You cannot say this blog shirks the big issues. Last week we majored on hell, and, on the way there, the question of whether Muslims and Catholics worship the same God found itself somehow attached to the handcart, whence it has continued to rattle on in the comments boxes. Let me begin this survey with a link to a list of statements by the Catholic Church. The key text here is Nostra Aetate which states:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
It is sometimes said that the fact that CCC 841 states Muslims ‘profess’ the same faith as Abraham should be read in a conditional way – as though what it is really saying is ‘well, they claim they do … but …’. Had the Church wished to say that, it would have done so. It does not do so. Dr Taylor Marshall makes a valiant attempt to major on this point, but in so doing slides away from the statement that we both ‘adore the one, merciful God’. He offers a good analogy from Aquinas, but since no Magisterial statement has used it, that is his opinion; set against that long list of Papal and Magisterial statements, this is a valiant attempt, and, as we shall see, has something in it. But it does not contradict what the Vatican has said about adoring the one God. There is a good piece at Catholic Answers which goes into this very fully, and it is also good on the many doctrinal differences which divide us from Islam. These differences are very important, indeed, critical if we are to understand what the Church teaches.
Given the long history of conflict between our faiths, this is a difficult conclusion for some Christians and some Muslims to accept; the old certainties and hostilities have the comfort brought by familiarity. In the context of recent events, the conclusion that we and the Muslims worship the same God is, for many of us, even more difficult to accept. I have huge problems with this idea, as this post shows, and my doubts are shared by Jessica and Geoffrey, and others here. Our good friends, Dave Smith and Ginny both offer statements such as Dr Marshall’s in evidence, but good though his piece is, it is not an official Vatican statement, and set against that long list of Papal pronouncements, does not outweight them.
Fr Aidan Kimel over at Eclectic Orthodoxy offers us some thoughts on this and an interesting paper to consider for those who want to delve deeper. It is interesting to note that the early Christian Father who commented most knowledgeably on Islam, St John of Damascus, thought it was a Christian heresy. Anyone familiar, as St John of Damascus was, with the Nestorian heresy and with docetism, would have recognised, as he did, elements of both in Islam. This seems to me where Dr Marshall’s Aquinian reservations kick in. Muslims are Monotheists who recognise one God – but they do not recognise His True nature; they have an occulded view of Him. So yes, they do worship the same God, but they are in grave error about Him, as they are about other matters pertaining to salvation.
This line of thinking seems far more profitable (and in line with what the Church has always taught) than the common resort to cries of ‘Novus Ordo heresy’ which one encounters on the Internet when looking up this subject. That post-Vatican II there has been a serious attempt to engage with ecumenism there can be no doubt, and if some of those involved occasionally stray into syncretism, that would not be a surprise, as that is the occupational hazard of that line of work; but there is no reason to conclude that that is where the Church as a whole has ended – or that it is what the statement about us worshipping the same God mean. The Church is not saying that Islam has a true perception of what God is like, just that it worships the One True God, albeit in a way which the Church does not condone.
The bald statement that we adore the ‘One True God’ elicits a visceral rejection and an attempt to explain it away – on the personal assumption it cannot be so. If we resist that temptation and examine what the Church means by this statement, we see a bigger picture. The CDF document Dominus Iesus rejects religious relativism and states clearly that:
Only the revelation of Jesus Christ, therefore, “introduces into our history a universal and ultimate truth which stirs the human mind to ceaseless effort”. |
The often criticised Vatican II Council:
in considering the customs, precepts, and teachings of the other religions, teaches that “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.23 |
That is key to understand what the Church is saying when it says we worship the same God. We do so in the full light of the Resurrection of Christ, others do so less fully. That does not mean there is no merit in other faiths, but:
the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain. |
Christ offered the final revelation of God’s purpose for us. The Christian Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, has developed its understanding of that revelation. Outside of that there can be no certainty of salvation, just as even within it there can be no certainty unless one is repentants and accepts Christ in one’s heart, by faith, with thanksgiving.
Fr Longenecker has some good words on all of this over at his excellent blog, which I commend in closing. Rather than react with our viscera, let us attempt to understand the teaching of the Church. This is my own attempt so to do.
JessicaHof said:
Congratulations on carrying out a difficult task with some aplomb. I do hope that some among us will actually read, and even reread before she comments. :)xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Jess – there are times when one should just not bother I suppose!
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I am sure I speak for many of us when I say I am glad you did. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
Steve Brown said:
Jessica, if the requirement is perfection, then how is Bosco still allowed here. Specifically, to whom are you referring to? Are our ‘off the cuff’ comments not welcome anymore? C, has referenced many articles in this post. Are we to read all before commenting?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I will quiz you on the contents of each link tomorrow night. If you lose, you pay for dinner. If not, you pay anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steve Brown said:
My turn anyway. Thank goodness I don’t have to pull an all-nighter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
You’ll be up all night anyway . . . who are you kidding? When did you wake up? About 4:30 PM?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Of course all comments are welcome – it is just some are more so than others to some of us – I know many struggle with Bosco – and if we were all to read everything before commenting I doubt we’d bother 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You rang?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Excellent, as usual, as I expected. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
I’d like to also add the word “fair” – an excellent and fair piece of writing with a balanced view, which is what I have come to expect from you C. Of course that is only my opinion. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I try to be as fair as I can, even when, as happened here, I started off with one point of view which, as it turned out, was not quite right. Always hard to convince oneself that one needs to adjust ones views!
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Zeke 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
A good job, C in light of the lack of material available which is magisterial.
I wonder if this “false irenicism” line wasn’t placed in the following doctrine due to nature of the quite surprising and skeptical claims about Muslims and even Hindus in the documents.
11. The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.
At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.
Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.(34) ____ DECREE ON ECUMENISM, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
I think we also need to further evaluate the teaching of Pope St. Pius X in his PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS . . . most notably in section 14.
For me, it all seems politically and ecumenically motivated, and the Church has tried to walk a thin edge between a philosophical concept of a creator god and a theological concept of a Christian God, replete with a Divine Savior (necessary for salvation) and Divine Teaching. They seem miles apart to the average Christian and yet there seems to be a act of reconciling and bringing these ideas together in a form that fosters peace (a false peace to be sure).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
“At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.”
A resounding yes!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed. And it seems that since VII it has introduced more questions than it provides answers. The theologians will need grapple with the fallout of this for centuries I fear.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Perhaps the next Pope will report to work carrying a pail of hot soapy water and big mop?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps but I won’t hold my breath on that one either. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
To be fair to V2, which I often don’t feel like being, the questions were and are being asked, and we do, alas, need to get to grips with answers. Rereading Dominus Iesus, which I did last night, reminded once more what a subtle and brilliant intellect Pope Benedict XVI has. The only problem with it is that every paragraph needs reading thrice to make sure you have its real sense!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Due to the current state of worldly affairs, I doubt any truly meaningful anlysis by a theologian on this subject is going to be forthcoming because of the political climate and the real risk of personal harm for people of differing religions in various places. Even Benedict and JPII skirted a full analysis though they were perhaps the best suited to have done so. Alas, our chance to set the record straight has passed for the time being I’m afraid.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
I think that if we read the statements in the light of Dominus Iesus we get the point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’ll read it again and see if that is possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Do – but keep the cold wet towel to hand – and a coffee!
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Dave. I hope it all makes sense. I think that the best expression of it would be that we worship the same God, but they have a very imperfect understanding of him and of the mechanics of salvation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That is a good thought and one I grapple with along with this question: Is God simply accepted as a mental construct or is God (to be True God) a collectio of the revelations that God has given us? For Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only 3 religions on the face of the planet that claim that they were revealed by God to man. We see our revelation as the fulfillment of the revelation of Judaism and Islam sees itself much the same way. How can both be the True God? Philosophy and Theology collide in my mind.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
And along the lines of Rob (who I just now read), it might logically follow that two religions that exist as a fulfillment of the Jewish faith cannot both be right. One might be a fulfillment and if so, the other would be a corruption of the faith. If that be the case, one revelation would be from God and the other religion must be a corruption of the Jewish faith which could not be from God but an anti-god (demon, satan or whatever one might want to describe him). God ceases to be the same God in both religions. Either both are wrong, or one is right and one is wrong. Both cannot be simultaneously true . . . even if one is in a more infantile state than the one which is more fulfilled. For corruption and a lowering of the Jewish faith is not building but destroying a faith. For that reason the Muslims have great enmity toward the Jews and Christians alike . . . for we are of the same God.
LikeLiked by 4 people
chalcedon451 said:
I agree, but remember, we are discussing whether we worship the same God, not whose religion is correct. On that last, for a Christian, there can be no question. But there is not, necessarily, a problem with saying to the other chap that he has some things right – and some very wrong indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
A spiritual power lies behind a direct revelation from God. Can the same God have revealed so explicitly two different religions of such wide disparity?
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t think we are talking about a divine revelation, I think we are talking from a natural law perspective. Islam has apprehended some of the truth, most notably that there is one God. What it lacks, or refuses, is the revelation of Christ and of the Church, that God is the Trinity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Then what they should have said that even Islam did not destroy every truth of the Jewish faith but only most of them. And thanks be God, it was natural law that must have prevented that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I doubt that would have helped in pastoral terms!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Probably not. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t think it is that complicated. We claim the fullness of revelation, but that does not preclude imperfect revelation to others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
A development and a corruption of what came before does not seems to simply imply imperfect revelation for the one that corrupts the first but leads one to believe that it is a replacement of one God with another.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, but most of the people who first came to Islam had not had the revelation of Christ. We must also remember, not without shame, the contribution our own internecine quarrels had in muddying the water.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
I doubt we can take the blame for Mohammed’s revelations, writing and actions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
We can, however, accept some of the blame for the way in which they were able to spread so quickly. Beating up the non-Chalcedonians for a century and a half was the perfect way of softening up that region for what happened next!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Oh there is no doubt we have sent people running from our Church by some egregious actions. However, even then, there are choices of where to go . . . unless one yields to the sword.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
C wrote: “I don’t think it is that complicated. We claim the fullness of revelation, but that does not preclude imperfect revelation to others.”
What an individual percives from nature of the truth of God is one thing – but is the Quran a revelation or a deception and possibly a direct demonic deception.
I am certain that Mohamed or those who constructed the Quran are either deceivers deceiving the world or that Mohamed was himself deceived and what we face is a direct demonic deception. Either way Islam is the product of the ‘Father of Lies’ and not a revelation.
Deceiving spirits present themselves as angels of light along with a measure of truth but the whole package is always a lie directed against God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
I agree with most of this Rob. I think I would say that Islam gets to first base – there is only one God. Thereafter it is lost and will lose others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
95% good food….5% poison
LikeLike
Rob said:
A great effort C and I agree that you have presented a more nuanced explanation of what the RCC is teaching. Nevertheless I remain concerned as Allah is not the same God that Christians worship. I am similarly concerned having read some other material suggesting further sources of syncretism entering the RCC and evangelical churches.
The question raised is does the RCC teach that Allah is the same God as Yahweh.
I have not read each document (but will do so) and opinions on either side trying to interpret the Vatican’s words as it suits them are irrelevant. The RCC Catechism says it plainly enough and identifies the Muslim god with the Christian God because the conception of both share several important characteristics.
What are the facts?
The Muslims profess to worship the creator the God of Abraham and if we read their (claimed) revelation the Quran we find that they attribute to their god a number of the characteristics of the true God e.g. he is one, creator, merciful and judge etc. Apparently for the RCC this is sufficient to identify the true God while acknowledging that Muslims are in error on other matters about him (God).
The issue is whether ‘god’ is just a concept that can be filled with enough equivalent characteristics to equate one god with another or whether each God/god is in reality a specific spirit being or entity. When we draw aside the curtain and view the spiritual dimension what actually exists. Allah was the high god of the Arabs and has been identified with the moon god. He is a solitary ‘one’ and his essential characteristic does not equate to that of the God revealed in Jesus.
The Quranic picture of Allah is of an absolute monarch akin to an Arab sheikh, he may at times be merciful and at times ruthless and uncaring. One text says that at the judgement some will pass to paradise and some to hell and he (Allah) says “I care not”. The defining characteristic of Allah is ‘absolute power’, this power is unbridled it is not subject to any other quality.
Whereas the defining characteristic of the Biblical God is ‘love’ from which all His actions necessarily flow. From this definition of God as ‘love’; we are necessarily speaking of that which is personal and may construct the necessity of a plurality of personal entities in the Godhead as well as unity. We may propose the ‘lover’ the ‘beloved’ and the ‘active love’ between ‘them’ without which ‘love’ could have no meaning or actuality.
The essential definitions of Allah and the God revealed in Christ are opposed to one another and they represent two different beings.
LikeLiked by 4 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Rob, and the position you outline so well is where I started myself. I think what is being said is that Islam has a very partial and extremely fractured and imperfect understand of the One God.
The Islamic understanding shows real traces of a crude understanding of theGod of the Old Testament, and I suspect that if Dawkins was not sensible enough to want to avoid a fatwah, his words about our understanding of God would be better applied to the Muslim one.
Many of our disputations here seem to me to revolve around what you say about God being love. It does seem to me at times as though some of our fellow Christians need to redefine love in a way which aligns with what they read in the OT.
You have summed up well the many ways in which the Islamic understanding falls short. I think what the Church is saying is that by being monotheists, they are on the right page – but many volumes back – about 27 books in fact 🙂
LikeLike
Rob said:
Your reply to Zeke in brackets [“Boiled down it says that the Church does say we worship the same God, but that Islam has a very imperfect understanding of him.”] is a good summary of your post and it clarifies what I disagree with about RCC statements for reasons given in my previous comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank Rob. This is a complex one, but does need to be boiled down somehow!
LikeLike
Rob said:
C wrote: “As I have tried to say to Rob just now, I think what is being said is that we both recognise God is one, and up to (and not beyond) that we are on the same page. But they are 27 books behind!”
I recognise what you have said but it is not the concepts about God or the content or lack of it that Muslims put into their god that I am speaking about or concerned about. It is the spiritual entity that Muslims are worshiping and that inspires Islam is it God or a demon? Scripture gives us the test “any spirit that does not confess Christ is not of God”, it is the spirit of antichrist it cannot and must not be identified as God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
I totally agree with the scriptures, Rob. It seems like ecumenical pap to me and thanks be to God none of what has been said (though in magesterial documents) is defined teaching . . . in fact i see it as totally pastoral in our dealings with the Muslims to create an air of openness and trust.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
That would be, again precisely where my own reservations kick in.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
C, what is your take on this rather dense conceptual forest which Pope Saint Pius X wrote? It seems to me, if I am reading it rightly (which I don’t suppose I am capable fully) that we are now teaching in a Modernist way these concepts of God and religion. Or am far afield?
14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, of the Modernist considered as Philosopher. Now if we proceed to consider him as Believer, seeking to know how the Believer, according to Modernism, is differentiated from the Philosopher, it must be observed that although the Philosopher recognises as the object of faith the divine reality, still this reality is not to be found but in the heart of the Believer, as being an object of sentiment and affirmation; and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but as to whether it exists outside that sentiment and affirmation is a matter which in no way concerns this Philosopher. For the Modernist .Believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the opinion of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. This is their manner of putting the question: In the religious sentiment one must recognise a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the very reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as to excel greatly any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the rationalists, it arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state which is necessary to produce it. It is this experience which, when a person acquires it, makes him properly and truly a believer.
How far off we are here from Catholic teaching we have already seen in the decree of the Vatican Council. We shall see later how, with such theories, added to the other errors already mentioned, the way is opened wide for atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? In fact that they are to be found is asserted by not a few. And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is clear. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? It must be certainly on one of these two: either on account of the falsity of the religious sentiment or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sentiment, although it may be more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sentiment and to the Believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more living and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. That these consequences flow from the premises will not seem unnatural to anybody. But what is amazing is that there are Catholics and priests who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they heap such praise and bestow such public honour on the teachers of these errors as to give rise to the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
This is all true, but does not, it seems to me, preclude the idea that others may get a glimpse of the wholeness of the Truth. In fact, if one stops to think, it would be rather surprising if those searching for God but without the revelation of Christ, did not stumble across some of the evidences for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Well of course. But that is not revelation from God as the 3 great religions claim for themselves. It does speak to the natural law though . . . and in that sense I can see the point even with pagans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I think this has to be the case. We believe that he can be apprehended by the senses, but without the revelation of Christ, not fully. It seems to me that Islam fits into this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed, the natural law might even be sufficient for salvation if they have never heard the gospel. But here we speak of another revelation that knows of our revelation and denounces it . . . even hate it. Does the natural law lead to a revelation such as we find in Muslim teachings and morality?
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
The Muslim ‘revelation’ is supernatural, or claims to be. That’s the point at which we part company with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Seems we should say so forthrightly at the same time we say that we are worshiping the same God. I remember Christ saying, “I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Have we been given the wisdom we need and are we as innocent as we are cunning? I just don’t see the progress since VII in this area. It seems more like two steps backward.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rob said:
I think along these lines:
Particular Muslims may glimpse true characteristics of God and find some of those characteristics in Quran. They may also be orientated in repentance towards that truth and might be adoring the one that possesses those characteristics. Personally I think there is ground for suspecting that such individuals may be incorporated in the redemption provided by Christ.
However that is totally different to claiming that Islam confesses the true God or that its ‘god’ is God.
Alternately others may be particularly drawn to those characteristic of their religion’s god that are opposed to the God revealed in Christ.
Does that make any sense to anyone?
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, a great deal of sense. It is like someone knowing the moon is not made of green cheese, but thinking that it is a planet in its own right; the get something important right, but make fundamental errors about it.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I only had the time to skim through that comment but it seems to me that Pope Pius x is warning of two matters.
1) A philosophically constructed god that exists only in the mind of an adherent. During my education course in Philosophy I was taught by a professor who was a Baptist elder and held this view on many doctrines.
2) ‘Spiritual experiences’ from any religions tradition that are being counted as genuine experiences of God.
From what I have read both are going on in the RCC and in other churches and it is very concerning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
It is a problem in an age when ‘feeling’ seems to be everything.
We face it here in acute form with Bosco. None of us likes to question the reality of his experience, but the problem is what it produces sits poorly with what we know about the effect of the Spirit. A hard one indeed.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
You are right . . . though it is not supposed to be this way, Rob as Pope Saint Pius X says. It is a Modernist view to supernaturalize our rational religion and our experiential religion (or someone elses) without approaching these from the fullness of the revelation that is Jesus Christ Himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
How about Rastapharians? What does the Pope think of them?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
I think it apparent that he thinks they are onto something good . . . very good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
… so he wants to introduce spliffs at Communion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
No, only at home Jock. Let peace have a chance. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I thought that was pastafarians – those who worship pasta!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’m always willing to yield to a higher authority. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Peace through drugs, ehh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Fortunately, so far, nothing. I’d suggest he’d be wise to keep it that way 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
How about Rastapharians? What does the Pope think of them?
Jock dems cool bro!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Pope St. John Paul II shares:
“Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it reduces Divine Revelation….”
“Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, bu tHe is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel–God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption….the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Philip Augustine said:
Also, I think other words of Pope St. John Paull II many would interpret as ecumenical with Islam or syncretism; however, I read them as a criticism of those who profess Christianity.
“The religiosity of Muslamins deserves respect. It is impossible not to admire, for example, their fidelity to prayer. The image of believers in Allah who, without caring about time or place, fall to their knees and immerse themselves in prayer remains a model for all those who invoke the true God, in particular for those Christians who, have deserted their magnificent cathedrals, pray only a little or not at all.”
The paragraph should make us reflect, do we show the proper respect for God when we are in his house of worship? Do we talk out loud with our neighbor before the service rather than pray to God? Do those of us who are Catholic, Do we “half” genuflect or do we make sure our knee touches the ground for a certain amount of time in the presence of God. When we go to communion, are our hearts and mind in the proper place to received the sacrament?
There are other questions certainly the would be more proper for Protestantism, I know many parishes focus on hymns and have hymns of the days. Perhaps, ask, Am I singing to the fullest in praise of God?
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Very helpful thoughts PA, and on the money, I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Yes, Philip, Scott Hahn when discussing the issue on EWTN said something to the effect that Muslims are slaves to a ruthless god and Christians are servants of a loving father. Then he said, we will not make any headway with Muslims until we serve our loving God as well as the slaves are serving theirs. Something to that effect.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Philip Augustine said:
It certainly carries the same message, and perhaps, with more weight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
You mean that Muslims won’t be impressed by the Christian witness until Christians start letting off a few suicide bombs?
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
That might be what is holding them back Jock. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
After all, what your mum say after she spent endless hours making you a nice looking suicide vest and you went and changed religions where you wouldn’t be able to wear it? You’d break your mother’s heart.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Something like that.
The serious point, though: however much people like Scott Hahn want to give Christians a guilt complex – and however imperfect our witness, it’s pretty clear where the peace dividend lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I tend to think that most of us here at AATW would agree to that Jock.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
This, from a friend on Twitter, is useful:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2015/12/do-christians-and-jews-worship-the-same-god.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I suppose the soundness of the argument would depend on whether you hold to a theology of replacement or a theology of fulfillment. That too, is still being debated by traditionalists and the post Vatican II church. On that issue, I break with many traditionalists as I believe in a theology of fulfillment which makes the Jewish God our God but the Muslm god an imposter . . . having corrupted rather than ‘completed’ the revelation of God to man via the Word of God, Jesus Christ (who is all truth and all God).
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I agree with you on this one. It really has to be fulfilment I think. It would be, I have always thought, a tad Marcionite to go the whole hog on replacement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed so, my friend . . . my mind and heart just don’t allow me to go there . . . though it would make it easier in human terms to do so. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Agreed. As so often, it is the harder thinking which is necessary. I think once one apprehends what a developing understanding is, it fits in well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
As do I, C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Thanks for the link, C. I am currently trying to digest Dominus Iesus regarding this debate. Many cold towels are now quite warm. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I’ll bet – it is very, very good, but my goodness me hard work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It is and very powerfully written as always. It has been a long while since I looked at this. It is like starting all over again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
There is so much good stuff there, but so carefully written that it is impossible to grasp without full concentration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That is why I have to take breaks from reading it. I have no idea how long this will take me to digest in order for its ideas to be useful in this current topic. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I sympathise. It was only when I had digested it that I saw my way through to what I wrote today!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
I can see how you would . . . I am not yet at that level of understanding . . . though it wasn’t far from my first gut response: e.g. that monotheism is by nature a truth that is revealed by God and thereby one can say that we worship the ‘same’ God. But I have a more thinking to do on this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
It really is a reminder of what a superb theologian the last Pope was/is. I miss him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed so. We have really put ourselves in a tailspin . . . though he was a tough act to follow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
You sound more like me everyday, C. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Must be catching 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It is. My defense against it is isolation. I am now quarantined and now on to other matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I believe that Pope St. John Paul II criticisms of Christians are valid. I reject the notion that it’s said to give people guilt, but instead rather a teaching tool. If there is guilt, why is it logical for the responsibility of the created guilt to be on the teacher rather than the student. I am reminded of a story in the book “Letters to Young Catholics” by George Weigel. In the story, he speaks about how a Luthern pastors regrets how Lutherans thought it wisdom to remove the tabernacle from the sanctuary in the debate between the a Lutheran theologian and St. Robert Bellarmine. In a sense, by this action, they were removing a devotion of reverence toward God. The Lutheran pastor felt it diminished the concept of a real presence of God in the people.
The practices of faith, therefore, have real consequence and that is the lesson of those who have made statements that examine a lack of reverence among Christians. Only when we pray to God out of love and believe in a philosophy of such love can we through other actions show that the Christian philosophy of “choosing to love” is superior to the philosophy of submission.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Quite right, Philip.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
What a restorative today’s post and comment thread is. I believe my sanity has been restored (but perhaps I might need one of Steve’s thinking caps with the broken propeller, would keep me better grounded).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Don’t short change me Grandpa; the beanie with broken propeller was mine. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Actually, I fully expect Steve to pop in at any moment now and ask C if we can get off this subject now.
Steve is still looking for his thinking cap . . . I told him that I thought I saw it getting blown oot the window of his car with an ample amount of his hair attached to it as well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Dave, I just realized I’ve been using Steve’s name in recent comments (here and on the other thread) when I mean your name. Apologies all around.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
That’s alright Grandpa. Steve and I are almost like brothers. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
That explains it then, it’s not a sign that I am losing my little gray cells by the bucket load. What a relief!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
You too. Hey, best start looking around the attic for your thinking cap too then. You never know. You might have one up these and totally forgot about it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
newenglandsun said:
I have brought up on Fr. Kimel’s blog (and so has Fr. Kimel and Roger E. Olson (though on Olson’s blog)) the question as to whether Christians worship the same God. Note that Fr. Kimel began this discussion in response to Scot McKnight’s issue with the word “same” in application to the God of Muslims and the God of Christians meaning identical. If we are to take up McKnight’s issue seriously, we cannot even state Christians worship the same God.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Cardinal Sarah in his book “God or Nothing” says this on Islam: “With Islam, there can be no theological dialogue, because the essential foundations of the Christian faith are very different from those of the Muslims: The Trinity, the Incarnation, namely, the fact that ‘Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, the Cross, the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and consequently the Eucharist are rejected by the Muslims. But we can promote a dialogue that might lead to an effective collaboration at the national and international leave, particularly in the context of defending human life, from conception to natural death. For example, like the Church, the various authorities of Islam vehemently reject the new gender ideology.
However, in Africa…Christian-Muslim relations have recently become very difficult, almost impossible; in Sudan, a Christian is considered a slave by the Muslims.”
Cardinal Sarah also discusses the dangers of Modern ideology and syncretism. I think it’s important to understand that modernism is more a less the root of this ideology. I remember at the university that I attended, part of the curriculum to graduate with a degree was to take 10 credit hours of Multiculturalism and Diversity classes. Of course, some of the comments I received in my papers said something of the nature, “all people have equal ideas.” In the next few papers, I outlined through logical deduction how their ideology was a contradiction.
Cardinal Sarah does bridge my two ideas presented today. He says, “The second danger (after post-modernism) is that of a falsely happy syncretism, which comes precisely from the lack of faith in God.”
Again, we as Christians must do all that is necessary to pray and show reverence to our own faith in Christ.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
That really is very helpful indeed – thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Yes, an excellent excerpt, thank you for sharing it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Well I have been thinking a bit on Dominus Iesus (a dangerous thing for me to do) and my take away in summary form is this:
Christ came to save the world and His Truth extends to the whole world though most perfectly within His Church.
Thereby, any individual that does good, seeks to find truth and picks up the scraps that fall from the table are being nourished by Christ through the Holy Spirit as well.
So too the different religions and confessions. All that is true comes from Christ whether they know of Christ or not.
How they recieve this Grace (as some of it resides outside of natural law) is a mystery at this point and thereby some will be saved by Christ in the end. A good thing for theologians to work on.
Specifically, the Muslim religion, denies the centrality of Christ (a lesser prophet than Mohammed), but does have the right truth about there being only One True God. This they believe and have recieved or managed to hold onto from Judaism by the working of the Christ through the Holy Spirit.
So we worship the ‘same’ God of Unicity. From there we fall off the tracks. For individuals that is a wholly different paradigm: as each individual is different and has different lights revealed to them (all due to Christ).
That’s it in a nutshell for me today: though it still is weakly stated and poorly formulated within the documents of the Council. It has caused problems with the Jews, the Mormons, other Christians and our congregations which seems odd since the awkward insertion into the documents seems to be an attempt to reach out in friendship and respect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Sorry that was Jews, the *Muslims* (not Mormons) . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That’s a really good summary- formidable, as the French would say. You are correct on the problems of the V2 approach – to which I would add that many Muslims utterly reject that Catholic analysis!
You earned an extra drink!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’ll put it on Stevie’s bill tomorrow night. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Good thinking 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Well, this is a clever-clever way of ‘exchanging the truth for a lie.’ Of course, it is done with great ingenuity and we have to admire the brilliance of these Catholic scholars who know how to play with words.
You could apply exactly the same nice words to John Stuart Mill, who was an atheist, and his ‘Utilitarianism’ philosophy. The magic phrase “although differing in many ways from her own teaching, these nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” fits rather well here.
How about: ‘the book Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.’
In fact, John Stuart Mill never advocated suicide bombing and his atheistic philosophy seems to me much more godly than anything the Muslims have come up with. When put in these terms, one sees that the attempt to defend the key text from ‘Nostra Aetate’ only makes matters worse and only digs a deeper hole.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
‘ …. it worships the One True God, albeit in a way which the Church does not condone.’
I’m very glad to hear that ‘The Church’ does not condone suicide bombing as a part of worship.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Glad you feel reassured 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
orthodoxgirl99 said:
Morning all! Not too much time to construct my thoughts on this one at the moment, but will come back in due course. Work calls! However, at first read C I found your essay thought provoking. I have my own misgivings and uncertainties regarding Islam but will re-read your post and look at the links before responding. Catch up later I hope 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you. As you can see from my link to an earlier post of mine, I have problems with this , but this is as close as I can get to making sense of it.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
This is a very good piece and once again shows the strength of this blog (and maybe also the advantage of the blogosphere in general), for I don’t think mainstream religious media have the guts to even ask such a basic and obvious question. I shall re-read it as Jessica suggests, and maybe comment again after finding my way through the winding subtleties of the theology. Meanwhile, however, and in the light of recent events, I wonder if the question should be: “Do Shia and Sunni Muslims worship the same God?”
There is some excellent discussion of these questions on Fr Kimel’s blog and thanks for the link to that, Chalcedon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
My pleasure Gareth. Yes, it is a difficult issue, and as I expected, I had a couple of Sedevacantists on my Twitter timeline saying what they had come to say. Not getting an argument, they blocked me – which is a bit odd!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The church that Christ founded has gone from claiming that it is necessary for salvation to that everyone goes to heaven….even Satan worshipers. I take great pleasure in watching the CC devotees trying to justify this new claim. They scramble to find justification for every new great swelling claim their Holy Father pronounces.
I now command all papists to kiss the Koran. Your Holy Father says you worship the same god. And he is correct. You do. You will also have the same fate in the after life of those who worship the Koran.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Actually I think what the Pope wrote in the paper Chalcedon posted a link to is that all humankind are children of God and are worthy of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Whatever good that is found in other people’s religions, even if it only a smidgeon of goodness, can only come from the one true God and no other entity. Do you disagree with anything I just wrote?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Again, you show you fail to understand what you read – which makes one wonder about other things you say.
The Church cays what it has always said, that the most certain way to salvation is through the Church founded by Jesus. It has never said that every Catholic will be saved, it has never said that no Catholic can be saved. There is nothing ‘new’ in this, and you only think so because you take your information from inaccurate anti-Catholic sources.
I am certain you have not understood what I wrote if your final paragraph comes from your reading of what I wrote.
The Spirit, it is said, will guide you into all truth. The spirit in you seems attracted to lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person