Jews, Christians, And Muslims

[Adeodatus]

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.

The Catechism says the plan of salvation includes Muslims. This plan is the plan of salvation in Christ. The catechism isn't teaching that anyone gets saved through anyone apart from Christ. No one gets saved through Islam, but God wants Muslims to be saved, and if they are saved it is through Christ.

I think St Pius V would have felt the same as John Paul II about the Battle of Lepanto. What he would have condemned was unjust aggression, not the personal religiosity of the Turks. The Christians, championed by Don John of Austria (the historical one I mean), were fighting Ottoman Turkish aggression. Likewise the language of Pope Urban II, before the First Crusade, condemns Saracen tyranny in the Holy Land and against the Byzantines. The enemy was aggression and tyranny. Just as today John Paul II condemns tyranny, terrorism and injustice.

In Pope Urban's time many people really did assume that Muslims were pagans.

"In northern Europe, far from the threat of Muslim invasion, ignorance about Islam---and indifference toward it---helps create the fantastic, diabolical, anti-Trinitarian Saracen idolatry of the 'chansons de geste'. In the 'Chanson de Roland', the Saracens of Zaragoza worship a trinity of golden idols: Mahomet, Apollin, and Tervagant. They destroy the golden idol of Mahomet when it fails to prevent their defeat at the hands of Charlemagne. The Muslim here is the quintessential other, the ideal enemy. The basic outlines of this Saracen paganism are found in many other French epics.... While the authors north of the Pyrenees created an imaginary Islam that they could safely hold in contempt, those in Spain were forced to confront the real Islam; the most accurate information on Islam in medieval Europe comes from Spain." (from 'Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam' by Professor John Victor Tolan; Routledge, 2000).

So we should condemn injustice and aggression in anyone: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. We don't condemn other religions because we don't need to and it would be pointless. Whatever the faults of the founders of other religions, the people who follow those religions now aren't to blame for those faults.

Salvation is only through Christ. Over time, Christians have come to a better understanding of what other religions teach. As far as Islam is concerned, the Pope and Vatican II teach us that Muslims worship the same God as us.

Notice how they phrase it.

Muslims...

1. acknowledge the Creator

2. profess to hold the faith of Abraham

3. together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

These are the points of contact we have with Muslims in our beliefs about God. You might say, 'Well that's not the Trinity!' You'd be correct. It's not. But we also say that we worship the same God as the Jews, and they don't acknowledge the Trinity either.

You have the authority of the Pope and Vatican II teaching us about Muslims. Against that you have the complaints (by Popes no doubt) from the Middle Ages about alien aggression against Christendom---not a comment on Muslims as a religious people.

John Paul II and Vatican II are not and could not be contradicting the Catholic Faith.

[Aloysius]

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...

when protestants broke away, there were attributes of God that they had no reason not to know as they had been revealed, but they rejected them. some rejected the trinity somewhere down the line, some rejected the loving God that wills all men be saved by saying He damns some to hell, etc. etc. etc.

that said, they kept more of Christianity, in fact, enough to still be considered Christians.

Muhammed studied Judaism and Catholocism but rejected alot of Catholic and Jewish Teaching, so he started a new religion that included the things he agreed with Catholics on, as well as things he agreed with the Jews on. please note, i do not mean to EQUATE protestantism and Islam, simply to show that they are both forms of protest against Catholic doctrine while retaining some of it. Muhammed, sadly, did not keep enough of the doctrine in order to retain Christianity, it became another religion. it is a false religion, with big points that are however true.

where u showed the attributes that Protestants agree on, Adeodatus just made the following list

Muslims...

1. acknowledge the Creator

2. profess to hold the faith of Abraham

3. together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

the false part of the religion is basically like... everything else... er.. im sure there's still other parts that are from Christianity. anyway, what i'm tryin to say is that the religion that Muhammed started was influenced by his study of Christianity and Judaism which led the Islam having certain truths in it. The plan of salvation includes muslims through these truths they already hold, namely the three Adeodatus mentioned. that's what the Catechism teaches.

this does not go against previous popes who have called it a false religion. it is a false religion, with some big true parts covered up with falsities. the popes looked at the falsities and declared the false religion, Pope John Paul the second looked deeper and declared some inner core parts as true and said the muslims have a chance!

i understand ur logic. there is no excuse for him not to know these attributes, espec. since he studied Christianity, but he did not beleive them and started his own religion BASED ON THE SAME GOD but not THE COMPLET TRUTH ABOUT THE SAME GOD.

i think it is 'comparable' to protestantism, while not altogether true. denying some truths while retaining the core most important truths, namely that God is one, the creator of all things, who spoke to Abraham, who is to be worshipped. Muhammed cut WAY too much out for Islam to be equal to protestantism, but it is still a protestation of some <in this case kinda most> Christian truths while holding firm to the one Creator, attempting to live morally, and awaiting the judgement day. so i stand by my assertion that Islam is protestantism in disguise.

[cmotherofpirl]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>CATECHISM:</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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."

</td></tr></table>

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

THey can't Az.

THat is the teaching of the Church, whether Don likes it or not.

THe Church interprets the Church.

Not you, not me, not Don.

To put your opinion of what the Church teachings mean, over what the Church

says the teachings mean, is to do exactly what the trads do.

To jump off the barque of Peter is to swim with the sharks.

[Aloysius]

:wacko: The Church interprets THe Church interprets The Scriptures that it defined....

B)

[geetarplayer]

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!

That was a great post, Aloysius.

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.

I like Ayed. He really brings a breath of fresh cultural air. Good observations, Azriel.

-Mark

[Azriel]

Thanks Mark! I thought that one may have gotten lost.

And Cmom - thank you too.

[M.SIGGA]

Thanks Adeodatus. This was well explained and think I can agree with this.

[PedroX]

First, my apologies for taking so long, but I have been out of town. Sorry.

However, it comes as a great sadness, if little surprise, to see that once again we have degenerated into implying that those who disagree with us are somehow schismatic. No one has "jumped from the barque of Peter." We simply have been debating the merits of two different sets of church documents, none of which are officially infallable. We are quick to accuse the Protestants of a lack of unity, but to me it is small wonder that they are repulsed as they watch us slaughter each other. To imply schism is a grave matter, and should only be done under limited circumstances, not because you happen to disagree with some one.

Azriel, you quoted paragraph 841 of the Catechism. Now, I think that we can all agree that while the Catechism contains infallable teachings, it is not itself an infallable document. Secondly, lets look at the footnotes to this paragraph. There are two sources listed. One is Lumen Gentium, and the other is Nostra Aetate. To my knowledge neither of these documents have been proclaimed infallible. Both of these documents are 50 years old, or less and both APPARENTLY are a redirection of older church statements. Now, I am prepared to accept that my posistion (that Muslims are pagans) if you can show me that these two documents should take precendence over earlier teachings. If, however, you cannot, then I think we have come to a draw. I think that there is room for disagreement on this issue, since we have NO infallable teaching on the subject. Again, if I am wrong I will sumbit to the wisdom of our Holy Mother Church (as I always have, contrary to earlier slander in this thread). Please address the issue, and refrain as much as possible from personal attacks.

peace...

[geetarplayer]

I also think it would be best if we all just called it a draw and continued believing what we believe about this issue.

-Mark

[Chrysologus]

Lumen Gentium was proclaimed by the sacred Council. It must be accepted by all Catholics. Everything in the Catechism is taught by the church and must also be accepted by all Catholics. The notion that a teaching must be dogmatic and final for us to believe it is unacceptable. Muslims worship one God as understood by traditional philosophy and theology. Therefore, they worship the same one God as Christians and Jews.

[cmotherofpirl]

yep

[PedroX]

Very well, I submit. For, that is what is required of us in all current church teaching, dogmatic or not. I was momentarily distracted by agreement/belief, but in the end sumbission/obedience is required. Thank you Chrysologus for your reminder of this.

For all of you who would imply my schismatic status before ascertaining all the facts, I only hope that others would show you more charity than you apparently are willing to give to me.

Aeodatus, Thank you for engaging in a debate that was focused mainly on the issues. You have proven to be an intelligen, respectful debater, and I look forward to such discussions in the future.

peace...

[Azriel]

My dear Pedro -

I hope for one second, as you quoted me in the above, that you do not believe that I was implying you were schismatic. Or that you felt for any second that I wasn't showing any charity.

I sincerely wanted to know why I should or should not believe my catechism, and in all honesty, am always perplexed when folks begin to use church documents to back up their beliefs, rather than the other way around.

I have never called anyone a heretic, or schismatic during my tenure on the board. Nor implied as such. Frankly, I don't know as much about Church history as anyone on this board. And always feel odd jumping in these discussions when I know someone with way more knowledge than me can find all sorts of sources to back them up.

Quite frankly, your comments make me very sad inDouche.

[cmotherofpirl]

what AZ said.

[Adeodatus]

M.Sigga - You're welcome!

PedroX - I have to admit that I really enjoyed debating with you (maybe 'dialoging' is a better word for what we ended up doing). I was impressed and moved by your courtesy, and your willingness to genuinely hear the point I was trying to make, and I hope you thought the same. I look forward to future discussions with you too....maybe even on the same side next time.

Like you I think words like 'heresy', 'schismatic' and 'blasphemy' are really rather heavy words for us to throw around. Of course they are sometimes used correctly, and sometimes need to be used. None of us here could canonically accuse you of heresy or schism, and I hope you don't think any of us would (well, not without hearing all the facts! )

For us in Phorum I think your charitable patience is a good example of how dialog can work. God bless you!

Pax vobiscum.... all of you!