyone has the opportunity to be saved, but being “included in the plan” does not mean you are saved. Muslims will not enter the kingdom of heaven, however, if they convert before death, at least in some way, they have hope just like the rest of us, at which point, they would cease to be Muslim in the true sense of that word.
Invincible Ignorance is the only way a non-Catholic can be saved, and Muslims also don’t have baptism, which creates another problem.

How do you know this for sure? Can you know this or you assume? Is any of us entitled to say who will enter the kingdom of God and who won;t and under what circumstances?>

I think we all will be judged according to how we loved each other, how we lived for each other, despite the religion. Being a catholic, despite the fact that this religion is the only true one, is not a guarantee of being saved, the contrary. Catholics received a lot, they will be asked a lot in return, while the members of other religions/cults, if they lived their life according to GOD’s commendments, if they followed and put into practice the most important commandment which is to love our neighbour, they can be saved, because in the moment of their death they willl meet Christ and they will choose HIM.
But, this is what i think, i don’ t dare to say it is like this. However, GOD loves muslems, hindus, budhists, etc as much as he loves christians, and HE wants us all saved.

 

[dzheremi]

While I agree in spirit with much of what you said, nonetheless, I am also tempered by the knowledge that the Church Fathers were not unknown to reference and praise particular pronouncements and beliefs of pagan religion, at least (to my knowledge) of the Roman and Greek pantheon : specifically those that were doctrinally or essentially in agreement with Catholic Christianity, particularly those prophecies of theirs that prefigured or foreshadowed a coming Christ-like figure.

Such comparisons between this situation and Islam do not work because Islam cannot have prefigured anything in relation to Christ because Christ was incarnate roughly 600 years before Muhammad ever existed. So all that Muslims have available to them to sustain their anti-Christ belief system is to rewrite history in their image (ta-da! Now Moses is a Muslim, and St. John the Baptist is a Muslim, and Jesus is a Muslim!), which the CCC does its part to help out with by giving them such accolades as this “first among believers” status instead of either outright condemning them for their blasphemies or (the more prudent option not followed) not mentioning them at all since Islam has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nice try, though.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jews - Awaiting an Unknown Messiah (839-840)
Those who have not heard the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.

The Jewish People were the first to hear the Word of God, and their faith is already a response to God’s revelation. To them “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises” (Rom 9:4-5) and “this call of God is irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

The People of God of the Old Covenant and new People of God expect the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. However, the People of the New Covenant await the return of a risen Messiah. The People of the Old Covenant await the coming of a still unknown Messiah, because they do not know or they misunderstand Christ Jesus.

Muslims (841)
God’s plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator. Among these, in the first place, are the Muslims who profess the faith of Abraham and believe in one merciful God as mankind’s judge on the Last Day.

A Common Origin (842)
The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is the common origin and goal of the human race. “All nations stem from one stock and all share a common destiny, namely, God. His providence extends to all” (Second Vatican Council).

Other Religions (843)
The Church recognizes that in other religions there is a search for a God. Any goodness or truth in these religions is a “preparation for the Gospel” (Second Vatican Council).

Possible Mistakes in Religious Behavior (844)
In his religious behavior, man can make mistakes. “Deceived by the Evil One, men have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the creature rather than the Creator. Without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair” (Second Vatican Council).

The Church as Noah’s Ark (845)
The Father wants to reunite all humanity into his Son’s Church. According to St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, the Church was prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saved the world from the flood.

“Outside the Church There is No Salvation” (846)
How do we understand this saying from the Church Fathers? All salvation comes from Christ through his Body, the Church which is necessary for salvation because Christ is present in his Church.

Jesus said, “The man who believes and accepts Baptism will be saved; the man who refuses to believe in it will be condemned” (Mk 16:16). By these words Jesus also affirmed the necessity of the Church, because Baptism is its door to the Church.

Refusing to Enter (847)
Someone who knows the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God and refuses to enter or remain in it, cannot be saved.

…

Also one must read in context the Catechism. For example thers no Salvation for those section 841 or any other section without an acknowledgment of 846?

The debate if Islam worships the same deity is a Christian heresy or in fact worships the Pagan God sin? Really makes no difference. How could it, salvation as in 846 is my point? With no Baptism or belief in Christ and the church which is the Mystical Body of Christ, there is no Salvation.

How do the Jews fit into this Salvation? Its an unknown at this date. Yet this is the same God they worship. But to deny Christ whom Judaism also undeerstands is 100% correct in His teaching of the Old Testament is an unknown.

In truth this may be playing out before our very eyes. Christians are flocking to Israel as I type becuase of attocitys from Islam in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and other areas. So who knows what Gods plan is. But there was No Salvation outside that Ark. And theres No Salvation outside that Church.

 

[Timothy17]

Such comparisons between this situation and Islam do not work because Islam cannot have prefigured anything in relation to Christ because Christ was incarnate roughly 600 years before Muhammad ever existed. So all that Muslims have available to them to sustain their anti-Christ belief system is to rewrite history in their image (ta-da! Now Moses is a Muslim, and St. John the Baptist is a Muslim, and Jesus is a Muslim!), which the CCC does its part to help out with by giving them such accolades as this “first among believers” status instead of either outright condemning them for their blasphemies or (the more prudent option not followed) not mentioning them at all since Islam has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nice try, though.

Fine. I shall put this challenge, then, to your imagination : you, using your logic expressed here, convert the Mulsim world, while I, using the logic I expressed, attempt the same : which, frankly, do you believe will reap the most fruit for Christ ? Your system combats and distances ; mine (based on the Church’s teaching), engages and draws in, and although there is undoubtedly merit in both, nonetheless, practical reality and Church History favours the latter system. Or what do you think of the Saintly and Illustrious Apostle’s practice of becoming like all men, that he may win all men to Christ ? What do you think our glorious Apostle meant ? Did not he and Peter succesfully convert those Romans who would profess the Faith that would convert not only that mighty city, but also the Imperial Household therein, then the entire empire and, later finally, even those pagans beyond who were the unplacable enemies of that empire ? The Roman Empire fell into ashes and dust ; the Catholic Faith, living, yet still Triumphed, and continued.

Pax,
Tim

 

[GaryTaylor]

Such comparisons between this situation and Islam do not work because Islam cannot have prefigured anything in relation to Christ because Christ was incarnate roughly 600 years before Muhammad ever existed. So all that Muslims have available to them to sustain their anti-Christ belief system is to rewrite history in their image (ta-da! Now Moses is a Muslim, and St. John the Baptist is a Muslim, and Jesus is a Muslim!), which the CCC does its part to help out with by giving them such accolades as this “first among believers” status instead of either outright condemning them for their blasphemies or (the more prudent option not followed) not mentioning them at all since Islam has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nice try, though.

I hear you,

You know what we have is a fundemantal misunderstanding of the middle east. We have those who have never been outside the bubble of their life which may be “Billings Montana” for those a lack of understanding in interpretation could be easily understood through distorted information on the internet and the media.

Then there are those who have witnessed the attrocity of Islam first hand. For those the deception is not so distorted. Truth becomes much clearer.

Personally I don’t believe Islam worships the same God as Christians. Personally I believe the Salvation for Islam comes through the understanding and graduating of learned behavior. Easier said than done, especially under present situations. Thus in comprehending who Jesus Christ thus God and the Holy Spirit truly are.

I view Mohammad in a very different way. I see a General who conquered and adopted as he saw fit to meet the needs of himself first and abtain a following second through a belief which he could control. Being He is the one with the greatest understanding. So what becomes of his best interest also beomes of best interest for his followers.

First off to assume Mohammad is anything but a man “be it a great General” is a misconception. There is no Divinity present here. Divinity becomes a misconception through triumphs of War. Which easily could be done. And Christian heresy becomes a reality through the travels and misunderstandings of Mohammad. And one who puts many accomplishments as such under his belt, often becomes corrupt in thinking. No different than the Pharohs of Egypt who in essense many thought they themselves were Gods.

And Islam claims through genetics a direct line to Abraham which isn’t proven.

Do you see this differently?

 

[dzheremi]

Fine. I shall put this challenge, then, to your imagination : you, using your logic expressed here, convert the Mulsim world, while I, using the logic I expressed, attempt the same : which, frankly, do you believe will reap the most fruit for Christ ?

It depends on how you look at it. Which do you think actually requires them to believe in Christ, as all are required to do for their salvation?

Your system combats and distances ;

My “system”? Oh brother…

mine (based on the Church’s teaching), engages and draws in,

Yes, but it is ultimately based on a false notion, so I’d much rather engage in reality-based apologetics, as in the reality of the risen Christ and the absolute necessity of belief in Him, as the Holy Bible and the church traditions tell us.

and although there is undoubtedly merit in both, nonetheless, practical reality and Church History favours the latter system.

“Practical reality”, I take it, is a euphemism for realpolitik. Fair enough; similar concerns have led to some interesting twists and turns in Christian history, none of which I am so righteous as to condemn. I will say, however, that when such concerns lead us (laypeople, clergy, Popes, or any other Christians) to compromise the truth, I have no choice but to condemn those particular instances. I think it can be reasonably argued that CCC 841 and the attitudes built upon such an understanding constitute such a compromise of the truth (which, remember, is personified completely in Christ, as God’s Word is pure truth), so I refuse to follow them, no matter how well-argued or well-intentioned they can be.

Or what do you think of the Saintly and Illustrious Apostle’s practice of becoming like all men, that he may win all men to Christ ? What do you think our glorious Apostle meant ?

I’ll tell you what I don’t think he meant: Blessing heresy and blasphemy.

Did not he and Peter succesfully convert those Romans who would profess the Faith that would convert not only that mighty city, but also the Imperial Household therein, then the entire empire and, later finally, even those pagans beyond who were the unplacable enemies of that empire ?

Yes, the non-believers were converted by the powerful witness to the truth provided by the Apostles. Same happened in Egypt (St. Mark), India (St. Thomas), etc. What is your point here? “The ends justify the means”? In the case of the apostles, the ends and the means were one in the same: The truth of Christ and the Christian religion. I am not seeing either of those things in CCC 841, which lauds Islam and places Muslims by virtue of their fidelity to a supposedly-monotheistic faith as “first among” believers in the one true God who they explicitly deny in denying the divinity of Only Begotten, the reality and salvific power of the Cross, etc. It doesn’t add up, and no amount of appeals to Christian tradition will make it acceptable to me, because it is clearly outside the bounds of that tradition.

 

[Timothy17]

It depends on how you look at it. Which do you think actually requires them to believe in Christ, as all are required to do for their salvation?

I will reply in keeping with my original challenge : which do you believe is more likely to be efficacious in someone’s conversion : i) demonstrating from their own purported beliefs (religion) the necessity of believing in Christ or ii) only asserting the necessity. I do not, I repeat, deny the merit of either, what I am advocating is the greater efficaciousness of the former in practice.

My “system”? Oh brother…

A poor choice of words, I admit. Sometimes I sift my mind and, unable to produce the desired one, insert a poor substitute, especially when I am mentally fatigued.

Yes, but it is ultimately based on a false notion, so I’d much rather engage in reality-based apologetics, as in the reality of the risen Christ and the absolute necessity of belief in Him, as the Holy Bible and the church traditions tell us.

Alright, but please see the difficulty I am having considering your next point (in a following paragraph) is to disparage any **realpolitik (reality-based) thinking. I agree, “reality-based” for a Catholic must be informed by, and in keeping with, the Faith.

As to your allegation of a false notion : I believe this is the heart of our impasse, owing more to a poverty of words than to a real disagreement. I do not believe that you believe it is a false notion to engage false religions for the purpose of their conversion ; after all, the City of God by Saint Augustine is perhaps the most famous apologetic ever written for Catholicism, and it does just that. In that great work, Saint Augustine does what I advocate (and I advocate for this because of that) insomuch that he directly engages other false religions or systems of beliefs, etc., and i) refutes (not merely condemns) their errors, and ii) often demonstrates from their [the pagans and false-philosophers] own religions and beliefs the Truths of Christ and His Church, thus also embarassing them by removing the very foundations they claimed to stand upon.

“Practical reality”, I take it, is a euphemism for realpolitik. Fair enough; similar concerns have led to some interesting twists and turns in Christian history, none of which I am so righteous as to condemn. I will say, however, that when such concerns lead us (laypeople, clergy, Popes, or any other Christians) to compromise the truth, I have no choice but to condemn those particular instances. I think it can be reasonably argued that CCC 841 and the attitudes built upon such an understanding constitute such a compromise of the truth (which, remember, is personified completely in Christ, as God’s Word is pure truth), so I refuse to follow them, no matter how well-argued or well-intentioned they can be.

I understand, but I also believe a convert from paganism, for example, at the time of Saint Augstine would similarly be repulsed by that great Saint’s own method of using things and practices from competiting and false religions to demonstrate the Truth of our own ; nonetheless, he did, and then the Church made him a Saint and Doctor of the Church.

I’ll tell you what I don’t think he meant: Blessing heresy and blasphemy.

Such an interpretation is undoubtedly false. I agree, if someone were to come to the conclusion that the Church teaches we ought to bless actual heresy or blasphemy then they are most certainly in error.

Yes, the non-believers were converted by the powerful witness to the truth provided by the Apostles. Same happened in Egypt (St. Mark), India (St. Thomas), etc. What is your point here? “The ends justify the means”? In the case of the apostles, the ends and the means were one in the same: The truth of Christ and the Christian religion. I am not seeing either of those things in CCC 841, which lauds Islam and places Muslims by virtue of their fidelity to a supposedly-monotheistic faith as “first among” believers in the one true God who they explicitly deny in denying the divinity of Only Begotten, the reality and salvific power of the Cross, etc. It doesn’t add up, and no amount of appeals to Christian tradition will make it acceptable to me, because it is clearly outside the bounds of that tradition.

I agree that the means do not always justify the ends. As Catholics, we are never permitted to do evil in order to accomplish good. What I am arguing is that succesful, efficacious dialogue (not mere conversation) and apologetics can be efficacious to the salvation of souls if done authentically, accurately, safely, truly, etc. Never can we compromise the Truth of our religion ; nonetheless, I do believe the Church is instructing her children, especially her shepherds and apologists, to actively engage other religions and those of heterodox opinion so as to win them to Christ. Undoubtedly, many will do so badly, erroneously, etc. ; nonetheless, if even one or two succeed efficaciously following saintly principles, then the reward would be great : it would beget the double-boon of at once defending our faith while also exposing the errors of others while winning and keeping souls for Christ.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Deconi]

I couldn’t disagree with you more. I think you’re referring to “nominal” Jews. Orthodox Jews have far more in common heritage-wise and theologically-speaking than Muslims. I can’t for the life of me understand where you’re coming from in saying this?

The explanation and analysis of the snippet you have issues with has been explained by others that succinctly point out that EVERY man and EVERYTHING is included in the Plan of salvation.

Islam is not salvific. Judaism is not salvific.
Islam has had no direct revelations other than what The Church had proclaimed from Her infancy. Yet, they have ‘discovered’ God! Labouring in its search for truth, Islam has settled and ACCEPTED that there is ONLY ONE GOD! Suffering, in part, due to the limitations of the human mind, and starved of Apostolic teaching, Islam yet believes that Jesus is a prophet; a Holy man, born of a virgin woman, but cannot be God for no-one has convinced them that God was made flesh. As a Christian, that is part of your mission to your ‘brothers’ made in the image of of The Most High, as you are!

The Jews (Judaism) on the other hand have ALL of revelations, OT and NT, at their disposal. YET, they REJECTED Him when He arrived. From among them rose The Messiah they awaited, yet they deny Him! In some respect, Judaism is the worst enemy of The Church because THEY BOTH KNOW EACH OTHER SO WELL AS ONLY TWO BROTHERS CAN!

Contrast the two. One searches for God and discovered Him almost completely through reason but as yet do not know His Name!

The other followed all His prophecies and the announcement of His arrival, celebrated Him and then REJECTED Him when He didn’t do as they THOUGHT He was supposed to do.

Which is closer?

Remember too that The Promise was made to Abraham! All who profess that he is their spiritual and anscestoral father are INCLUDED in that promise.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Here’s what I see summing up all the arguments…

Many Catholics in here are repulsed and distrubed by 841 just like me (glad I’m not alone!)

Some people in here think Allah and the God of Christianity are the same God simply because they folks claim to cling to Abraham.

Comparisons are being made between Allah and the modern Jewish belief in Yaweah and the logic is that since both deny Christ in the Trinitarian character of God, then both must be rejected and since no rational person would deny the importance of Judaism, we somehow must needs include Islam in our respect and reverence. I say poppycock. The God Allah is, as dzeremi pointed out, a post-Christian God and a hodge-podge of Muhammad’s meetings and interactions with Christians and Jews from his bedouin days as a trader with his wife, Khadijah. Muhammad interacted with the “People of the Book” and gots bits and pieces. These bits were combined with a healthy dose of his own take on things and uninspired egomania to make a new god, Allah. Allah is not like Yaweah in that he is a monotheistic god but he is a created god, created in the mind of Muhammad. It would be like another country claiming to revere and follow the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson in their political and governmental sensibilities and yet the make phony claims about Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was black, he was born in Canada, he was homosexual, and he was a blacksmith. He was a major Patriot, played a huge role in the building of the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights, was a deist, favored relations with the French, and was an excellent President who believed in democracy and freedom. Ok, there’s some truth in there but a pack of heavy duty lies. Do I really know Thomas Jefferson just because I can name him and a few facts? Don’t the lies really slander him and make him someone else? Can I claim to respect a person I morphed into someone else?

Allah is not Yaweah. As Dzeremi pointed out eloquently, Our Lord says that being a Son of Abraham is not fast ticket to salvation or being part of the salvation plan?

The Church didn’t need to put this in the catechism, many of us have agreed.

The Church makes this very vague and open to interpretation but it is phrased very POSITIVELY in favor of a cozy relationship with Islam.

Some have stated that since the 841 statements say the Muslims “profess” to be Abrahamic that that somehow means the Church is saying almost sarcastically “they claim…” and yet after this “profess” statement the catechism goes on to say “and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” This is not a negative statement and it’s not consistent with the assertion that they’re being doubtful or cynical about “profession.”

I believe the Church thinks they worship the same God that we do. And it seems they are given first dibs on God for not being Christians. I would think about what Our Saviour says, "If they are not against us, they are for us."
Does that statement apply to Islam? Islam IS AGAINST US! One doesn’t need a rock to the forehead to figure that out. Look at the last decade of Islam worldwide…They are against us. I would say that Judaism is far friendlier to Christianity. Heck, Hinduism is friendlier!

Monotheism and Abraham a true God does not make.

I still find this passage highly troublesome

 

[dzheremi]

I will reply in keeping with my original challenge : which do you believe is more likely to be efficacious in someone’s conversion : i) demonstrating from their own purported beliefs (religion) the necessity of believing in Christ or ii) only asserting the necessity. I do not, I repeat, deny the merit of either, what I am advocating is the greater efficaciousness of the former in practice.

And what makes you think that CCC 841 embodies (i)? Are you reading a different passage than I am? I see nothing that demonstrates the need for Muslims to believe in Christ in this passage. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it praises Islam in the strangest manner, no doubt while being fully aware of Islam’s claims regarding Christ. So what’s all this about “efficaciousness”? What’s efficacious about playing horseshoes with Christ-deniers? Better yet, where does the truth fit in here?

Alright, but please see the difficulty I am having considering your next point (in a following paragraph) is to disparage any **realpolitik (reality-based) thinking. I agree, “reality-based” for a Catholic must be informed by, and in keeping with, the Faith.

The faith is the only reality to be prioritized in religious dialogue with non-Christians. As has been written here in the past regarding the Jews’ offense at what they see as a renewed call for conversion to Christianity on the part of Rome: Well, what did they expect that talks with Rome would be centered on? Food? Same to the Muslims: Come to Christ. Islam and Muhammad and the “'Isa ibn Mariam” of the Qur’an are no substitute for the life-giving Only Begotten of the Father. There is but one choice to make.

Since your viewpoint seems to revolve around questions of efficacy in relation to what you see as overly aggressive methods, I think the example of Zakariya Butros may be of some interest to you. My own relations with Muslims do not often reach this level of, um…boldness…on my part (I would not be a good Coptic priest…), but you cannot say that Fr. Butros is not effective in reaching Muslims and the Islamic world!

As to your allegation of a false notion : I believe this is the heart of our impasse, owing more to a poverty of words than to a real disagreement.

No, no my friend. Hear me, please: I really do disagree with CCC 841 and the Roman Catholic Church. I have spent literally months and months trying to find some other avenue to take, to preserve my faith in Roman Catholicism and apostolic Christian teaching, but ultimately found them incompatible. They are not one and the same, though those in union with Rome obviously disagree with this conclusion.

I do not believe that you believe it is a false notion to engage false religions for the purpose of their conversion

That’s good, because that’s not even close to what I’ve written here.

What I am arguing is that succesful, efficacious dialogue (not mere conversation) and apologetics can be efficacious to the salvation of souls if done authentically, accurately, safely, truly, etc. Never can we compromise the Truth of our religion ; nonetheless, I do believe the Church is instructing her children, especially her shepherds and apologists, to actively engage other religions and those of heterodox opinion so as to win them to Christ. Undoubtedly, many will do so badly, erroneously, etc. ; nonetheless, if even one or two succeed efficaciously following saintly principles, then the reward would be great : it would beget the double-boon of at once defending our faith while also exposing the errors of others while winning and keeping souls for Christ.

And what I am advancing is the idea that in reality the Roman Catholic Church does not follow the evangelical principles you ascribe to it. Obviously you disagree. This is why you are Catholic and why I am not.

Pax,
Tim

W alaykum al-s…er…et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Respectfully, Deconi, this is absurd. You are saying that since the Muslims at least afford Jesus “some” respect and recognition and being Virgin-born, then they’re closer to us than the Jews? What’s worse–to reject Jesus (jews) or to take Jesus and turn him into a sock puppet that supposedly didn’t die on the cross, hates (supposedly) what the Christian community did to him elevating him to a Son of God, and who promises to judge Christians to hell on the Last Day!? (Muslims)???

They’re both absurd. Rejection of Christ and putting false and sickening words into His divine mouth are equally blasphemous and outlandish. They both offend Christ’s dignity.

Read my last post: Christ says, “if they are not against us, they are for us.”

At least Israel and Jews generally are supportive of Christians and democracy and friendly to Catholicism as well. Can the same be said of Islam? Answer is heck no!

Judaism at least pre-existed Christianity. Islam is a post-Christian bastardization of the faith that uses Christ to judge US someday!??? It even twists the Original Sin narrative as a good thing!? It warps most of salvation history into a mess.

I can’t get on board with ya on this one, my brother…

The explanation and analysis of the snippet you have issues with has been explained by others that succinctly point out that EVERY man and EVERYTHING is included in the Plan of salvation.

Islam is not salvific. Judaism is not salvific.
Islam has had no direct revelations other than what The Church had proclaimed from Her infancy. Yet, they have ‘discovered’ God! Labouring in its search for truth, Islam has settled and ACCEPTED that there is ONLY ONE GOD! Suffering, in part, due to the limitations of the human mind, and starved of Apostolic teaching, Islam yet believes that Jesus is a prophet; a Holy man, born of a virgin woman, but cannot be God for no-one has convinced them that God was made flesh. As a Christian, that is part of your mission to your ‘brothers’ made in the image of of The Most High, as you are!

The Jews (Judaism) on the other hand have ALL of revelations, OT and NT, at their disposal. YET, they REJECTED Him when He arrived. From among them rose The Messiah they awaited, yet they deny Him! In some respect, Judaism is the worst enemy of The Church because THEY BOTH KNOW EACH OTHER SO WELL AS ONLY TWO BROTHERS CAN!

Contrast the two. One searches for God and discovered Him almost completely through reason but as yet do not know His Name!

The other followed all His prophecies and the announcement of His arrival, celebrated Him and then REJECTED Him when He didn’t do as they THOUGHT He was supposed to do.

Which is closer?

Remember too that The Promise was made to Abraham! All who profess that he is their spiritual and anscestoral father are INCLUDED in that promise.

 

[dzheremi]

And what makes you think that CCC 841 embodies (i)? Are you reading a different passage than I am? I see nothing that demonstrates the need for Muslims to believe in Christ in this passage. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it praises Islam in the strangest manner, no doubt while being fully aware of Islam’s claims regarding Christ. So what’s all this about “efficaciousness”? What’s efficacious about playing horseshoes with Christ-deniers? Better yet, where does the truth fit in here?

The faith is the only reality to be prioritized in religious dialogue with non-Christians. As has been written here in the past regarding the Jews’ offense at what they see as a renewed call for conversion to Christianity on the part of Rome: Well, what did they expect that talks with Rome would be centered on? Food? Same to the Muslims: Come to Christ. Islam and Muhammad and the “'Isa ibn Mariam” of the Qur’an are no substitute for the life-giving Only Begotten of the Father. There is but one choice to make.

Since your viewpoint seems to revolve around questions of efficacy in relation to what you see as overly aggressive methods, I think the example of Zakariya Butros may be of some interest to you. My own relations with Muslims do not often reach this level of, um…boldness…on my part (I would not be a good Coptic priest…), but you cannot say that Fr. Butros is not effective in reaching Muslims and the Islamic world!

No, no my friend. Hear me, please: I really do disagree with CCC 841 and the Roman Catholic Church. I have spent literally months and months trying to find some other avenue to take, to preserve my faith in Roman Catholicism and apostolic Christian teaching, but ultimately found them incompatible. They are not one and the same, though those in union with Rome obviously disagree with this conclusion.

That’s good, because that’s not even close to what I’ve written here.

And what I am advancing is the idea that in reality the Roman Catholic Church does not follow the evangelical principles you ascribe to it. Obviously you disagree. This is why you are Catholic and why I am not.

W alaykum al-s…er…et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[Timothy17]

Here’s what I see summing up all the arguments…

Many Catholics in here are repulsed and distrubed by 841 just like me (glad I’m not alone!)

Some people in here think Allah and the God of Christianity are the same God simply because they folks claim to cling to Abraham.

Comparisons are being made between Allah and the modern Jewish belief in Yaweah and the logic is that since both deny Christ in the Trinitarian character of God, then both must be rejected and since no rational person would deny the importance of Judaism, we somehow must needs include Islam in our respect and reverence. I say poppycock. The God Allah is, as dzeremi pointed out, a post-Christian God and a hodge-podge of Muhammad’s meetings and interactions with Christians and Jews from his bedouin days as a trader with his wife, Khadijah. Muhammad interacted with the “People of the Book” and gots bits and pieces. These bits were combined with a healthy dose of his own take on things and uninspired egomania to make a new god, Allah. Allah is not like Yaweah in that he is a monotheistic god but he is a created god, created in the mind of Muhammad. It would be like another country claiming to revere and follow the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson in their political and governmental sensibilities and yet the make phony claims about Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was black, he was born in Canada, he was homosexual, and he was a blacksmith. He was a major Patriot, played a huge role in the building of the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights, was a deist, favored relations with the French, and was an excellent President who believed in democracy and freedom. Ok, there’s some truth in there but a pack of heavy duty lies. Do I really know Thomas Jefferson just because I can name him and a few facts? Don’t the lies really slander him and make him someone else? Can I claim to respect a person I morphed into someone else?

Allah is not Yaweah. As Dzeremi pointed out eloquently, Our Lord says that being a Son of Abraham is not fast ticket to salvation or being part of the salvation plan?

The Church didn’t need to put this in the catechism, many of us have agreed.

The Church makes this very vague and open to interpretation but it is phrased very POSITIVELY in favor of a cozy relationship with Islam.

Some have stated that since the 841 statements say the Muslims “profess” to be Abrahamic that that somehow means the Church is saying almost sarcastically “they claim…” and yet after this “profess” statement the catechism goes on to say “and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” This is not a negative statement and it’s not consistent with the assertion that they’re being doubtful or cynical about “profession.”

I believe the Church thinks they worship the same God that we do. And it seems they are given first dibs on God for not being Christians. I would think about what Our Saviour says, “If they are not against us, they are for us.”

Does that statement apply to Islam? Islam IS AGAINST US! One doesn’t need a rock to the forehead to figure that out. Look at the last decade of Islam worldwide…They are against us. I would say that Judaism is far friendlier to Christianity. Heck, Hinduism is friendlier!

Monotheism and Abraham a true God does not make.

I still find this passage highly troublesome

It is troublesome, but so are so many parts of Sacred Scripture, untill we find that there is no contradiction but rather our own errors or misconceptions have led us to false interpretations of Holy Writ.

The Catechism does not say Allah is the Triune God : you, however, are saying it somehow says that. Muhammad is not a prophet in our religion ; therefore, what he constructed is of his own making ; nonetheless, this did not happen outside of God’s Providence, as if in some vacuum of reality. Today, some 1.3 billion persons believe that a man named Abraham was given a promise by God, that Jesus is (at least) a Prophet of God and a Holy Man, and whose mother was a Virgin. They also believe that God is one, merciful, and will judge man on the last day. All of this is true, but is certainly lacking, and that lacking we Catholics can, thanks to God’s grace, provide. Working with this information we can effect conversion and succesful evangelization - we have a starting ground, a beginning to work from.

Muslims profess to believe in the faith of Abraham : we, however, have, carry, know and live that very Faith. Do they desire the faith of Abraham ? Ought they ? Is it evident ? We can thus then demand that they do as Abraham did, and using Abraham as a model, for example, and making recourse to Sacred Scripture, create arguments that put the Muslim to the test, that demand he reconcile his religion to its own claims, lest he become guilty of obvious hipocrisy, and be put to shame. Holy Mother Church has given us the important pieces of information we need to address and deal with Islam and Muslims in order to effect their conversion. In my experience, the Virgin Mary, her honour and dignity, and the correct rendition of the Nativity, is often a soft-spot, as it were, for Muslims and Islam. For whatever strange reason, they seem unwilling to ever cast any doubt or slur upon her, and are receptive to believing the good things about her, and those good things promised to her. From a respect, then love for Mary, they then can look fondly upon Her Son, Christ the Lord, and come to know and love Him, too.

Islam is not salvific. But there are kernels of truth in that religion which, if followed to their logical end, can be salvific. And what is the logical end of all Truth ? Is it not God, His Christ and His Church ? Of course.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Hesychios]

I realize that this is not central to the discussion, but I thought that this was most interesting, I stumbled upon it not long ago.



A planned Lutheran church building and Mosque combination near Stockholm, in Sweden

 

[Bluegoat]

I realize that this is not central to the discussion, but I thought that this was most interesting, I stumbled upon it not long ago.

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/289803_36480_58655.jpg

A planned Lutheran church building and Mosque combination near Stockholm, in Sweden

Seems like an architectural comedown for Muslims and Christians to me.

 

[Carlan]

I think GOD is merciful enough to include everyone in the salvation plan.

However, the most important question is how much each group of those people would stay in the purgatory…

I would say so too Sam, Christisn, Jew, or Muslim, whether they believe it or not must be purified in their thinking if not here below now, then later in that state called Purgatory.
God has his way and we don’t know everything. Peace, Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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.

It is troublesome, but so are so many parts of Sacred Scripture, untill we find that there is no contradiction but rather our own errors or misconceptions have led us to false interpretations of Holy Writ.

The Catechism does not say Allah is the Triune God : you, however, are saying it somehow says that. Muhammad is not a prophet in our religion ; therefore, what he constructed is of his own making ; nonetheless, this did not happen outside of God’s Providence, as if in some vacuum of reality. Today, some 1.3 billion persons believe that a man named Abraham was given a promise by God, that Jesus is (at least) a Prophet of God and a Holy Man, and whose mother was a Virgin. They also believe that God is one, merciful, and will judge man on the last day. All of this is true, but is certainly lacking, and that lacking we Catholics can, thanks to God’s grace, provide. Working with this information we can effect conversion and succesful evangelization - we have a starting ground, a beginning to work from.

Muslims profess to believe in the faith of Abraham : we, however, have, carry, know and live that very Faith. Do they desire the faith of Abraham ? Ought they ? Is it evident ? We can thus then demand that they do as Abraham did, and using Abraham as a model, for example, and making recourse to Sacred Scripture, create arguments that put the Muslim to the test, that demand he reconcile his religion to its own claims, lest he become guilty of obvious hipocrisy, and be put to shame. Holy Mother Church has given us the important pieces of information we need to address and deal with Islam and Muslims in order to effect their conversion. In my experience, the Virgin Mary, her honour and dignity, and the correct rendition of the Nativity, is often a soft-spot, as it were, for Muslims and Islam. For whatever strange reason, they seem unwilling to ever cast any doubt or slur upon her, and are receptive to believing the good things about her, and those good things promised to her. From a respect, then love for Mary, they then can look fondly upon Her Son, Christ the Lord, and come to know and love Him, too.

Islam is not salvific. But there are kernels of truth in that religion which, if followed to their logical end, can be salvific. And what is the logical end of all Truth ? Is it not God, His Christ and His Church ? Of course.

Pax,
Tim

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just an update for all my friends in the non-Catholic religions section, many of you know my grandma has suffered from cancer and a series of strokes. She has been left utterly crippled, virtually comatose, dying in a horrible manner for weeks and weeks now. I went over to visit her today until around 4:30pm. I got the painful phone call from my mom tonight at 6:30pm that she passed away.

We have a VERY small family. It’s basically made up of me, my parents, and grandma and grandpa since I was a kid. Now there’s my wife and three kids. But my family is TINY. Few branches on our tree. Now there’s one less limb. I really miss her. Hearing the phone call just made me wail and fall apart. I was devastated. My grandma’s name is Mary. Please, friends, keep my mom, Sally, grandpa, Glen, and grandma in your prayers. It’s been a lousy day…God bless you all

 

[dzheremi]

I’m so sorry for your loss. I lost my own grandmother back in August. It still hurts a lot. I will keep you and your family in my prayers.