Do Christians And Muslims Worship The Same God?

[PhuturePriest]

8 minutes ago, Gladius said:

There is no such thing as the college of Bishops.  That's another VII innovation.  The Council of Trent dogmatically defines, that if one of the Pastors, that includes the Pope.  If one of the Pastors changes the liturgy, or invents a new liturgy, he is outside of the Church.  In Pope St Pius V Bull of 1570, the official Roman Rite of the Catholic Church was codified forever.  Canon Law states that it is a God given right, for every Catholic to have their own Rite. 

The new mass was written up by a couple of bureaucrats chosen by Paul VI.  In the forward of the book, Paul VI says, I like this book and I add 3 Eucharistic prayers.  Nowhere does Paul VI say that it has to be used.  Paul VI never signed a decree saying the new mass has to be used. 

An excerpt from the closing session of VII:  This council… has concentrated principally on man … Would it not be, in short, a simple, new and solemn teaching to love man in order to love God? To love man, we say, not as a means but as the first step toward the final and transcendent goal which is the basis and cause of every love… The religion of God who became man has met the religion of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. … we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism; we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor man; we have the Cult of Man”.

An excerpt from the encyclical, E Supremi, Pope St Pius X:  When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2).

As for Josef Ratzinger,  I direct your attention to the scandalous "Theological Commentary" on the Third Secret, released by the Vatican in June of 2000: 

The concluding part of the “secret” uses images which Lucia may have seen in devotional books and which draw their inspiration from long-standing intuitions of faith.  (It takes a convoy of cargo ships to carry the amount of audacity that Cardinal Ratzinger has, to attempt to debunk the visits of the Virgin Mary to Fatima.)

and...

I would like finally to mention another key expression of the “secret” which has become justly famous: “my Immaculate Heart will triumph”. What does this mean? The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind.  (Another convoy of cargo ships is needed again for the audacity Cardinal Ratzinger uses to equate every heart open to God as an Immaculate Heart.)

I just hope the Good Lord is too busy punishing the clergy to remember my sins.

Keep in mind that a Pope (whose name I forgot, mea culpa) also decreed that the Jesuits would be liquidated forever with the same language as Trent concerning the Liturgy. Several centuries later, a Pope reinstated the Order. Clearly, a Pope saying something is definitive does not always mean it will be. I recommend understanding the context of the words made.

If Trent, as you claim, so vehemently and clearly defined that the Liturgy can never be modified or changed, lest any man be put outside the Church, then why did Pope Saint Pius X make changes in the Tridentine Liturgy? Isn't that just as much a grave offense against Trent as the Novus Ordo?

The Church has had a very long history of slowly making additions and subtractions to the Liturgy. It would make no sense whatsoever if a Pope decided this would cease forevermore. In fact, I daresay it is against tradition to do such a thing.

As for Fatima, no Catholic is obliged to believe in it. This has never been the understanding of the Church. The Church merely says this or that vision or apparition is worthy of belief, but Catholics are still free to not follow it. I do not have the proper context of what Ratzinger said, so I cannot say definitively what his meaning is. However, even if he is against Fatima or has several issues with it, that is his right as a Catholic.

Edited December 24, 2015 by PhuturePriest

[Gladius]

Popes throughout history make decrees and judgements that have different levels of authority.  Abolishing or re-instating an Order is not a dogmatic pronouncement on Faith or Morals.  See VI for the Canon which defines Papal Infallibility.  And your right to a certain extent about belief in Fatima.  That's not really the point here.

Josef Ratzinger obviously believes in Fatima or he wouldn't be going to such lengths to discredit it.  He has read the Third Secret.  He has seen the predictions made by Our Lady unfold before his very eyes.  And he still has the nerve to deceive souls by using his status in the Church.  Then the master stroke, the attempt on the life of JPII allowed the Vatican to claim that he was the Pope of the Secret.  It didn't matter that the Secret clearly states that the Bishop in White would be killed. 

Now JPII was the hero of the world.  He brought down the Wall along with Reagan.  It didn't matter If JPII prayed to Buddha or celebrated a counterfeit  new mass with bare breasted women or sent $55 million (some say $100 million) to Solidarity.  If JPII couldn't count on Our Lady to provide the promised world peace, because he never consecrated Russia by name in union with the worls's Bishops as requested, then maybe he could buy it.  Sorry pal, it didn't work.

Somebody stop me of I'll be here typing all day!

[MarysLittleFlower]

How do we put these two ideas together - that the Mass can't change (as was codified) and that even the TLM has changed over time since then? 

6 minutes ago, Gladius said:

Popes throughout history make decrees and judgements that have different levels of authority.  Abolishing or re-instating an Order is not a dogmatic pronouncement on Faith or Morals.  See VI for the Canon which defines Papal Infallibility.  And your right to a certain extent about belief in Fatima.  That's not really the point here.

Josef Ratzinger obviously believes in Fatima or he wouldn't be going to such lengths to discredit it.  He has read the Third Secret.  He has seen the predictions made by Our Lady unfold before his very eyes.  And he still has the nerve to deceive souls by using his status in the Church.  Then the master stroke, the attempt on the life of JPII allowed the Vatican to claim that he was the Pope of the Secret.  It didn't matter that the Secret clearly states that the Bishop in White would be killed. 

Now JPII was the hero of the world.  He brought down the Wall along with Reagan.  It didn't matter If JPII prayed to Buddha or celebrated a counterfeit  new mass with bare breasted women or sent $55 million (some say $100 million) to Solidarity.  If JPII couldn't count on Our Lady to provide the promised world peace, because he never consecrated Russia by name in union with the worls's Bishops as requested, then maybe he could buy it.  Sorry pal, it didn't work.

Somebody stop me of I'll be here typing all day!

I don't think its up to us to judge a Pope or any cleric really. If something is distressing we can just pray. Pope John Paul II was canonized so there were miracles of intercession... We don't know the whole story or his heart, he's a Pope and now a Saint so let's just leave to God the things we hear. Our role is just to work out our salvation. That's one thing I think should change in the trad 'movement'- and I say that as someone from within - if we spent as much time praying as we do reading about the "errors of today's church"- we would be of greater benefit to the Church and become holier. I'm speaking to myself too. I used to read all kinds of stuff online and then my priest advised me to just turn it off and focus on my prayer life. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got :) 

Of course I'm not saying I'm holier. But I have more peace than I did before :) 

Edited December 24, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Gladius]

Infallibility along with the other dogmas are defined so we can judge them.  "By their fruits you shall know them", as Jesus says.  So if a Pope makes a dogmatic pronouncement, it can never be changed.  That is called the extra-ordinary Magisterium.  If a Pope or Bishop or Priest teaches what the Church has always taught, that is called the ordinary Magisterium.  If any teaching is put forth that does not meet those two conditions, it is called heresy.  

Now by "judging", I mean formal and objective heresy.  In other words, a Catholic can tell from exterior actions and words, who is teaching heresy.  If we are talking about subjective and material heresy, then only a competent Church Authority can rule for or against.  And that ain't me!

[superblue]

I would be less worried about the Council of Trent, and Vatican II ; and which should be followed more closely or examining the two and doing this debate, that has already taken place way back when with both. An I would be more worried about how I am personally living the faith, and proclaiming the Gospel in my life, and am I at the very least in my limited ways trying to bring someone into the faith even if it is a fallen away family member. But I find a debate on this side topic pointless for the simple fact that barely anyone in America knows anything remotely close about how our government is supposed to work, so to expect catholics or people entering the Church to really understand the faith based upon Trent and V2 seems to me to be expecting way way too much, and only seems worth of any concern to actually the Pope, his officers , and then Bishops, to then get priests to understand which in turn Bishops and Priests working together to inform those in the pews an outside them, and the Pope and his officers working to make sure that what ever the message of Trent an V2 is is becoming clearer and is constantly moving toward being enforced ( for lack of a better word ) .

Towards the OG topic ,,,, I am now less interested in what Muslims view toward Christ / God the Trinity is, and am more interested in anything focused to preventing weak minded individuals being warped into believing that becoming a terrorist based on twisting a faith to suit a hateful means is their only option in life to find purpose and peace. An would be more interested in helping Muslim groups to spread the word on the truth of their own faith than the bastardization that has blatantly been taking place non stop.

The Internet seems to be a big key in that process. How to use it effectively is the next question.

[Gladius]

Sounds like a super cop out to me.  The world always goes down the toilet after the Church does.  Pope St Pius V codifies the Latin Mass forever, the Muslims are defeated at Lepanto.  The Sacred Heart appeals to the King of France, promising to vanquish French enemies forever.  The King ignores the request and immediately the French Revolution attempts and nearly succeeds in destroying the Church from without.  Our Lady of Fatima promises world peace if the Pope will simply Consecrate Russia by name in union with the Bishops of the world.  Seven Popes have failed in this super simple request since 1929.  A new French Revolution, called Vatican II, immediately sets about destroying the Church from within.  How dense are we?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????  

[Not A Real Name]

If we worshiped the same God we would be one religion, but we're not so there's that. 

[4588686]

On 12/22/2015, 1:06:33, dominicansoul said:

Muslims actually say no, they do not worship the same God as Christians, because they don't believe in the Holy Trinity...but, because they believe to worship the "God of Abraham" well....that's our GOD too!

 

it's quite confusing

Every Muslim I've ever known, either living in the US or outside it, has said that Christians and Muslims worship the same god

[Amppax]

11 minutes ago, Hasan said:

Every Muslim I've ever known, either living in the US or outside it, has said that Christians and Muslims worship the same god

You're back! Here I was all worried you went and got yourself banned. 

[Gladius]

1 hour ago, Hasan said:

Every Muslim I've ever known, either living in the US or outside it, has said that Christians and Muslims worship the same god

Obviously, you've never read the Koran.  We don't know if JPII read it, but he did kiss it.

[4588686]

47 minutes ago, Gladius said:

Obviously, you've never read the Koran.  We don't know if JPII read it, but he did kiss it.

I have read the Qur'an.

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

You're back! Here I was all worried you went and got yourself banned. 

What is dead may never die

[Gladius]

1 minute ago, Hasan said:

I have read the Qur'an.

Then to say Muslims and Christians worship the same God, you have chosen the life of untruth.

[4588686]

Just now, Gladius said:

Then to say Muslims and Christians worship the same God, you have chosen the life of untruth.

I didn't say that, you have chosen a life of illiteracy.  

[Gladius]

Just now, Hasan said:

I didn't say that, you have chosen a life of illiteracy.  

I resemble that remark.

[4588686]

12 minutes ago, Gladius said:

I resemble that remark.

Yep