Jews, Christians, And Muslims

[geetarplayer]

Geetarplayer,

There is not a single Muslim country where Christians or Jews are allowed free worship.  This is especially troublesome, since those communities are far older than the Muslim communities that now rule.  The Coptic Christians in Egypt are one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, and they face constant persecution, even from the average Muslim who supposedly is full of love.  Either you just don't know enough about the religion, or you are willfully choosing to believe a lie.

peace...

Could it be that the Muslim leaders of these countries are without love and not the Muslim people of these countries in general?

-Mark

P.S. Sorry it took so long for me to reply. I wasn't silent because I was admitting that I was wrong. I was silent because I haven't been in this topic since I last posted.

[PedroX]

Adeodatus,

Somewhere in your picking apart of Don John's grammar and spelling you mention a Papal quote. Could you provide context and source for it? You see, the Quote from Urban II condemming the Mohammedans as pagans was in context within his role as Universal Pastor. In otherwords he (Urban II) was acting in alter Christos.

Geetar Player, when the street mobs of these countries stop persecuting Christians, and when the Imam's stop preaching hate, and when the Koran no longer divides the world into the abode of Islam, and the abode of war (and only those two abodes) then maybe I will be able to be persuaded that Islam is as soft and pretty as you seem to believe.

Please follow this link for a orthodox Catholic perspective on the Crusades. It appeared in Crisis magazine.

Crusdes

peace...

[Don John of Austria]

See Pedro I knew that would get some kind of response:

Adeodatus-- Lets dance.

Don, would that perchance be the sanctimoniousness of Pope Gregory VII?

Why no it would be your sanctamoniousness, but I am glad you asked. His holiness was writeing a personal letter to a head of State, thanking him for freeing Christian prisoners, this is hardly a ringing endorsment for your position

whereas the Quote from Pope Urban II was made as the Pope, as Shepherd of the Church and while he was useing his Spiritual powers, as the Pope. I didn't say it was infallable I said it was more likely than the Quote you offered. However the fact that you call the popes statement at a Council( not a full council but a council none the less) rhetoric, is impious almost to the point of Blaspheming the holy office itself.

Lets see the Third lateran Council siad that the Saracens( which was the term in use for Mohammedans, not a racial group) where Evil, and Lyons II said they were blasphemous and faithless. But I guess those Councils don't matter either, becoause Councils don't have any authority unless there the Councils YOU like right. It seems that You don't care that the tradition of the Church was that the Mohammedian sect is evil, so much so that multipule Crusades were called by Popes and Councils. But this tradition was strong enough that the First lateran Councilsaw fit to proclaim the following canon:

10.  To those who set out for Jerusalem and offer effective help towards the defence of the christian people and overcoming the tyranny of the infidels, we grant the remission of their sins, and we place their houses and families and all their goods under the protection of blessed Peter and the Roman church, just as has been decreed by our lord pope Urban. Whoever dares to distrain or carry off their houses, families and goods, while they are on their way, shall be punished with excommunication. Those who have put crosses on their clothes, with a view to journeying to Jerusalem or to Spain, and have later taken them off, we command by our apostolic authority to wear the crosses again and to complete the journey between this Easter and the following Easter. Otherwise, from that moment we cut them off from entry into church and forbid divine services in all their lands, apart from the baptism of infants and confessions for the dying.

Thus this ecuminical council thought it importent enough, excommunicat those hwho interfered with the Crusaders furthermore to place under effective Interdict all of those who failed complete their promised Crusades, not just themselve but ALL who lived in there lands. NO MASS, NO WEDDINGS, NO ORDNATIONS! this is a pretty serious penalty for those who just don't want to make war on a Peaceful loveing faith ( sarcasm intended).

Here is a single example of the horrors of Islam I will be glad to provide more if you would like:

Every spring the armies of the Caliph started campaigning against the Christians.  The Holy War was, so to speak, permanent, and for practical purposes remained declared all the time….The objective of the Caliphate troops was to bring back to Cordova, together with plenty of booty, as many prisoners as possible, who became slaves – especially women and children; the others were massacred and decapitated.  The more severed were piled up and brought back, the more the campaign was glorious and meritorious in the eyes of Allah.

of Islam I will be glad to provide more if you would like:

This was in Spain and comes from:2. Louis Bertrand and Sir Charles Petrie Br., The History of Spain (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1945)

Now this was the common practice of Islam for Hundreds of years, and it was the practice when they took North Africa as well. Frankly your attempt at history was lacking and the fact that you chose to be condesnding about it is laughable because simoply put you are WRONG. THe Muslims when they took almost any place sacked the city, enslaved the wemon and Children and killed the men, it wass standard practice and evil a cursory glance at the history of the Muslim conquest would show that to you. was latin spoken in parts of N.A. for a few hundred years sure, where the Christians there abuse and slaughtered for centuries yes. They still are.

Ah, but in 1076 the Truth was that Muslims worship the same God as us.

Would that be 'historisism' (I presume you mean 'historicism') on your part Don? Don't forget: (in your own words) "historisism is heresy".

Well NO, I didn't say that the Truth Changed with the whim of a non infallable document I simply responded to some one who did. Do you even Know what Historicism is, frankly judging from your clumsy attempt to turn it on me I would say no. I simply believe that Urban was Speaking as the Pope in a Theological capacity and theat Gregory was not, the Councils of the day side with him even by name.

You ought to know that the derogatory term you try to use is actually spelt as 'Mohammedans'. If you're going to be insulting you wouldn't want your insults to go to waste now, would you? 

We ought to call them what they call themselves: Muslims, plain and simple. It's not up to you to be offended or not by their designation for themselves. What if they got a bee in their bonnet too about calling us 'Christians'? It's a simple matter of human courtesy, and about showing the divine love of Christ.

Mohammedans is what they are, they are not muslims, they do not submit to God, the Idea that I do not believe in Christ is absurd so the two things are not analgous. They object to the term because they say that they do not worship Mohammed ( which could be debated) however the Lutherans do not worship Luther nor the Calvinist Calvin nor the Methodist method So that is really not much of an arguement, They do not submit to the will of God and it is not deragatory to refer to tham as what they are, people don't like being called thieve or rapist or murderers yet if that is what the are it is not " deragatory to call them that.

Oh and by the way when correting somei=ones spelling it is customary to spell correctly your self the word is not "spelt" it is SPELLED.

.

'Allah' is not a name exclusive to what you would probably call the 'Mohammedian God'. Catholic Arabs have been using 'Allah' as God's name for hundreds of years before Muhammad was born. In Arabic (modified via Syriac) it means 'God'.

I am well aware of the the word Allah's history, I did not think it necessary to give a treatise on it, We are discussing the Mohammedans not the Arab Christians. If I was discussing the Carthaginians I wouldn't think I needed to differentiate between the various manifistations of Baal in the Middle Sea, I would assume that a reader would know I was speaking of the Carthaginian Baal. Now that I realize I am dealling with a nitpicker instead of someone making actual arguments I will make sure to be more specific.

Did I miss anything? I hope not.

PedroX I agree that Urban was acting in alter Christos.

[Aloysius]

hey i havnt read any posts or nuthin and im just gonna interject a random comment.

i think Islam is the first protestant denomination. it kept kinda nearly the same God and the same history sorta, and the same angels and stuff, lost a bit too much of the personal love, and went off on it's own to become it's own religion. it has been used by God to bring REALLY sinful arabs into a religion in which they worship the ONE CREATOR. they may not have the fullness of truth about Him, but they at least do not worship the idol gods they usedta. that is it. It is a part of the plan of salvation simply because God uses it to bring ppl into worship of Him. Islam in and of itself cannot bring ppl to salvation. only Christ can do that.

anyway, i made above the provacative statement that Islam is the first protestant denomination. i shall explain. Mohammed studied Judaism and Christianity. He couldn't understand the doctrine of say, the Trinity, and of a personal loving God and all sortz of stuff, but he believed that this was the true God, just misinterpreted. anyway, he went off and wrote a book about the way he thought that God should've been interpreted, and claimed it from the Angel Gabriel. Therefore, Mohammad studied Catholic teaching, protested it, and started his own religion based off of the same God just differently interpretted.

let's pray for the muslims. for their conversion here on earth, or for God's mercy in giving them a chance to convert after they leave this earth because of their worship of Him while they were there.

all the historical docs u were citing left and right should prolly fit in with this interpretation, as long as u already accept that Protestants are our separated brethren and we just used harsher language for them back then.

PEACE!

[Adeodatus]

Adeodatus,

Somewhere in your picking apart of Don John's grammar and spelling you mention a Papal quote.  Could you provide context and source for it?  You see, the Quote from Urban II condemming the Mohammedans as pagans was in context within his role as Universal Pastor.  In otherwords he (Urban II) was acting in alter Christos.

Geetar Player,  when the street mobs of these countries stop persecuting Christians, and when the Imam's stop preaching hate, and when the Koran no longer divides the world into the abode of Islam, and the abode of war (and only those two abodes) then maybe I will be able to be persuaded that Islam is as soft and pretty as you seem to believe.

PedroX - the quote comes from Migne's Patrologia Latina, volume 48, pages 450-452 (it's Gregory VII's epistola 21).

Acting 'in alter Christos'? Whatever you mean it can't be Latin or Greek, but an incorrect combination of the two.

'Alter Christus' is the term applied to the priest, especially in celebrating the Eucharist. He is said to act as 'another Christ'. But it is not so much another Christ who confects the sacrament as THE Christ. So the preferred term now is 'in persona Christi' or better, 'in persona Christi capitis ecclesiae'. Christ, as head of the Church, gives grace to the rest of His Body the Church.

As for the Pope, I guess you mean he was acting 'ex cathedra', 'from the chair [of Peter]', that is, exercising the authority granted by Our Lord to Peter and his successors. That of course is the point we dispute: whether he was acting as Universal Pastor or not.

Don, 'spelt' is the British English past participle of 'spell'. 'Spelled' as you write, is the accepted American variant. As a Brit, I would say 'spelt'. Tomato, to-MAH-to; potato, potato.

'Saracen' is a racial designation. Medieval Christians thought of Muslims as Christian heretics, and Saracen was a widely used term. In your refusal to extend a simple courtesy to Muslims by calling them what they call themselves you open the door for them to refuse to call you a Christian, on the grounds, if they wished to say, that you are not a true follower of Christ. I myself would not say that about you. Nor would I deny the name 'Muslim' to a Muslim.

What do the two of you (PedroX and Don) mean by 'Muslim countries'? Where there are a majority of Muslims, or a Muslim state? In our own Christian countries, are there no instances of religious or racial discrimination? Seeing that there are, would Muslims be correct in assuming that these injustices exist because we are Christian, or should they assume the injustices exist because our states are not as Christian as they ought to be?

Similarly, you mention Muslim atrocities and you equate that with Islam. That is just naivete (correct spelling I assure you, but without the accent marks) on a grand scale. Perhaps you should think that Muslims do bad things when they are bad Muslims.

Edited October 23, 2003 by Adeodatus

[PedroX]

Adeodatus,

What does your latest post have to do with wether or not the followers of Mohammed's teachings worship God or not? You can pick apart my misspelling, and try to change the catechism's teaching on the role of the priest (which uses the phrase "in alter Christus") but all of that is rather far afield from the point. The point is that the historic teaching of the church is that Islam is a false religion. It is not a Christian sect. Its followers are not "errant brothers" (the Vatican II designation for Protestants), and it has never been viewed as a religion of peace and love. You have been unable to provide any substantial proof to the contrary. Rather, you exercise great editorial skill in pointing out my weak command of latin, and Don's hurried typing. Please return to the question at hand.

Tell us why council after council and Papal proclamation after Papal proclamation is to now be discarded. It would be more convient to pretend that those who follow Mohammed's lies are just like us, and that their god is the same as our God, but since when does the Catholic church settle for convient lies?

peace...

[Adeodatus]

PedroX - Thanks for your courteous reply (I'm not being sarcastic). I am sorry if you were offended by my 'picking at your mispellings', but I was genuinely trying to clarify those Latin terms.

I think our disagreements boil down to two points. One, about Islam as a religion. Two, the infallibility of the pope and councils, specifically which kind of councils and what kind of sayings of the pope.

The Church does not recognise any other religion as true. The fullness of truth lies in the Church alone. But she also sees that some truth is not absent in other religions, for example, in Islam its adherents are taught to worship the one God, the creator of all that exists, among whose names are Mercy and Justice. Yes, Islam is not a Christian sect. But neither is Islam completely evil and warped that God cannot draw forth good out of it. I find that claim objectionable not because I have a personal fondness for Islam, but because I find the idea that God's power is limited to be against the Catholic Faith. God did not will Islam (we cannot as Catholics believe He did), but He can still use Islam as a 'praeparatio evangelii'---to prepare people to receive the Gospel. Notice what I am not saying: that Islam is actively willed by God to bring people to Christianity. That would just be rubbish.

The Council of Clermont in 1095, at which Pope Urban II called for a crusade was only a local council - with no infallible teaching arising out of it. inDouche a Pope can confirm a local council's teaching on a certain matter as infallible using his authority ex cathedra, but no Pope did that with this council.

Among the ecumenical councils, Lateran III (1179) excommunicated those who sold arms to Saracens or acted as ships' pilots for them in their attacks against Christians. Lyons II (1274) forbade trade and arms deals with the Saracens because of the great military threat they posed to Christendom, and especially to the Byzantine Empire.

These are both examples of canonical legislation, which can change. Some canonical legislation cannot change, because they touch on divine law or revealed truth, for example, the command not to murder. But other canonical provisions may be altered, even though they have been issued by an ecumenical council. For example, about the financial arrangements of monasteries, or days of fasting to be observed, or days of truces etc.

So no infallible teaching of the Church exists which condemns Muslims (inasmuch as they are Muslim) as evil. In fact what we do have is the teacing of Vatican II about Muslims and our relations with them. And it affirms that we worship the same God. (see thedude's posting in this thread of 16 Oct, and cmom's post of 17 October). Just because they may not have a clearer concept of God does not mean that it isn't the same God. The strict Calvinists believe in a God who does double predestination (i.e. predestines some people to hell). We can say that their view is warped, but they are still trying to worship the same God as us. We must not disagree on this, because the Church teaches us that we worship the same God as Muslims. That's not the same as saying Muslims have complete truth. They don't.

We must make the distinction between a religion and its followers. If we didn't, that would be sufficient evidence to condemn Christianity based on the behaviour of its adherents. Judge a religion by its best examples. For us, we have the saints. And among Muslims we find peaceable and religious people, albeit in ignorance and error, but striving as they know how to do the will of God and submit to Him.

But what puzzles me is why you and Don think this commits us to believe that Muslims are just like us? They are not. Or that this leads to an indifferentism, saying that any old religion is OK so long as you follow your conscience etc. It does not!

Do you think our points of agreement are greater than we previously suspected?

Peace be with you also.........

[Don John of Austria]

well I have posted two responses of over a page long aand niether one is here, I will have to answer this at home.

[Aloysius]

Mohammad took som Christian doctine and made a religion around it, taking away the parts of Christian doctrine he did not like. that's why i call it the sort of "first protestant" religion. it isn't a Christian denom, but it was founded in about the same way they all were, it just took out the Christ where prots just took out like the Pope and stuff.

Islam=disguised non-Christian Protestantism

the truth in Islam is found in the truths Mohammad took from the Christian religion. Islam is only this part of the plan of salvation because it took Christian doctrines and now has these doctrines as truths which lead the muslims to worship the one true God. muslims cannot attain salvation by Islam alone, they will only acheive salvation by God's infinite love and mercy upon these ppl who try to worship Him. if God saves them, he will do so through the truths they took from Christianity, against the mistruths that contradict Christian truth, by the Blood of Christ's, and through His Church, on earth and/or in Heaven.

Popes call Islam pagan by what they know about Islam. they know Islam is this religion which denies Christ, there they have seen a mistruth that contradicts Christian truth, and have declared Islam to be a pagan religion. which part of Islam? the part of Islam the Pope's knew of and were strongly against, the part that denied Christ Jesus. not the parts of Islam that were Christian truths. so by parts of Islam, a Muslim comes to know God, and God shows His infinite mercy when he sees some of his creation coming to know Him through these truths Muhammed took from Christianity, and He brings them into the light-- whether it be all of them, some of them, most of them, or few of them, only God can judge.

[Azriel]

Ok ...

1. Did the question ever get answered? - I thought it was clear that we do in fact worship the same God. Whether you FEEL that Muslims have a twisted distorted view, or 'butchered' God ... doesn't matter.

2. Ya'll have spent an awful lot of time using church documents to promote your OWN PERSONAL BELIEF.

3. I gotta say, it gets awfully entertaining watching people who love to be right.

4. No pointing of fingers, but its seems that we spend an awful lot of time beating up folks that don't believe as we do. Which is a downright shame, because for example, Ayed is here. He has done nothing but approach us with respect and love. Sure his English isn't great which may lead to misunderstanding ... but he deserves to be shown the same exact respect and love. (not that he hasn't, its an hypothetical example.)

Now, off the soapbox, continue your dance.

[PedroX]

Adeodatus,

My apologies on taking so long to answer, but I was waiting for Don John to post, and well, here we are.

You are correct on several points. Mainly being that I can find no Ex Cathedra proclamation on Islam, and infact no Infallable Council proclamation on Islam. However, what we have is a situation where for centuries, Pope after Pope and council after council said that Islam was a false religion and did not worship the same God. The sheer number of proclamation, coupled with the span of time over which this truth was proclaimed does raise it above mere canonical law.

The quote that you gave from Gregory VII is from one temporal sovereign to another, and in no way can be construed to be pastoral in tone or nature.

So, when we put all of this together, the preponderence of the evidence weighs mightily on the side of Islam being a false religion and being in no way connected to Christianity. And, this was the original point of this thread (I scrolled back and read it just to make sure). We do not worship the same God. This is not to say that Muslims are "evil" (I'm pretty sure I never said that, but you use that word in you last post) any more than Hindus, Native Americans or Africans are. They however do worship a false god. Please keep reading as I address Aloysius to follow this logic.

Aloysius,

There is a major flaw in your attempt to equate Islam with Protestantism. Mainly that it is abundantly clear that any Protestant Christian does inDouche worship the same God that we do. This God shares the following common characteristics. One, God is Triune. Two, that Jesus (God the Son) became flesh, was born of the Virgin Mary and lived a life that was fully God and fully Man. Three that this same Jesus was crucified, died, buried and rose again on the third day. Four, that He (Jesus) ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. I could go on, but I believe that you understand, and agree. Now, stay with me.

Islam was created some 400-500 years after Christ. There is no excuse for Mohammed to not know of the Trinity, or any other attributes of God. They had been revealed, and he (Mohammed) ignored them and chose to mold a god in his (Mohammed's) own image. This is called idolatry and is forbidden in the first commandment. Islam is not at all comparable to Protestantism. Please stop attempting to do so.

peace...

[Azriel]

CATECHISM:

841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Explain to me, the uneducated one, why I shouldn't believe this.

[Adeodatus]

PedroX - we seem to be agreeing more and more. I agree with you about Gregory VII. That was a personal letter from one person to another. I think it genuinely expressed his own views. And I admit it does not satisfy the criteria of solemnly defined infallible teaching.

I also agree that many medieval Christians thought the Muslims to be pagans. However I don't agree that many popes and councils took that view. Be that as it may, even if they did (let's suppose that they did), I don't think it adds up to infallible teaching. Infallible teaching has to be solemnly declared, and it must concern something on faith or morals, or proximate to these areas. Numerous non-infallible teaching do not necessarily reflect or become infallible.

But what we have now is the Pope and the Catechism (thanks for the quote Azriel!) telling us about our relationship with Muslims. We can't just ignore that because of our previous history----a history which does NOT include any infallible teaching on this point (which you agree with me on).

I want to make two important points to conclude.

1. About the medieval Muslims being called 'pagans'.

"The idea of Islam, that is to say of a collection of political and religious beliefs, was alien to western thinking at this period (c. 1095). Some learned clerics might have had a perception of the Muslim faith, especially in Spain, where the Mozarabic Church had had to construct an apologetics to combat Muslim proselytism. The vast majority of westerners, however, saw the 'Saracens' as 'pagans' who, according to contemporary authors, worshipped idols." (from 'The Crusades c. 1071-c.1291' by Professor Jean Richard, Cambridge University Press, 1999. page 23).

2. About a fundamentalist reading of Church pronouncements.

We should listen to the Church about how She interprets her own documents. Too literal a reading would end in chaos.

For example, at Nicaea I (325), the Council Fathers condemned anyone who said that the Son is from 'another hypostasis or substance' from the Father.

But at Chalcedon (451), the Council Fathers speak of the Father and the Son as being of 'one substance' but different 'hypostases'.

Between these 2 ecumenical councils the Faith did not change. What did change was their understanding of the term 'hypostasis' (which we translate as 'person'). If we took them literally, we would have concluded that Chalcedon could not possibly have taught that infallibly, because at face value it appears to contradict Nicaea!

The point I am trying to make here is that we should listen to the Church how best to understand what the Church teaches. And so with regard to Muslims, look at what Azriel has cited from the Catechism.

There's no such thing as a self-made Catholic. We all need to kneel in humility and awe before the Cross, and let the Holy Spirit acting in and through our holy mother Church mould us and shape us into the image of Christ, to be made in grace what Christ is by nature, a true child of the Father. Amen.

Peace be with you.

[M.SIGGA]

CATECHISM:

841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Explain to me, the uneducated one, why I shouldn't believe this.

Does this include all Muslims, or just the ones that are totally ignorant of the Gospel? It's really hard for me to understand what to believe b/c the opinions of the Popes have changed so much in the last few centuries. I'm sure St. Pius V would have never said this when he was leading the Battle of Loreto, and I know JPII sees things from a 20th century point of view - so which point of view is correct about Islam's hope of true prayer and salvation?

Don Jon of Austria has a point that previous pontiffs felt very differently about muslims/sarecens/etc.

[Don John of Austria]

It did it agian, apparantly I can only quick reply from work, I appologize for last night, I had car issues and was not a t home. I will try to post a seiries of short post later but I just lost another 3/4 page response. I now have to go, 4th period is calling.