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

[dzheremi]

You may not be a theologian, Gurney, but what you’ve written is much more clear-cut/less ulcer-producing than what is currently in the Catechism. Perhaps you can write to the Vatican with your suggestion?

If I were writing the Catechism, I would’ve left it out entirely, as I am of the view that nothing in Islam is to breach Christian theology and principles (how could it, when Islam came so much later and after all the essential doctrines and beliefs of Christianity were already established?), which is what a catechism is supposed to teach. But if I had to write something to compete with CCC 841, it would probably be similar to what you have written.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. I fully expect someone soon to tell me “so you think you’re wiser than the Vatican!” rrrrrgh! LOL…Honestly I don’t. I am just saying that if they had written it a bit like the way I wrote it, there’d be no controversy.

And also I concur with your analysis of JP II’s kissing of the Koran. I absolutely adored that man throughout his papacy. Truthfully, he played a big part in my reversion to Catholicism in the early 90’s as a young man. And his life was heroic IMO. He was the pope throughout most of my entire life. I found him an inspiration and like a living saint. He wasn’t perfect, though. His naivete regarding the pedophilia going on and the zeal for ecumenism he had drove him to extremes like kissing the Koran, a despicable and horrifying act. I’d rather do anything than kiss a book that denies the divinity of Christ Himself.

I share your perplexity as to WHY Islam was even addressed in the catechism? But then again, I have a lot of concerns about the post-Vatican II Church. Why is there communion in the hand? gag. Why is it permitted to hold hands during the Our Father? Why permit Eucharistic ministers to “bless” kids? Why the loss of incense? Why the laxity? Vatican II has a lot of unintended outcomes, I think. It may have had good intentions, but shoot a heap of negatives flowed out of it IMO. I’m tired of the “Jews are our big brothers!” stuff. It reminds me of how some of the “out there” evangelicals tend to kiss up to Israel and constantly watch what goes on there with this fascination about end times and buttering up Judaism as almost equal to Christianity in salvation history. In some evangelical circles, it’s almost encouraged that Jews don’t need to convert to Christianity because they’re just fine. I’m ok, you’re ok, we’re all saved because we’re “brothers.” The Islam thing seems to not totally say that. It falls short of saying any such thing BUT it butters up Islam too much and saying they’re part of the plan and “first among” bugs me to no end. I wish the Church would send out a disclaimer saying “We apologize for a misprint! The section 841 of our catechism was in error and we’ll issue you a new copy free of charge” like a recall from Ford or Dodge

You may not be a theologian, Gurney, but what you’ve written is much more clear-cut/less ulcer-producing than what is currently in the Catechism. Perhaps you can write to the Vatican with your suggestion?

If I were writing the Catechism, I would’ve left it out entirely, as I am of the view that nothing in Islam is to breach Christian theology and principles (how could it, when Islam came so much later and after all the essential doctrines and beliefs of Christianity were already established?), which is what a catechism is supposed to teach. But if I had to write something to compete with CCC 841, it would probably be similar to what you have written.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I share your perplexity as to WHY Islam was even addressed in the catechism? But then again, I have a lot of concerns about the post-Vatican II Church. Why is there communion in the hand? gag. Why is it permitted to hold hands during the Our Father? Why permit Eucharistic ministers to “bless” kids? Why the loss of incense?

Hey you being good, don’t get legalistic on me……Jesus said suffer not the little children to come unto me…Remember they broke bread with their hands, they met in houses…

BTW your dissertation was excellent…There is a ripe end times mission field…I’ve read of many stories of muslims having dreams/visions of Jesus and repenting…They risk their lives…

 

[Alphaandomega]

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.)

Firstly, if you’re going to rely on traditions, hearsay or what is commonly practised, its not going to get anyway constructive. I do not know arabic as a language, but I believe I know enough about it to make a sound argument of the use of that name. You don’t need to know english as a mother tongue to know God is God.

Secondly, the words ‘the-god’ in arabic is not translated into/as ‘allah’ in the english context. By that admission, the ‘common’ islamic claim that allah is made of 2 particles fails right through.

Finally, uniqueness or definiteness is your own interpretation. Just like there is no such thing as to use Superdeety, when referring to a deity to make it more definite. A deity is a deity. I don’t call dzheremi as dzeromi to make you sound more definite do I?

You arguments are thoroughly baseless.

PS. allah is NOT God.

 

[dzheremi]

Wait a minute…Mosacked, is that you?

Anyway, I’m out of the energy needed to argue with you. Enjoy your crazy evangelical nonsense.

 

[GaryTaylor]

When you are saying that the Catechism should give a clear and definitive definition of God and the Faith as a Religion?

It does exactly that…

What your asking for is a definitive and clear definition of the Islamic Faith and “their” God. Then questioning “why” Islam was placed in the catechism to begin with. Who here could answer that for you best? The Priest could be spoken to here or in your area. And if you so desire I would write a formal letter to the Arch Bishop of your area. And you will get a response.

The Vatican and Bishop of Rome are the last to take your concerns to. The existing problem really has been all but graduated here. The real issue is underlying politics. And the fact Islam has become a world figure in religion. So for whatever reason a light was shined on Islam by those who teach the Catechism. Personally I have my own opinion about Islam. Which BTW I addressed to Pope Benedict.

Could #841 be more clearly defined for “your” benifit? Of course it could. And we now came around to how the “Pope” should have wrote the catechism, that is amazing. Monday morning Quarterbacks and back seat drivers.

 

[jam070406]

Thanks. Isn’t that’s what we are called to?

If anything it is to know that St. Francis was perhaps foremost among the saints that really had a meaningful encounter with Muslims. While the Crusaders used the swords, he stood out by faith. What the Crusaders could not achieve, he at least softened the heart of the sultan to be lenient to the vanquished. The Catholic Church comes with traditions and St. Francis perhaps was in the forefront in showing us how to deal with Muslims.

Yes, and he umambigously conveyed to them that the Catholic Faith was the only One True Faith and was willing to walk through fire to prove it.

I’m not sure where the premise came from that the crusaders were there to “convert” the Muslims. Therefore… I’m not sure one can pit St. Francis against the crusaders.

St. Francis obviously had no problem saying things about their Islamic religion that may have offended them, even if spoken in charity. He was willing to die. He was willing to speak Truth without political correctness or false ecumenism.
So yes, the modern Church could learn from him.

 

[The_Sentry]

I’m not a bishop, a theologian, a theological expert, but this is how I would’ve written it:

Islam has many positive attributes with which Christians can identify: it is monotheistic, it has many similarities with the Holy Bible, and Muslims have a high regard for Jesus and Mary. While Muslims are defective in that they mischarcterize Jesus, see salvation history through a veil, and Allah is not the same God as that of the Christian faith, there is great opportunity to mission to our Muslim neighbors and through God’s mercy may they find salvation through a fuller understanding of who Jesus Christ really is, truly God, truly Man, truly God’s only begotten son. It should be the vocation of Christians to witness to our Muslim friends and draw them closer to the salvation that only Christ can give us. Through invincible ignorance it is possible for Muslims to possibly achieve salvation but no matter what they will be saved through the only name that saves----Jesus Christ.

This is excellent!!!

 

[dzheremi]

When you are saying that the Catechism should give a clear and definitive definition of God and the Faith as a Religion?

It does exactly that…

Okay. And it also includes exhortations on various false religions for some reason. The only reason that has been given in this thread (by Rueben J) is that they exist in the world, so they should be there. I don’t really understand that rationale (as I wrote in one post, there are other religions that are monotheistic that exist in the world but aren’t mentioned in the Catechism, so what gives Islam some special place?), but okay.

What your asking for is a definitive and clear definition of the Islamic Faith and “their” God. Then questioning “why” Islam was placed in the catechism to begin with. Who here could answer that for you best? The Priest could be spoken to here or in your area. And if you so desire I would write a formal letter to the Arch Bishop of your area. And you will get a response.

When I was still struggling to be a Catholic, I did actually ask my priest about this. He went into a bit more detail than most of the responses here, but his argument was basically the same as most given here. I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now.

The Vatican and Bishop of Rome are the last to take your concerns to.

Why’s that? The Vatican obviously approves of the content of the Catechism, including CCC 841. I would think that given the “top-heavy” hierarchy of the Catholic Church, it would make more sense to go to the top with your concerns, if you can (it would also be much harder to get a response, but oh well…at least you’d be doing something).

The existing problem really has been all but graduated here. The real issue is underlying politics. And the fact Islam has become a world figure in religion. So for whatever reason a light was shined on Islam by those who teach the Catechism.

So it is politics that has caused the Catholic Church to cuddle up to Christ-deniers, placing them “first among” believers in our God even as they reject everything about Him that we hold true but an extremely simplistic (and suspicious) affirmation of His Oneness? That’s…good to know, I guess.

Could #841 be more clearly defined for “your” benifit?

Isn’t the individual Catholic who is struggling to conform himself to the will and faith of the Roman Catholic Church exactly the person for whose benefit the Catechism is written? I mean, I know all Catholics use it, but I would think that a clear exposition of the Catholic faith is most needed by those who have a particular issue that they need clarified.

Of course it could.

Well…! Millions of Catholics are waiting, then…

And we now came around to how the “Pope” should have wrote the catechism, that is amazing. Monday morning Quarterbacks and back seat drivers.

Why is “Pope” in quotes? Anyway, yes, Monday morning quarterbacks…but this doesn’t change the fact that Gurney’s replacement paragraph is not open to the myriad of conflicting (and disturbing) interpretations that the current paragraph is. So I do maintain that it is better than what is there, if Islam absolutely must be addressed in the Catechism.

 

[jam070406]

For the past hundred years, emigration or violent deportation have continued to occur from the East. … Are we waiting for the day where the world as a spectator amidst the indifference of the Western Churches will sit back and watch the Death of the Christians of the East? Despite the crises and difficulties that face our Christian life and our ecumenical relations, we still ‘believe, hoping against every hope’.

(ARCHBISHOP BOUTROS MARAYATI OF ALEPPO OF THE ARMENIANS, SYRIA.)

The Christian presence in the Arab world is threatened by the cycles of war afflicting the region, the cradle of Christianity. The main reason is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the fundamentalist movements, Hamas and Hezbollah are consequences of this conflict as well of internal dissension, slowness in development, the rise of hatred, the loss of hope in the young who constitute sixty percent of the population in Arab countries. The emigration of Christians is among the most dangerous effects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: emigration which will make Arab society a society of only one colour, Muslim, faced with a European society identified as Christian. Should this happen, should the East be emptied of its Christians, this would mean that any occasion would be propitious for a new clash of cultures, of civilisations and even of religions, a destructive clash between the Muslim Arab East and the Christian West.

(HIS BEATITUDE GREGOIRE III LAHAM B.S., PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH OF THE GREEK-MELKITES, SYRIA.)

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am glad to have found this thread today. Although I am distressed to read that such a passage exists in the catechism, I consider it an artifact of another time and less knowledge of Islam. I cannot support that passage. If that means I am doomed to Hell, well, I guess it’s a problem. The Catechism is not divinely inspired, like the books of the Bible, though. So I think I will keep to what I know of Islam to be true. Allah is not God. Muslims do not believe in Jesus or the Trinity. Islam is responsible for millions of deaths on this planet, and the goal is the total domination of the world through violent or nonviolent means. Whatever Muslims practice in private, their own book the Koran tells them to kill infidels (all who do not believe in Allah and profess it). Over 16,000 people have been killed in the name of Allah just since 9/11/2001. thereligionofpeace.com/

I have read and am reading several books about Mohammed and the false religion he began, and since 9/11, we’ve learned so much more about Islam than we ever knew or wanted to know before that day.

The Catechism should be changed. That’s my stand and that’s going to remain my stand. Am I still a Catholic?

 

[Hiskid1973]

That’s good people don’t see it as inspired…It sorta begs the question, what else is in there that isn’t kosher…

 

[dzheremi]

(HIS BEATITUDE GREGOIRE III LAHAM B.S., PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH OF THE GREEK-MELKITES, SYRIA.)

HB Lahham is, I’m sorry to say, something of an Islamic sycophant. See, for instance, his comments in this article in Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper wherein he parrots Islamic paranoia about “Zionist conspiracies” against Islam.

In my personal opinion, if Christianity is extinguished in the Middle East, we will have men like Mr. Lahham to thank for helping it along to its death. His chumminess with Islamic reflexes under the banner of pan-Arabism is very distressing (and unfortunately a very well-known tendency in Arab Christianity, both Orthodox and Catholic; cf. George Habash, Michel Aflaq, etc). I know many Christian Arabs (and non-Arabs) who support Palestine without resorting to such boot-licking and, frankly, craziness. Are we Christians first, or are we first Europeans, Arabs, Latinos, Asians, etc.? I think the Gospel has the answer: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28)

 

[Timothy17]

The Catechism should be changed. That’s my stand and that’s going to remain my stand. Am I still a Catholic?

Dear TheRealJuliane,

Please note : i) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its own foreword, expressly declares that it is meant as a help for catechists, and in so wise is intended to replace or supplant any already existing Catechism(s) in use by the local Diocese (e.g., the oft cited Baltimore Catechism) ; ii), the Catechism itself is always changeable in-so-much as it is a tool for teaching the Fath. (The present CCC is a relatively new one, and has been revised many times to better reflect the Latin original, as an example. For this reason I had two copies, each already inclusive of a list of changes from past versions, and the reasoning therefor.)

To put it in a nutshell, the present Catechism of the Catholic Church exists because the Church wanted it to be changed. Desiring that the Catechism better reflects, represents or teaches the One True Faith is no sin at all, in my opinion : the whole point and purpose of the Catechism is to articulate that very desire. Nonetheless, it is ultimately subject to the Church’s Magisterium. The dangerous ground, however, might be when we claim to desire the Truth and - having received it - reject it. At minimum, we must have Faith that the Faith the Church wishes to present or articulate is the True Faith, though we understand it badly at points or times, perhaps owing in some part to poor instruction, articulation (i.e., human error, whether our own or anothers).

Pax,
Tim

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would agree that the catechism is de fide. And I hope indeed you’re correct that it’s subject to change! Pan-Islam is taking over this planet not only with huge birth numbers and emigration to Christian countries, but now Western governments/culture are pandering to them so much. We’re at a time where there is a real clash of religious civilizations. This is no time to pander. We don’t need reckless provocation and raised tensions but we need people like the Pope and cardinals to draw a line in the sand about salvation. Salvation is through Christ alone and to water things down with “we’re all related to Abraham” in a group hug is unnecessary and actually damaging. And when popes kiss Korans, it also loses credibility and respect toward Catholicism among Protestants. Westerners, especially Americans, tend to feel sorry for the badguys sometimes in a misplaced attempt to show fairness and charity. We sympathize with perps rather than victims because we figure plenty of people feel sorry for the victims and the perps need some love…Reagan and Thatcher and John Paul II called Communism evil, resisted it, fought it, and it fell for the most part and now it’s a relic except for a few countries that aren’t that powerful. The Church is fighting abortion, homosexual “marriage,” unethical medical practices like in vitro and embryonic stem cell research, etc. They’re excelling in those departments and showing leadership. When I see such lofty and friendly language like 841 toward Islam, it’s a departure from the strong stances I mentioned. It’s a mistake…

Dear TheRealJuliane,

Please note : i) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its own foreword, expressly declares that it is meant as a help for catechists, and in so wise is intended to replace or supplant any already existing Catechism(s) in use by the local Diocese (e.g., the oft cited Baltimore Catechism) ; ii), the Catechism itself is always changeable in-so-much as it is a tool for teaching the Fath. (The present CCC is a relatively new one, and has been revised many times to better reflect the Latin original, as an example. For this reason I had two copies, each already inclusive of a list of changes from past versions, and the reasoning therefor.)

To put it in a nutshell, the present Catechism of the Catholic Church exists because the Church wanted it to be changed. Desiring that the Catechism better reflects, represents or teaches the One True Faith is no sin at all, in my opinion : the whole point and purpose of the Catechism is to articulate that very desire. Nonetheless, it is ultimately subject to the Church’s Magisterium. The dangerous ground, however, might be when we claim to desire the Truth and - having received it - reject it. At minimum, we must have Faith that the Faith the Church wishes to present or articulate is the True Faith, though we understand it badly at points or times, perhaps owing in some part to poor instruction, articulation (i.e., human error, whether our own or anothers).

Pax,
Tim

 

[Hiskid1973]

"Pope and cardinals to draw a line in the sand about salvation. Salvation is through Christ alone and to water things down with “we’re all related to Abraham” in a group hug is unnecessary and actually damaging. And when popes kiss Korans, it also loses credibility and respect toward Catholicism among Protestants. "

You got that right…I couldn’t believe that when I saw it either…I remember being in discussions about it…Catholic brethren were even put aback…I remember comments about it being airbrushed in…I imagine taking a stand against it will cause alot of flack but persecution for the cause of righteousness has been i our history and occurs even now…Everything is in place for our prophetic future and His return…

 

[Timothy17]

Another effort for my argument :* St. Paul at the Areopagus *:

[22] But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. [23] For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:

"…What therefore you worship, without knowing it

Paul asserts that even the pagans worshipped the True God “without knowing it.” Now let’s compare this declaration of St. Paul, preserved forever to Holy Writ, and spoken and recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to CCC 841, Line 4 :

".…and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Now St. Paul went so far as to say superstitious pagans worshipped God, though “without knowing it.” Holy Mother Church teaches that Muslims “adore … God.” St. Paul said pagans worship God sometimes, Holy Mother Church teaches that Muslims adore him.

Continuing, let’s see if in this preaching of the St. Paul we find any other relevant statements :

[24] God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth… it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:

Certainly this long formula of St. Paul is exactly what we Christians mean when we say “the Creator.” Now St. Paul preaches this part without stating whether or not some, all or none of the Athenians (and strangers among them) believed this, as he did previously when he said the men of Athens believed in the unknown God. He is, therefore, possibly affirming the beliefs of some in the audience, while informing others of what to believe. Now let’s look again at the CCC, Line 1 :

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator…

So far we see the Catechism and St. Paul’s preaching at the Areopagus to be in agreement. St. Paul’s very preaching to the pagans of Athens is proof that those who either do or are willing to “acknowledge the Creator,” are also part of “the plan of slavation.” This shouldn’t be surprising or even offensive. Most of our ancestors were pagans who worshipped things that today would not make us *a little *embarassed, yet “God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance,” as St. Paul preached, which clearly shows that God desires saintly men to preach thus truth to men “of this ignorance,” so that “all should everywhere do penance.”

[28] For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. [29] Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man. [30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance.

"…as some also *of your own *… said…

Here St. Paul uses the Greek poets, whose writings were religious, and the closest they had to sacred scripture, even though these were all pagans and the majority of their writings perversions and confusions ; nonetheless, in them were kernels of truth, as St Paul points out. Now let’s look at the CCC, Line 3 :

"…these * profess to hold the faith of Abraham…

And while they do not actually have that Faith ; nonetheless, they do have - as also the ancient Greek poets sometimes did - kernels of truth that point to the True Faith, Worship and Religion of and in Christ Jesus.

So now we can do as St. Paul did, and sift out the Truth (“as some also of your own poets said: For we are also [God’s] offspring”) and condemn the errors (“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious”), and in this manner dialogue with the Muslims toward, God-willing, their conversion and general evangelization. Many will care less or put it off to tomorrow, but some will hear, and “adhering to him… believe.”

I hope this suffices to demonstrate the reasoning for my belief that CCC 841 should be understood principally in a context of Catholic evangelization and apologetics ; furthermore, the previous post that mentions St. Francis of Assisi’s conduct toward the Saracen Muslims seems to me be well in keeping also with St. Paul’s Areopagus preaching :

Burning with zeal for the conversion of the Saracens

, he desired to pass to their camp, though he was warned that there was a price on the head of every Christian. Permission was given him by the papal legate and he went with Brother Illuminato among the infidels, crying out, “Sultan! Sultan!” Being brought before Malek al-Kamil and asked his errand, he said boldly, "I am sent not by men but by the most high God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the gospel".

Discussion followed, and other audiences…

Pax,
Tim*

 

[Hiskid1973]

“Quote:
[22] But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. [23] For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:”

Good verse yes Paul gave them the truth…He didn’t pander to them…He took a lot of heat for taking a stand and telling the truth…They need to hear the truth and the people need to know
it is against the gospel instead of flowery words…No one group has any special in to the gospel
each individual has to chose who he will serve…Hence the great commission…We are to be ready in season and out to spread His message of redemption…One exception is the apple of His eye…He has an end time plan for them…Right now they are a burdensome stone…

 

[Timothy17]

Dear TheRealJuliane,

Please note : i) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its own foreword, expressly declares that it is meant as a help for catechists, **and in no wise **is intended to replace or supplant any already existing Catechism(s) in use by the local Diocese (e.g., the oft cited Baltimore Catechism) ; ii), the Catechism itself is always changeable in-so-much as it is a tool for teaching the Fath. (The present CCC is a relatively new one, and has been revised many times to better reflect the Latin original, as an example. For this reason I had two copies, each already inclusive of a list of changes from past versions, and the reasoning therefor.)

Please note my important correction in red and bold text. It originally read, “and in so wise…,” which is totally opposite the meaning I meant it to have. Mea culpa. That was a very serious typo !

Pax,
Tim

 

[Reuben_J]

Okay. And it also includes exhortations on various false religions for some reason. The only reason that has been given in this thread (by Rueben J) is that they exist in the world, so they should be there. I don’t really understand that rationale (as I wrote in one post, there are other religions that are monotheistic that exist in the world but aren’t mentioned in the Catechism, so what gives Islam some special place?), but okay.

It would be an unfair critique of the CCC to say that Islam is mentioned there while others are not. Of course the proponent of this stance wants Islam not to be mentioned at all. Or if it is mentioned then we have to mention other religions too.

The CCC is NOT about other religions but about Catholicism. As has been explained the crux of the matter is how Catholics should use the CCC. The CCC should help us to understand the faith, live it and also how we should relate to people around us. Sections like 841 falls into the latter category. It is not just about Islam but the spirit behind it – in this case it’s about according respect and dignity to others. Basically people whom Catholics have to relate to can be roughly arranged in the following order: Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, other religions and atheists.

The message of the Gospel is not changed by the inclusion of Islam in the CCC. It is still to spread the Good News to all people and to baptize them. We cannot expect to baptize the Muslims if we are not even able to talk to them.

The ultimate aim of the Church would be to have all people as brothers and sisters in the Lord. At the moment we can only do that in the real sense of the faith among Catholics and those in communion with Rome. Then we have other Christians where we share the same belief in the Trinity but have differences in going about it. Then the Muslims. Then other monotheistic religions, other religions and finally the atheists.

A meaningful brother and the sisterhood in Christ can only be achieved when all believe in the same faith. The Council of Vatican Two saw the fractured reality of people of different faith. Even though the ultimate aim is to form a One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for all mankind, she is aware of the present reality. The Church fathers therefore saw the need for renewed evangelization and ecumenism until all shall be one or when Christ is proclaimed to all.

The additions in the CCC reflect this new reality and spells out its teaching accordingly. As far as Islam is concerned, it teaches Catholics to see Muslims as people who believe in a Creator God and therefore they are not totally alien to them. Catholics should see them from the lens of this common ground and hope one day we can become as true brothers and sisters in the Lord.

A few years back as I was participating in a discussion in this Forum about whether Muslims worship the same God as us and my answer was emphatically no. Islamic Allah sickens me and I thought the CCC has it all wrong. Funny though it’s through discussing this topic here that I began to see the wisdom of the CCC and now instead of repulsing me, it makes my faith in the CCC even stronger. We need to see the Muslims as people who genuinely seeking to worship the creator and that their intention is good. Our part would be to inform them where they err about this One God and to witness Christ to them as the true Savior for all. Never mind about the atrocity that they committed against us. CCC 841 has put us in a right direction and we should start from there.