Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Miser Peccator on April 27, 2023, 04:18:57 PM
-
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?
-
I would question her about God. Does she/muslims believe that Jesus is God. Muslims don't believe Jesus is God, hence they do not know God, so how can they believe in Whom they don't know. It defies reason.
-
This belief is used as a pretext for anti-evangelism. I think it's mostly an abuse of words to claim that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. In whatever extraordinarily limited sense in which it might be true to say they worship the same God, the degree to which they fail in recognizing essential 'features' of God's identity is catastrophic. In failing to know He is a Trinity, and especially that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity, they abandon all access to the One Church God founded, to the sacraments distributed within that Church, to the delightful truths and moral teachings espoused by it and enjoyed by true Christians throughout time and space, and so on. Being able to claim in a limited sense they worship the 'same' God does not make up for that.
.
-
No, God being Holy Trinity is not merely His "fullness" but it's of His essence (loosely speaking, since God just has existence of course). Our Lord taught quite clearly that "No man cometh to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6)
You can say that there's a God, but unless you worship the objectively True God, as He has revealed Himself, you're not worshipping God as He is but rather your concept of God, which could be a figment of your imagination.
This Vatican II speak about "fullness" (cf. my criticism of +Fellay's 95% comment) has done tremendous damage.
Let's take this analogy. I'm in love with some celebrity, say, some movie star. But this love is based on my conception of her based on the characters I've seen her play in the movies. But when I actually get to know the REAL person, as she is, I find that she's insufferable. And she's not even particularly attractive once she loses the movie makeup. So, did I really love this celebrity? No. I loved some figment of my imagination and some fictional portrayal. Same thing with God. They worship their CONCEPT of God, which is deeply flawed, but they do not worship the True God, as He is, as He has revealed Himself to us.
-
No, Catholics don’t worship the same God as moslems.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:16-18 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John 3.16-18)).
This is the true teaching of the Catholic Church.
Many are being deceived by Satan including this woman.
-
No, God being Holy Trinity is not merely His "fullness" but it's of His essence (loosely speaking, since God just has existence of course). Our Lord taught quite clearly that "No man cometh to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6)
You can say that there's a God, but unless you worship the objectively True God, as He has revealed Himself, you're not worshipping God as He is but rather your concept of God, which could be a figment of your imagination.
This Vatican II speak about "fullness" (cf. my criticism of +Fellay's 95% comment) has done tremendous damage.
Let's take this analogy. I'm in love with some celebrity, say, some movie star. But this love is based on my conception of her based on the characters I've seen her play in the movies. But when I actually get to know the REAL person, as she is, I find that she's insufferable. And she's not even particularly attractive once she loses the movie makeup. So, did I really love this celebrity? No. I loved some figment of my imagination and some fictional portrayal. Same thing with God. They worship their CONCEPT of God, which is deeply flawed, but they do not worship the True God, as He is, as He has revealed Himself to us.
Great post. Just to add on
Who ever denies the Son before men, the Son will deny before His Father.
Muslims don't even believe that Christ died...
-
Great post. Just to add on
Who ever denies the Son before men, the Son will deny before His Father.
Muslims don't even believe that Christ died...
Muslims are hypocrites. They claim Christ is the greatest prophet, yet they don't believe in what Christ said and instead follow mohammet.
Christ said that the Father has given judgement to the Son, yet they deny that Christ will be the judge.
Christ said He must die, yet they deny His death.
Christ said there is no marriage in heaven, yet they believe in this 72 virgins nonsense. As if God would allow fornication or lust in heaven...
Christ hinted multiple times that He was God "before Abraham, I AM". Yet they deny His divinity.
Also I recall (dont have quotes) that the quran mentions that allah is the greatest of deceivers and also it condemns the one called the King of Kings.
Also that muslims must accept the 'mark' on their forehead when a certain someone arrives...
-
That Muslims don't even think we do. Islam has two major concepts that would make the idea of the Trinity in Islam fundamentally incompatible: Tawhid and shirk.
Tawhid is monotheism and shirk is polytheism. Allah in the Quran is described as "having no equals". A Three in One Godhead to a Muslim is as polytheist to them as devotion to statues of Ganesha and Krishna on the streets of Varanasi. If it is a foreign entity to them, how could they be also worshipping the same God as Christians? It makes no sense.
-
Muslims believe in a syncretic hodgepodge of demons that they call "god". This is easily researched.
"07 Is Allah the same God? - "I will fill hell with demons and mankind... ye cannot escape Allah... Allah leads wrongdoers into error... it is He who is deceiving them... He is the fount of fear... " The Star and the Crescent, Who is Allah, God or Satan?"
The Holy Trinity is indivisible. You cannot separate out worship to each specific Person.. You cannot deny one while worshipping the other. We worship one God in the mystery of the Trinity.
Jews do not worship the true god- who do the orthodox jews worship? They worship demons as well.
-
They would agree that we do not. Most Orthodox Jєωs won't step inside churches because of the Trinity
-
Hey Miser, I seem to recall a website (I thought it was called defeatmodernism.com) that used to have quotes from saints and popes regarding Islam/Muslims/Mohammed, but I can't find it. Search/Google for these quotes. It is clear from them that what the Church taught pre-Vatican II was very different.
-
The reason Muslims seek to eliminate Christians is that they wrongly believe that our belief in the Trinity means that we are polytheistic.
Muslims worship Allah, a demon who appeared to Mohammad (like Jospeph Smith and his Maroni).
They are lost and doomed to everlasting hell. We must pray for their conversion.
-
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?
What idiocy!
1 is not the "fullness" of 3. Plain and simply 1 ≠ 3… period!
Why aren't there thousands of persons in God? If 3 is "fullness," then 1,000 is even more "fullness."
-
Thanks for the great insights, everyone! Very helpful.
Unfortunately, they can't seem to get past the notion that since it is in the New (and improved) Catechism it is "magisterial" and so it must be true. smh
I tried to explain that Allah is not Jesus' Father.
They said the Magisterium has declared that He is and I am being prideful and need to repent for not obeying the Magisterium.
I tried to explain how many thousands of martyrs died at the hand of Muslims because they refused to believe such a thing.
Reply: They believed things differently back then and things have changed now with a different understanding. smh
I explained that it is a denial of the First Commandment.
They said that it's the Magisterium who interprets the Scripture and I must listen to them.
Sigh.
Well, I just said they should pray and ask the Blessed Trinity and all the Holy Saints and Martyrs who refused to believe such a thing to show them the truth.
Also suggested checking out a Catechism from before VII but I don't think that will help because they are convinced that the present Magisterium and their teachings trumps all of that.
They are convinced that I am in schism from the true Church and need to repent and go back.
sigh...Chrislam
-
Yeah....New Religionists. Dust off.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
So these are the two critical distinctions in play here, and these statements by the person cited by OP epitomize the V2 apostasy.
1) Natural Knowledge vs. Supernatural Belief
2) Materially-Correct Propositions vs. Formally-Correct Propositions
Believing in the Supreme Being is natural knowledge and not belief of any kind.
Having come to some materially correct propositions about God does not equate to formally-correct "belief".
-
So these are the two critical distinctions in play here, and these statements by the person cited by OP epitomize the V2 apostasy.
1) Natural Knowledge vs. Supernatural Belief
2) Materially-Correct Propositions vs. Formally-Correct Propositions
Believing in the Supreme Being is natural knowledge and not belief of any kind.
Having come to some materially correct propositions about God does not equate to formally-correct "belief".
Traditional Catholics who are hostile to the EENS aspects of "Feeneyism" (prescinding from any discussion of BoD per se) demonstrate that they have been polluted with this same erroneous mindset. They hold to this notion of salvation by sincerity, that someone who means well can have the proper formal motive of faith and therefore can be formally Catholic. This is radically false and is the core error behind all of Vatican II. SINCERITY DOES NOT EQUAL FORMAL MOTIVE OF FAITH. Formal Motive of faith refers to an objective reality where I believe the truths revealed by God on the authority of God revealing through His Church. As St. Thomas taught, just because you CLAIM to believe something on the "authority" of the Bible, for instance, this does not equate to having the proper formal rule of faith, since in the final analysis, your own mind, your own interpretation are your rule of faith. While claiming that their beliefs are rooted in the authority of God, they're really not. This comes from the 500-year progression of warping the term "FORMAL" into a subjective sincerity rather than as the description of your objective motivations for belief.
-
The weird thing is that Muslims and Jews are actually more correct on this than Vatican II. You can tell your friend this.
When asked if they believe in the same God as Christians, the answer is no. I have no idea how V2 managed to flub that up so badly, maybe they were all high on drugs.
-
The weird thing is that Muslims and Jєωs are actually more correct on this than Vatican II. You can tell your friend this.
When asked if they believe in the same God as Christians, the answer is no. I have no idea how V2 managed to flub that up so badly, maybe they were all high on drugs.
Similarly, the Novus Ordo will give "Communion" to Eastern Orthodox, whereas the Orthodox will refuse Catholics the same.
-
From Lad's posts
"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."
"SINCERITY DOES NOT EQUAL FORMAL MOTIVE OF FAITH"
Thanks, Lad. It's hard for me to read the whole post but I could extract these excerpts.
The thing that was so sad really, is that this person is actually not believing based on sincerity, but on obedience to Church authority. He said he didn't fully understand the teaching but we must obey the Magisterium.
He (I thought it was a woman but it was a guy :) ) kept saying that we have to follow the Magisterium and the Catechism and he had full trust in the false church to guide him if he submitted to their authority.
He had the right idea but was trusting a false church.
He couldn't understand that the authority he is submitting to has apostatized (is no longer in the Catholic Church)
by the very fact of declaring that false teaching (among others)
and therefore is no authority at all.
I feel bad for him. :pray:
-
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?
This is a thoroughly Modernist statement.