Can Anyone Help Me Understand This?

[filius_angelorum]

Circumstances do change, JIM111. They also change the formulation of various aspects of the faith. Whereas before, when there were Christian nations under Christian princes, the tolerance of public Muslim worship could be construed as the sovereign's approval or sanction, now both Christians and Muslims are in almost the space position with respect to the state. Therefore, the harsh condemnations, directed as they were, to civil governments, are no longer necessary or expedient. And we may well ask how expedient and prudent they were at the time in certain parts of Europe. 

 

You seem to be comprehending "Islam" as a singular unit and not as a collection of truths, falsehoods, opinions, and cultures. Islam is not a "good", but there are good things in it. It's rather like fruitcake for some people. They do not like fruitcake, even though they like many of the ingredients. Although, I quite like fruitcake, so I find the analogy repulsive. It is to be hoped that the good things that are in Islam are sufficient to properly inform the consciences of righteous Muslims. "In spite of" vs. "Because of" is a false dichotomy, when the motivations for our actions can be explained from so many different angles. Did I become a Catholic "in spite of" my Baptist upbringing or "because of it"? The answer is yes.

 

 

[Apotheoun]

Although there is of course only one true God . . . the Muslims do not worship Him. In fact, only the Church - through her liturgy, which is the anamnesis of Christ's one oblation - truly worships God, because the sacrifice of Christ is the only true act of worship, and that has been the case since the Old Testament shadows passed away.

[GMMF]

I think some of you are convoluting some issues.  Answering affirmatively the question of whether Muslims adore the one God does not thereby make Islam true, heresy good, their religion salvific, etc.  As I mentioned before, the Council fo Vienne does not say one way or the other whether they adore God or not (it says they adore Muhammed, which if it is implying they give him latria is not true; adore sometimes refers to veneration to created things like we do to the Saints or the Cross). 

 

In response to Apotheoun, this is just a matter of terminology.  It is possible to adore God according to the natural virtue of religion and justice demands it (which is why it falls under the natural virtue of justice).  The theological virtue of faith, which makes one a member of the Church and a partaker of the sacrifical Eucharistic worship of God, is not required for this kind of adoration.  As I mentioned before, only Catholics can be said to worship God is Spirit and in truth. Similarly, this adoration does not necessarily lead to salvation, as the Catholic worship does.

[GMMF]

Just to add to some other points already made by others, here is some commentary on St. Thomas by the Counter-Reformation Jesuit theologian, Francisco Suarez:

 

"Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God."

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III

 

 

[Apotheoun]

I think some of you are convoluting some issues.  Answering affirmatively the question of whether Muslims adore the one God does not thereby make Islam true, heresy good, their religion salvific, etc.  As I mentioned before, the Council fo Vienne does not say one way or the other whether they adore God or not (it says they adore Muhammed, which if it is implying they give him latria is not true; adore sometimes refers to veneration to created things like we do to the Saints or the Cross). 

 

In response to Apotheoun, this is just a matter of terminology.  It is possible to adore God according to the natural virtue of religion and justice demands it (which is why it falls under the natural virtue of justice).  The theological virtue of faith, which makes one a member of the Church and a partaker of the sacrifical Eucharistic worship of God, is not required for this kind of adoration.  As I mentioned before, only Catholics can be said to worship God is Spirit and in truth. Similarly, this adoration does not necessarily lead to salvation, as the Catholic worship does.

I disagree that it is a matter of terminology. I think that Vatican II's statements about Islam are a form sophistry, and that they openly contradict the faith of the ancient Church for the sake of modern political correctness. The monotheism of Islam is erroneous, just as the monotheism of the Jews is in error. St. Gregory of Nyssa spoke about this in his Great Catechism when he stated that the polytheism of the Greeks and the monotheism of the Jews (and by extension the Muslims) are equally in error. The former (i.e., the polytheism of the Greeks) is erroneous and heretical because it fails to take into account the unity of the divine nature; while the latter (i.e., the monotheism of the Jews) is false and heretical because it fails to distinguish properly between the divine persons. The Christian faith is the only true faith. All other religious systems are false, which is why none of them can bring a man to the Father.

 

Moreover, as far as worship is concerned, right glory (ορθο δόξα) can only be given to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit, which means that it is only by being incorporated into the Body of Christ that a man can truly worship God. After all, it is not possible to have the Father without the Son (see 1 John 2:23).

Edited June 25, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

It is possible to adore God according to the natural virtue of religion and justice demands it (which is why it falls under the natural virtue of justice). 

I disagree with your viewpoint, because I see it as nothing more than a form of Pelagianism. Salvation as a supernatural gift is not acquired by the practice of the natural virtues. Created nature is not sufficient to bring about theosis.

[Apotheoun]

Similarly, this adoration does not necessarily lead to salvation, as the Catholic worship does.

I do not believe that there is adoration (i.e., what Eastern Christians would call "right glory" or "right worship") in separation from Christ. Human striving after God must not be confused with faith. A man cannot give himself faith; instead, faith is an unmerited infused gift of God, a gift that comes only from the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

[thessalonian]

Consider the woman at the well.  She was a Samaritan.  The Samaritains were a product of the Northern Captivity.  THey mixed Judaism with the assyrian pagan religions.  Thus they believed in the God of Israel but as one of many god's.  But Jesus did not say there worship of the one true God was false.  Also Corenlius of Acts 10 and 11 was neither a Christian or a Jew yet the scriptures say he was a righteous and God fearing man and God heard his prayers.  I am sure that he did not know of a trinity and he did not know of Jesus at the time.  The Muslems are monotheistic.  Their theology has lots of problems but they are at least in part correct.  I will let God sort it out.

[thessalonian]

Consider the woman at the well.  She was a Samaritan.  The Samaritains were a product of the Northern Captivity.  THey mixed Judaism with the assyrian pagan religions.  Thus they believed in the God of Israel but as one of many god's.  But Jesus did not say there worship of the one true God was false.  Also Corenlius of Acts 10 and 11 was neither a Christian or a Jew yet the scriptures say he was a righteous and God fearing man and God heard his prayers.  I am sure that he did not know of a trinity and he did not know of Jesus at the time.  The Muslems are monotheistic.  Their theology has lots of problems but they are at least in part correct.  I will let God sort it out.

[Apotheoun]

Consider the woman at the well.  She was a Samaritan.  The Samaritains were a product of the Northern Captivity.  THey mixed Judaism with the assyrian pagan religions.  Thus they believed in the God of Israel but as one of many god's.  But Jesus did not say there worship of the one true God was false.  Also Corenlius of Acts 10 and 11 was neither a Christian or a Jew yet the scriptures say he was a righteous and God fearing man and God heard his prayers.  I am sure that he did not know of a trinity and he did not know of Jesus at the time.  The Muslems are monotheistic.  Their theology has lots of problems but they are at least in part correct.  I will let God sort it out.

Talking about pre-Christian groups that - in some form or other - participated in the Triune faith of Abraham, as the ancient Church Fathers would put it, is not the same as speaking about Islam (or Rabbinic Judaism), which is a post-Christian error that openly denies the dogma of the Trinity. Islamic monotheism is false and draws people away from the true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You cannot worship the Father without the Son.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

 I will let God sort it out.

Thankfully the Church Fathers did not have that attitude, just think of how many Arian, Nestorian, Monothelite, etc. heretics there would still be in the Church afflicting her and causing turmoil had the Church Fathers taken the quietist view you have advocated.

 

Holding the orthodox faith, and offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, is the only true way to give glory to God.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Also Corenlius of Acts 10 and 11 was neither a Christian or a Jew yet the scriptures say he was a righteous and God fearing man and God heard his prayers.  

That is the modernist view of many Catholics (and other Christians) today, but the Church Fathers held that anyone who believed in the true God believed in the Holy Trinity, and that includes Abraham and the other Patriarchs along with the Prophets (see St. Athanasios "De Synodis", and the "Hagioretic Tome" of the Holy Mountain). Part of the problem for modernists is that they confuse experiential knowledge with intellectual knowledge. The ancient Fathers held that only the former was salvific, for as St. Maximos the Confessor once said, even the damned will have a discursive understanding of God.

[Jacen Marx]

They worship the God of Abraham.  So do we.  Same God.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Did you all know some indulgences that where valid 1000 years ago are invalid now. There is no indulgence associated with these anymore. But the church i assume can make them valid again at any given time. Like when saint paul says " The father can cut off a branch, but can also re-attach it at anytime."