Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: How Would You Answer This Woman?  (Read 2963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: How Would You Answer This Woman?
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2023, 05:04:40 AM »
Reply:  They believed things differently back then and things have changed now with a different understanding.  smh


This is precisely why it’s useless to argue with this person. It seems to me that this person doesn’t profess the True Faith. 

3039 Dz 1818 3. “If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema” [cf. n.1800]

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: How Would You Answer This Woman?
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2023, 05:10:18 AM »
So I'm in an online discussion with a lady about how the Catechism/Lumen Gentium declares that we worship the same god as Muslims.  Here is what she said:

"Of course we worship the same God as the Muslims! They just don't worship Him in His fullness that is the Trinity. There's only One God so as long as you worship God and not Satan you are still worshipping God, even as imperfect as that understanding may be. Your responsibility as a Catholic is always to construe the Catechism in the way the Church construes it, not in the way YOU construe, lest you be in error."

How would you respond to her?

It's tempting to think that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God -- until you think about it.

No, Muslims do NOT worship the same God.

Their "god" did not give his only-begotten son to save us and re-open the gates of Heaven. Our God did do this!
Muslims think that Mohammad is a more important "prophet" than Jesus Christ -- speaking of Whom, Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God.
Their "god" is OK -- even happy -- with Muslims killing Christians (the Church founded by Jesus Christ) in order to spread the new Muslim religion. Muslims spreading their religion "by the sword" was NOT a cultural thing, an aberration, an abuse -- no, they were 100% following their religion when they did this.

Islam was the first Syncretist religion -- blending elements of multiple religions together to form an ecuмenical stew.

It comes from THREE sources.
1) Judaism (no pork, ritual cleanness, women veiling, their practices of divorce, the day starts/ends at Sundown, lunar timing of holidays)
2) Christianity (the persons Jesus and Mary, fasting, prayers, liturgical bowing, having a spiritual headquarters in Rome, etc.)
3) Arab Paganism (the Djinn = where we get "genie" from, the Kabaa object they worship in Mecca, etc.)

Of course, 1 and 2 are closely linked, as Our Lord took the True Religion and raised it to a new level. So things like prayer, fasting, set prayer times were present in Judaism, though Christians changed how those things were done. Also, you could say he borrowed some things from BOTH at once, as having a sacred book, and a set language (Jєωs: Hebrew, Christians: Latin, Muslims: Arabic) that religious work is done in.

Other things were clearly from just ONE of Christianity or Judaism. For example, divorce. There was no Catholic divorce since Our Lord's public life. However, Judaism had rules for it -- and so does Islam. And the Muslims extremely carnal notion of heaven/paradise -- that seems to be more Jєωιѕн, although the carnal-mindedness of the Jєωs wasn't universal, was it? Did some good/pious Jєωs understand that the possession of God forever was the essential happiness of heaven?

Suffice to say that Mohammad drew from these 3 dominant religions of his time, making a new religion. I guess you might also say that he drew from the dominant CHRISTIAN HERESIES of his day as well.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: How Would You Answer This Woman?
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2023, 08:04:09 AM »
Muslims are hypocrites. They claim Christ is the greatest prophet, yet they don't believe in what Christ said and instead follow mohammet.

I would give them some credit, naturally speaking.  When the Jєωs aired a TV show that was blasphemous against Christ, the Muslims were rioting because it was insulting to their prophet, while the Christians did nothing.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: How Would You Answer This Woman?
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2023, 08:11:40 AM »
It's tempting to think that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God -- until you think about it.

No, Muslims do NOT worship the same God.

Right, and the term "worship" is also important, as is the term "believe".  They have drawn a conclusion about the existence of God.  But the existence of God is knowable from natural reason.  They no more "believe" in God than Aristotle did when he concluded that there was a God and made correct conclusions about His "nature" and His attributes.  To call this belief is to reject the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I.  But these are the conclusions of natural reason.  There's no "belief" involved, nor is there any "worship" involved.  Whatever respect (aka "worship") they offer to this Creator is entirely natural.  In order to have supernatural faith, one has to believe (where the term "belief" even enters the picture) that which God has revealed about Himself that is above our ability to know by nature.  So there's no possibility of any supernatural belief, and knowing of His existence is not "belief" but natural knowledge.

So, know, they do not "believe" in God.  They know of him through natural reason, and do not believe that which God has revealed about Himself.  They have zero "belief" in God.  Nor, therefore, do they "worship" him, as acts of respect and reverence do not constitute "worship".

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: How Would You Answer This Woman?
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2023, 08:15:00 AM »
Vatican I taught that the existence of God and his natural "attributes" are knowable by natural reason.  But actual supernatural faith (aka "belief") entails knowing something (i.e. has for its object) those truths which can ONLY be known by Revelation.  So, to claim that Muslims "believe" in God would be to deny both these aspects of Vatican I.

No, they have simply made (sometimes accurate) conclusions about God as He can be known from nature through human reason, but they do not believe in Him because they do not believe that which He has revealed about Himself.

This actually summarizes all the putridness that is Vatican II.  V2 concludes that these false religions believe in God and worship Him simply because they have MATERIALLY come to some of the same conclusions about Him.  But that is false.  In order to have belief, one must actually believe these things based on the correct formal motive, i.e. the authority of God Revealing as made know to us through His Church.  This is why a heretic who believes every single teaching of the Church except one is said to "believe" NONE of them.  So the 99.9% of what he holds to be true, while materially correct, are not believed for the right reasons, through the proper formal motive.  If a Prot concludes some true things about Christ from the Bible, he doesn't believe those things, since He doesn't believe them based on the authority of God Revealing but based on his own interpretation (so that his own interpretation becomes his rule of faith ... cf. St. Thomas on this point.).  This, BTW, is the very same error that +Fellay makes in characterizing V2 as "95% Catholic".  There's no 95% Catholic.  There's no 99.9999% Catholic.  Simply because, numerically speaking, 95% of the propositions in Vatican II are materially Catholic, the are all formally polluted by the context in which they are presented.  OK, sure, V2 might affirm the Holy Trinity.  But HOW do they affirm the Holy Trinity and in what context?  They present the Holy Trinity as merely the "fullness" of truth on a sliding scale from less true to more true.  That context undermines even their affirmation of the Holy Trinity because the context renders it effectively to be an optional belief that's the "full" truth vs. presenting it as THE truth that's opposed to all the errors about it.  This context formally pollutes all of the materially-correct propositions in V2.

V2 subjectives the notion of "formal" motive.  For V2, wanting to know God has become the new "formal motive" of belief.  Simply because you have a subjective desire to know God, this means that you have the proper formal motive.  But formal motive is actually.  It does not refer to your "sincerity" but, rather, to whether you belief what you believe for the objectively right motives, i.e. with the correct rule of faith, the rule of faith being the formal motive for belief.  This is an objective thing and not to be confused with "sincerity" or "good intentions".  So, a Prot can be perfectly sincere in his beliefs and properly motivated (most aren't, but let's assume that one is for the sake of illustration).  This still does not equate to the proper formal motive of belief, which is that we believe what we believe BECAUSE of the Church's authority to interpret Revelation.  Prots do not base their (natural) beliefs on the correct formal motive, and they can be as sincere as all getout, but this does not equate to the proper formal motive of faith.  This trend to re-interpret "formal" into "sincere" has been ongoing since the 1500s, and it's what led inexorably to Vatican II.