Why Is The Vatican So Accepting Of Islam?

[MorphRC]

[quote]Imagine what it's like for somebody raised by devout Muslims?
[/quote]

And theres my proof. A person who thinks they are ignorants walking around without a clue.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Yes there are some that are totally ignorant to God as god the father etc etc, and for whatever reasons they shouldnt be punished, thats obvious.[/quote]

Morph, it seems that the disagreement that you and I have is in the notion of ignorance. I would argue, and I believe the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II would argue, that ignorance is not limited to merely never having heard the information.

I think there are plenty of ways that someone can "hear" something and remain ignorant to it. One such way is if bias against the information is bred so strongly into you that you are incapable (working alone and without the intercession of loving and patient witnesses to the truth) of "hearing" the message.

Let me provide yet another analogy:

You grew up in the American South in 1800, and are thouroughly accustomed to - and accept - slavery as an institution. You read a book by a "crazy" northerner that decries slavery as wrong. You speak to your father about it, but your father argues that the book is wrong, not only because slavery is necessary for the livelihood of the people from the south, but also that it is ok because it is biblical (that was a common argument of the time). You believe him because these are the things you have been taught. They line up with the logic that you have been raised in and with the economic and social situation around you.

Slavery is still wrong. It is an absolute truth and does not change with time. What DOES change, however, is your culpability for the deed. You were, even though you did in fact read that book, [i]ignorant[/i] of the truth.

Did you read the book? Yes
Did you even ask questions about it? Yes
Were you ignorant of the subject? YES

Just because you have heard or read something does not mean that you have knowledge of the subject. I could "read" ancient greek, but I wouldn't understand it, given the fact that I am growing up in America and have little exposure to it. How much more ignorant of it would I be if everyone that I asked about it told me it was nonsense?

Morph, I'd love it if, in replying to my post, you would address the historical analogy dealing with slavery. Thanks a ton!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

Jeff, thank you for the comments in reply. I was simply making the statement that I feel the Athanasian Creed is wonderful (and I am glad that you agree) and that I feel it expresses both the beauty of the doctrine of the Trinity as well as the important fact that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and, in this case, the belief in the Trinity. As we see with all Church documents before the Modernist heresy (I will get to XIX in a bit), there were none of these qualifications or inventions of doctrine which constitute an actual change in the Church's teaching. This is what the concept of "salvation by ignorance" is. We can debate this further, but it would be better suited on a separate thread.

XIX, I believe that there have been many things done by many people that are indeed very heretical by any objective standard even in today's era which is plagued by Modernism (as condemned by several Popes, most notably Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius IX as well as Pope Saint Pius X, among others). Here is [i]Sacrorum antistitum[/i], the Oath Against Modernism from Pope Saint Pius X (the oath was taken by [i]all[/i] clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries):

"I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated.

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in [b][i]exactly the same meaning [/i]and always in the same purport[/b]. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and Lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.

I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.

I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.

Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the [i][b]misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm[/b][/i]. (see "The Rampant Liberalism Of The Nab: a catalogue of errors" by Hananiah in Debate Table for discussion)

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand." (emphasis added)

Do you think that the current Pope believes that oath? Do you wonder why it is no longer taken? Maybe it will become more clear when we see the Papal Coronation Oath, not denied by John XXIII, or John Paul I, or Paul VI, the Oath which was taken by every Pope from Pope Saint Agatho on June 27, 678 (and believed to have been taken by several of his predecessors) was in fact, not taken by John Paul II! This is certainly a travesty at best. The Papal Coronation Oath is as follows:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. [i]I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath[/i], [b]may it be somebody else or I[/b].

"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

"[i]Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.[/i]" (emphasis added)

I do not claim that John Paul II is not actually the Pope; I am by no means a sedevacantist. My point with this is that a Pope can certainly be in grave error in his personal conquest and can commit horrible sins. Remember, even the most immoral of medieval Popes took this Oath and kept it even in his personal sin! John Paul II has not taken it, and it is hard to make a case that he has kept it. This is the only way I can answer your question. I recognize, however, that the actions of the Pope are scandalous to many. There have been Popes anathemized in the past. There is no way to know whether John Paul II will be anathemized by a future Pope. I will make no judgment against him until then other than those judgments which can be seen naturally and can be compared to constant Church teaching on the matter. We must remember that the Pope is not indefectible, that he can sin, and that his actions are not infallible. God bless.

[amarkich]

Bump to Jeff.

[MorphRC]

Anyways. I know they dont worship the same God, they can claim it till their lungs blow, and the Pope can teach it till his heart desires, but they dont, there is way to much paganisism an arab thought of 'God' that fits in with arab paganism. Its to coincidental.

[amarkich]

Morph, the Church does not teach that muslims worship the true God in any authoritative statement. There are many people who would like to believe this, but it is not true. It is true that the Jews might worship the same God, as He has been revealed to them, but since they have rejected Him and murdered Him, they no longer can be pleasing to Him, as it is written, "But without faith it is impossible to please God" (c.f., Hebrews xi.6). The same, however, can be said of all non-Catholics, as the Council of Trent says that it is impossible to please God without the Catholic Faith of which Saint Paul speaks in his epistle to the Hebrews. God bless.

[MorphRC]

Ok. Thats the best explaination and answer Ive had to far. Blunt and straightforward. Ty!

[MorphRC]

so far*

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey guys, sorry for not responding, I work long hours during the day and didn't have time/energy to do anything but eat dinner & go to sleep when I got home.

Amarkich, while I agree with you - that it should be discussed on another thread entirely, and with the unity of the laity in mind (Dust doesn't want those who are not fully formed yet in their faith shaken by catholic - catholic discussion) I would like to take the chance to point out that, while many Traditionalists (I am not in any way using the term as offensive) are quick to decry the actions of the Pope, few mention the fact that the [i]vast[/i] majority of the Magisterium supports him. Whether it is in America (frighteningly liberal in some parts) or in Africa (very Traditional) or anywhere else in the world, it is difficult to find those who do not support him in the majority.

That having been said, I find rejecting what the Holy Father & the Magisterium teach very shaky ground to stand on (personally), even if what they teach seemed counter-intuitive. I argue that humble submission (ie accepting that the intellect of one or a small group of the laity does not have the authority to decide what the Tradition of the Church teaches).

Scripture is inspired, just like Tradition. The only one who can speak authoritatively on what Scripture says is the Magisterium, in communion with the Pope. In the same way, the only one who can speak authoritatively on what Tradition says is the Magisterium, in communion with the Pope.

Just because I, a layperson, happen to think that Tradition says one thing does not make it so. I must submit to the authority that the Magisterium and Pope bear. When the Pope, supported by the Magisterium, teaches that Allah IS the one God of the Trinity, whether the Muslims believe it or not, I will cast my lot with the Holy Father and the majority of the Bishops.

Plus, on a completely seperate note, it makes sense that it is the same God. Mohammed followed the God of Abraham.

Morph: [quote]Anyways. I know they dont worship the same God, they can claim it till their lungs blow, and the Pope can teach it till his heart desires, but they dont, there is way to much paganisism an arab thought of 'God' that fits in with arab paganism. Its to coincidental.[/quote]

This type of absolute denial is the same that closed the hearts of the Pharisees

Also, remember, just because an answer is "Blunt and straightforward" does not make it the best one.

This whole conversation really saddens me. Is our faith so fragile, so breakable, that we cannot risk acknowledging Truth wherever it exists? Does acknowledging "Allah" as a name for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob shatter our faith so much that we begin to lose it?

I, for one, can acknowledge that there are peices of the Truth here and there in other religions because I know that the Catholic Faith is the Fullness of Truth. My faith does not need to be the only place where Truth can be found, because I know that it is the only place where ALL Truth can be found. Because I am Catholic, I know that Christ is the Way, and because of that I can look out upon the world and observe others in their quest to find God. I can see which steps they take are on the right path and which are on the wrong one, and I will do what I can to guide them into the fullness of the Truth.

But to look out upon those people with disgust and deny that they are even trying to walk the path, to deny that they are capable of knowing any of the Truth at all...That is to be one of the Pharisees. It is to be among those that Christ called a Brood of Vipers and those that he denounced as hypocrits.

Did you have the fullness of Christ before you knew the Church? No
Did you have some of the Truth, because the Grace that God has one for us has been poured out over the whole of the earth? Yes

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol won* for us