The Church Dogmatically Teaches The Muslims Worship The One True God

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 December 2009 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1260919748' post='2021422']
You think believing that is part of the Depositum Fidei?
[/quote]

Not really. I am not a theologian, though, and "dogmatic" is not a term that Catholics throw around lightly. Do you have any idea what the Council meant by using the word "dogmatic" if not, "this stuff under here, it's dogmatic"?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Maggie' date='15 December 2009 - 06:49 PM' timestamp='1260920964' post='2021460']
The relevant paragraph is Lumen Gentium pargraph 16.



[url="Lumen Gentium"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html[/url]
[/quote]

Okay. That still doesn't make it a dogma though.

[HisChildForever]

I feel like Apo has made 100 posts explaining this.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Maggie' date='15 December 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1260919615' post='2021418']
I don't believe this is dogma, myself, however the section in Vatican II in which the issue of Muslim worship is addressed is called the [i]Dogmatic[/i] Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). I don't know why the fathers would use the word "dogmatic" unless they meant... dogmatic. So I can see where he is coming from.
[/quote]
As Pope Paul VI said in connection with the documents issued at Vatican II: "Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral." In other words, Vatican II issued no dogmatic formulations, but merely reaffirmed pre-existing ones, and who Muslims worship has never been, nor can it be, defined by the Magisterium.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 December 2009 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1260921523' post='2021477']
Okay. That still doesn't make it a dogma though.
[/quote]
Correct. Vatican II was called as a pastoral council, which is why none of its formulations are directly dogmatic.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 December 2009 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1260922996' post='2021510']
Correct. Vatican II was called as a pastoral council, which is why none of its formulations are directly dogmatic.
[/quote]

Why do you suppose they called it the Dogmatic Constitution then? Honestly interested in your explanation.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Maggie' date='15 December 2009 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1260923295' post='2021511']
Why do you suppose they called it the Dogmatic Constitution then? Honestly interested in your explanation.
[/quote]

If the Fathers of the Council intended to define any dogmas, they probably would have said something along the lines of "By the authority of Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that . . .. Therefore if anyone should willingly reject this definition of ours, let him be anathema."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Maggie' date='15 December 2009 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1260923295' post='2021511']
Why do you suppose they called it the Dogmatic Constitution then? Honestly interested in your explanation.
[/quote]
Did you read the quotation I posted from Pope Paul VI? Vatican II was not [i]directly[/i] dogmatic, which means that none of the formulations that are unique to that council have dogmatic status. Nevertheless, when a Vatican II document reaffirms something that is already dogmatically declared, it follows that the statement made is dogmatic, but the authority for the dogma does not come from the Second Vatican Council itself, instead it comes from the source that the bishops at Vatican II were quoting or referencing.

Look, even you and I can say things that are dogmatic and infallible, i.e., as long as we restate the [i]de fide[/i] doctrine of the Church accurately. So, for example, if you were to say that Jesus Christ is one divine person in two natures, your statement would be dogmatic, and - yes - even infallible, not - of course - because you by yourself are an authority in the Church, but because you are restating the Church's faith as it has been established by Tradition.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

The Magisterium can no more determine the object of Muslim worship than it can say which form of Buddhism is the "true" form of Buddhism, because both of these things are beyond the competence of the Magisterium, which can only bind the faithful to believe things that are divinely revealed, or logically connected to divine revelation, or which are related to good morals.

[Winchester]

He started to post but then stopped. I guess that's the "stopper" part of his nick.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 December 2009 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1260913914' post='2021243']
Ol' 95+ made this allegation and then backed down because he knows he's out of his league.
[/quote]


As usual Winchester, if someone doesn't respond to your demands within 5 minutes, you claim victory and try to convince your buddies that those who don't answer are a coward. Of course you never stop to think I have other things in my life I need to do, like doing the laundry!
Now you opened this thread directly and ONLY because you read my "thesis" elsewhere on this board, and was probably so shocked to see the statements from the popes AFFIRMING that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, that it sent you in a tailspin. And how inconsiderate of you that you didn't include the quotes I provided, which leaves your friends without the facts! Some help you are! I just looked at all these responses which amount to "oh was Vat 2 dogmatic or not, yada yada". It never ceases to amaze me that anytime something might be a little amiss in the Roman Catholic Church, they always run to the infallibility factor---and because no one spoke infallibly, then all is well. The fact is that in "Nostrae Aetate", we read that the church regards with "esteem the Muslims who adore the one God, maker of heaven and earth". Over a 3 year period, over 2,000 (TWO THOUSAND) bishops of the church, and what others might call "experts, researches, advisors and theologians" personally approved and then double-approved word by word by the Pope---completely false statements such as is now under discussion. Muslims worship nothing less than an idol that does not exist. How all those "experts" could approve a religion that denigrates the person and work of Christ--- can only be explained by the direct and purposeful delusion supplied by the true living Lord Himself, who is in the business of doing just [u]that[/u] (2 Thess 2:11). There is simply no other alternative for God when He sees a church "esteeming" a religion that teaches that Jesus is ipso facto, NOT divine. And V-2 went even further in [i]Ecclesiam Suam [/i]by stating that the JEWS adore the same God "[i]whom we also worship". [/i]Another falsehood. It is a fact that the Jews [u]fail[/u] to adore "the same God whom we also worship" because whoever does not receive Christ, [u]does not receive the one who sent Him[/u] (Matt10:40, Luke 9:48, Jn 13:20). A 6th grade Sunday school student knows what 2,000 bishops and popes DO NOT. What no one Catholic is going to admit, however, is that V-2 was WRONG, and "uh-oh, maybe I ought to think about changing my religious affiliation because these guys just don't [u]get it![/u] so perhaps I should find a church which worships God in spirit and in TRUTH".

For those interested, below is the catalyst that made Winchester's legs give out, and which he so impolitely neglected to include when he opened up this topic for discussion:


_______________________________________________________________________________
Below, I will point evidence supporting my contention that the Roman church teaches that God and Allah are one and the same - and that Muslims and Jews worship the same God as Rome does. I hope that this will give those who are associated with the church of Benedict XVI some pause.

The following is my evidence from the mouth of your two most recent popes, John Paul II (JP2) and Benedict XVI (Ben16). Quoted sources may be found on-line or by request.

"As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham." (JP2 1985)

Comment: neither religious Jews nor Muslims have the faith of Abraham, for they reject the Son of Abraham.

"We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God�s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all." (JP2 1985)

Comment: Notice that JP2 acknowledges that the worship itself is different, but asserts that it is worship of the same God.

"In the final analysis, prayer is the best means by which all humanity can be united. It disposes people to accept God�s will for them. It also affects the relationship of those who pray together, for by coming together before God in prayer people can no longer ignore or hate others. Those who pray together discover that they are pilgrims and seekers of the same goal, brothers and sisters who share responsibility for the same human family, children of the same God and Father. It is my ardent hope that the Day of Prayer for Peace to be held in Assisi, at which Christians of all Communions and believers from all the great religions have been invited to participate, will be a beginning and an incentive for all believers in God to come often before him united in prayer." (JP2 1986)

Comment: Those who have not received adoption are NOT the children of the Father. Likewise, Muslims and Christians have different and competing goals - not the same goal.

"I thank you for your visit, all representatives, leaders, of the Muslim community here in Uganda. Archbishop Wamala said that you are cooperating and that in doing so, you are also accomplishing the will of God, our Creator, our Father. God has created all of us, men and women, the whole human race, to cooperate�to cooperate in order to improve the world. He, our God, committed us, the world, to being inhabited, to being used, not abused, not abused, used, and to serving the human being, human existence. It is necessary to cooperate all together, for the riches of the world are sometimes in danger and the human community is many times is in danger. It requires the cooperation of all of us who believe in the SAME GOD, the one God of Abraham, the Father who gave us his son Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for your visit." (JP2 1993)

Comment: Again, it is outright madness to say the Muslims believe in the same God, for they do not even know Him!

"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: �We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection� (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497)."

Comment: What joy is there in the fact that there are those on the road to hell who happen to acknowledge some parts of the truth? This truth partially known will not save - it will only increase the condemnation of those who, like the Muslims, reject the one true God.

"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham." (Benny 2005)

Comment: But James said:

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4)

I'm not suggesting that we cannot be kind to Muslims. We can, should, and must. Nevertheless, we need to distinguish between being kind and respectful to them as people and endorsing or esteeming their religion. Islam is a path to judgment, part of the broad road that leads to destruction. Friendship with Islam as such is an unkindness--- not a kindness to the members of that religion. Those siding with Islam are siding against Christianity.



Hopefully, this settles the matter of what Rome teaches, as well as illustrating some reasons why what Rome teaches is wrong. Quotations are taken from the English translation provided at the Vatican's official web site. These are not my own translations. Now, I call on those of you in the Roman communion to consider whether Scripture teaches that one can both be one who worships God-- AND who rejects the Son of God. If you see that the Scriptures do not teach that, I urge you to come out from the Roman communion and into fellowship with an Evangelical body that maintains not only the historic but Scriptural distinction between the followers of Christ and all other religions.

[Vincent Vega]

[size="7"][font="Impact"]IT'S THE SECOND COMING![/font][/size]

[Winchester]

Actually, I discussed this issue with someone around a week ago. Not news to me. I see it as flawed worship of a perfect God, which is something I'm completely free to do as it's not forbidden by the Church. As I believe you worship Christ, in spite of your heresy. You seem to have trouble telling time. It's been longer than five minutes.

I believe one can have a flawed understanding of God and yet worship Him. The religion itself is, of course, corrupt.

An you'll need to defeat Apo's explanations.

Welcome back, 95+.


Edit: I think your problem is you're not really familiar with the Faith. You have to go grab stuff to cut and paste. You might want to read more hard copy stuff instead of bits and pieces on the web. I've fallen into that trap, before.
If you're honest, you'll admit we're quite familiar with what's been said regarding the Muslims and their religion--you've not illuminated anything. It's been quite the topic in your absence.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Winchester

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 December 2009 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1260924383' post='2021523']
The Magisterium can no more determine the object of Muslim worship than it can say which form of Buddhism is the "true" form of Buddhism, because both of these things are beyond the competence of the Magisterium, which can only bind the faithful to believe things that are divinely revealed, or logically connected to divine revelation, or which are related to good morals.
[/quote]


Very funny Mr. Apotheoun! You are creating doctrine as you go along now! If it weren't so sad, it would be fodder for light-night comedy. I'm sure your Magisterium of yesterday and today would love to know that it is "beyond their competence" to determine such things as the object of another's religion. One can only ask, if it is beyond them and they knew this was official Catholic doctrine, then WHYYYYY did they even bother to make such a judgment call??????
Don't tell me. You're smarter than the 2000 bishops at V-2 as well as the last and current pope! How dumb of me, I should have known. I'll see if I can find your name at the Vatican website.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='15 December 2009 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1260927879' post='2021561']
Very funny Mr. Apotheoun! You are creating doctrine as you go along now! If it weren't so sad, it would be fodder for light-night comedy. I'm sure your Magisterium of yesterday and today would love to know that it is "beyond their competence" to determine such things as the object of another's religion. One can only ask, if it is beyond them and they knew this was official Catholic doctrine, then WHYYYYY did they even bother to make such a judgment call??????
Don't tell me. You're smarter than the 2000 bishops at V-2 as well as the last and current pope! How dumb of me, I should have known. I'll see if I can find your name at the Vatican website.
[/quote]
Fail. Not a refutation.