Lying again, Poochie.
polytheism, the worship of the “goddess” (demon!) Shekinah (http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/vatican-lesson-on-shekinah.html)
including sɛҳuąƖ union, zivug, with the Jєωs’ “strange God” (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=Strange+God&b=drb):
(http://judaism.is/images/91st3.gif?crc=347974093)
(http://judaism.is/images/zivug.jpg?crc=17177023)
“Operation Mermaid Dawn” (https://mauricepinayblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/operation-mermaid-dawn/)
The Hebrew Goddess (https://www.amazon.com/The-Hebrew-Goddess-Enlarged-Edition/dp/0814322719)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51OvkJpHZ9L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
The Hebrew Goddess (https://www.amazon.com/The-Hebrew-Goddess-Enlarged-Edition/dp/0814322719)
See also: http://judaism.is/paganism.html (http://judaism.is/paganism.html)
.
THe worst part of the CCC attacks the Holy Trinity when it states that the "God" of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is the same. We know that Islam and Judaism deny the Holy Trinity because neither "faith" believes that Christ is God. Thus, this statement denies the existence of the Holy Trinity.
I agree that the statement is problematic, but the question I have is this: when do heresies about nature of God, or about the Person and natures of Christ, cause the one who has embraced them to be considered to worship a different God?
Did the Arians worship a different God for believing the Person of Christ was not equal to the Father? Did the Sabellianists worship a different God for believing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were just three modes or aspects of God? Do the Protestants worship a different God for believing false things about Christ, such as that He did not establish a Church with seven sacraments? At what point to doctrinal errors result in the person worshiping a different God?
We know the Jєωs worshiped the true God before the Trinity had been revealed, so it must also be true that Jєωs today who are sincere and are invincibly ignorant of the Trinity, also worship the true God. Is there also a way to say the Muslims worship the same true God, but in a false way? I'm not saying they do, and I have an aversion for saying they do, but I'm wondering if there is a way to understand the phrase that is not false.
The reason I ask is because Pope St. Gregory VII made a similar statement, and it is at least as bad as Vatican II. Listen to what he wrote to The Mulsim King Anαzιr:
Pope St. Gregory VII: Bishop Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to Anαzιr, King of the province of Mauretana Sitifensis in Africa.
Your Highness sent to us a request that within a year we would ordain the priest, Servandus, as bishop according to the Christian order. This we have taken pains to do, as your request seemed proper and of good promise. You also sent gifts to us, and released some Christian captives out of regard for St. Peter, chief of the Apostle, and out of love for us, and promised to release others. This good action was inspired in your heart by God, the Creator of all things, without whom we can neither do not think any good thing. He who enlightens every man that cometh into the world (Jn. 1) hath enlightened your mind for this purpose. For there is nothing which Almighty God, who wishes that all men should be saved and that no man should perish (1 Tim 2), more approves in our conduct, than this: that a man should first love God and then his fellow man, and do nothing to him which he would not that others should do to himself (Mt. 7).
This affection we and you owe each other in a more particular way than to people of other races because we believe in and confess one God, although in diverse ways, and daily praise and adore him ["the one God"] as the creator and ruler of the world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’ (Eph. 2).
This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities. Two of these, Alberic and Consius, intimate friends of ours brought up with us from early youth at the Roman court, earnestly desiring to enjoy your friendship and serve your interests here, are sending their messengers to you to let you know how highly they regard your prudence and high character, and how greatly they desire and are able to be of service to you.
In recommending these messengers to Your Highness, we beg you to show them, out of regard for us and in return for the loyalty of the men aforesaid, the same respect which we desire always to show toward you and all who belong to you. For God knows our true regard for you to his glory, and how truly we desire your prosperity and honor, both in this life and in the life to come, and how earnestly we pray both with out lips and with our heart that God himself, after the long journey of this life, may lead you into the bosom of the most holy patriarch Abraham.”
This sounds like it came right from the pen of JP II, but it was written by a sainted Pope.
What is certainly true is that the Muslim religion is false, and their worship of God is false, but does that mean their false worship is offered to a false God? Vatican II causes religious indifferentism by painting false religions in the most positive light possible and putting a positive spin on them, but that doesn't mean what it says is necessarily false.
Pope St. Gregory VII: Bishop Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to Anαzιr, King of the province of Mauretana Sitifensis in Africa.
Your Highness sent to us a request that within a year we would ordain the priest, Servandus, as bishop according to the Christian order. This we have taken pains to do, as your request seemed proper and of good promise. You also sent gifts to us, and released some Christian captives out of regard for St. Peter, chief of the Apostle, and out of love for us, and promised to release others. This good action was inspired in your heart by God, the Creator of all things, without whom we can neither do not think any good thing. He who enlightens every man that cometh into the world (Jn. 1) hath enlightened your mind for this purpose. For there is nothing which Almighty God, who wishes that all men should be saved and that no man should perish (1 Tim 2), more approves in our conduct, than this: that a man should first love God and then his fellow man, and do nothing to him which he would not that others should do to himself (Mt. 7).
This affection we and you owe each other in a more particular way than to people of other races because we believe in and confess one God, although in diverse ways, and daily praise and adore him ["the one God"] as the creator and ruler of the world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’ (Eph. 2).
This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities. Two of these, Alberic and Consius, intimate friends of ours brought up with us from early youth at the Roman court, earnestly desiring to enjoy your friendship and serve your interests here, are sending their messengers to you to let you know how highly they regard your prudence and high character, and how greatly they desire and are able to be of service to you.
In recommending these messengers to Your Highness, we beg you to show them, out of regard for us and in return for the loyalty of the men aforesaid, the same respect which we desire always to show toward you and all who belong to you. For God knows our true regard for you to his glory, and how truly we desire your prosperity and honor, both in this life and in the life to come, and how earnestly we pray both with out lips and with our heart that God himself, after the long journey of this life, may lead you into the bosom of the most holy patriarch Abraham.”
***********
Well. is this in conformity with traditional, orthodox Catholicism, or is it not? And if it is not, how did this Pope ever get canonized?
Is anyone prepared to go back and say that there was a period of sede vacante while Gregory VII was on the papal throne? And undo the canonization?
Here's an old article from Chris Jackson to add to the discussion.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/803-the-pointlessness-of-the-catholic-muslim-same-god-debate (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/803-the-pointlessness-of-the-catholic-muslim-same-god-debate)
The Pointlessness of the Catholic/ Muslim “Same God” Debate
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/itemlist/user/588-chrisjackson%7Cremnantcolumnist)
(https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/bfea3555ad38fe476532c5b54f218c09_L.jpg) (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/bfea3555ad38fe476532c5b54f218c09_XL.jpg)
Conservative and Traditional Catholic apologists have spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining how Catholics and Muslims either do or do not worship the same God. Conducting a web search on the topic results in a cavalcade of apologetic websites promising to explain, often in painstaking detail, one or the other side of the issue. Why? Because, of course, a few lines from two docuмents of Vatican II which refer to Muslims seem to indicate that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. If you’ll indulge me, I’m going to attempt to cut through the morass created by the repeated attempt to “explain” these few lines by apologists on both sides and simplify this issue to its essentials.
First the “Dogmatic Constitution” (which teaches no new dogma) Lumen Gentium (LG) paragraph sixteen offers the following words regarding the Muslims:
But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)
Before we even analyze the text, my first thought is, why is a “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” speaking about Muslims, or any non-Catholics for that matter? Isn’t a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church supposed to talk about the Church? Isn’t it in effect saying to the faithful, “here is what you need to know about the make-up, role, and nature of the Church?” If so, what are we to think when this Constitution, almost as a side-tangent, starts making factual statements about beliefs of those outside the Church? Isn’t this beyond the clear purpose and scope of the docuмent?
Further, are embedded commentaries about what non-Catholics believe or don’t believe supposed to carry the same authority as portions of the Constitution which actually discuss the Church Herself? If not, do these statements have any binding authority whatsoever? After all, did Christ give His Church authority to opine as to what non-Christians do or do not believe? Or rather to clarify and teach what Catholics believe?
(https://remnantnewspaper.com/ads/uploaded_banners/100000_1000_179850.gif) (https://remnantnewspaper.com/ads/adpeeps.php?bf=go&uid=100000&cid=1000&aid=2&bzone=remnantdonate&btype=3)
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In any case, on to the text. The difficulty many Traditionalists have with the above quoted words is that they say too much. In my opinion, the problem is that they don’t really say much at all. Let me explain.
Typically both Traditionalists and Conservatives assume the same initial premise from the above LG quote and then argue, ad infinitum, as to what conclusion should follow from that premise. The premise they assume is that the quotation is saying Catholics and Muslims worship the “same God.”[/font][/size]
Conservative apologists then say, yes we do worship the “same God” and list all the similarities of Catholic and Muslim belief in God: i.e. that He is one person, He is judge, He is omnipotent, He is merciful, He is creator of the universe, He spoke to Abraham and the Old Testament prophets, etc. This is enough to show, in the Conservative’s opinion, that Muslims and Catholics are talking about the “same God”, though Conservatives fully admit the Muslims get many other things wrong in their understanding of Him.
Traditionalists will argue that Catholics and Muslims most certainly do not worship the “same God.” After all, the Muslim god has no Son as Muslims deny the divinity of Christ. Also Muslims attribute all sorts of words, motivations, and decrees to their god through the teachings of the Koran that are wholly incompatible and inconsistent with the Catholic notion of God.
Thus, the discussion typically comes to an impasse. There is no way to really resolve the conflict because both sides are looking at the issue through the subjective viewpoint of the individual Catholic vs. the individual Muslim. Thus one endlessly analyzes the evidence in order to conclude either that the Catholic and Muslim views on God are close enough to be two different understandings of the same concept, or that they are two understandings of two completely different concepts.
In my opinion, this premise traps both sides in a never ending subjective and semantic argument where neither can fully declare victory. Why? Because, in order to settle any dispute you have to have a standard to apply the facts to. What standard are we using to decide whether two sets of beliefs in a deity refer to the “same” deity?
Each person in the dispute usually comes up with his own standard of “sameness” and then argues that the evidence either meets or doesn’t meet that standard. The discussion then becomes absolutely semantic, arbitrary, and pointless which is, by the way, another fruit of Vatican II: semantic, arbitrary, and pointless arguing over poorly worded and never clarified side tangents contained in a dogmatic Constitution that proclaimed no dogma. But I digress….
In my opinion, the solution here is understanding that the Council, far from making some revolutionary statement on a changed nature of God, or proclaiming that Muslims are saved, was simply trying to cozy up to the press and be ecuмenical by saying a few “good things” about the Muslims. This is more evident when one looks at the additional comments on Muslims in paragraph 3 of Nostra Aetate; a docuмent which, by the way. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller (Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences) says is non-binding (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/card-brandmuller-nostra-aetate-and.html).
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html)
If you do some research you will find that Nostra Aetate did not even intend to address the Muslims. It was instead supposed to only discuss only the Church’s relations with the Jєωιѕн people. However, near the last hour, some of the Eastern bishops became upset at the notion that the docuмent would not also address Muslims in whose nations these bishops functioned. Thus, the few words regarding Muslims in Nostra Aetatae were more or less injected into the docuмent as an afterthought shortly before the final version was signed.
The Council, caught up in being only positive at all costs, felt compelled to say something positive about Muslims, as well as all other religions. So it almost exclusively focused on elements of belief Catholicism and Islam have in common. But in addition to this, one also has to understand the broader framework and perspective Vatican II was operating under to put the statements regarding the Muslims in context.
If you read Nostra Aetate or Chapter two of Lumen Gentium it becomes clear that the Council recognizes there is objectively only one God up there in the Heavens and is of the opinion that that most if not all people who worship a Creator in any way shape or form, are, whether they know it or not, worshipping the only God there is.
If one looks at the much ballyhooed few and sparse lines about the Muslims in Vatican II with this in mind, one is forced to admit that the lines really don’t say much of anything important. Why? Because not only is Vatican II saying the Muslims worship God, it is basically saying that everyone who worships a Creating deity worships God. Thus, far from including Muslims in a special club with Christians and Jєωs who worship the “true God,” these texts go far beyond that to say that everyone who worships (unless perhaps they worship created idols), in actuality, worships the one true God.
Evidence you ask? Well, the first piece of evidence is sitting hidden right in Nostra Aetate. In paragraph two it states, in relevant part:
Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html)
“…a flight to God with love and trust?” Thus, from the viewpoint of Vatican II even Hindus are contemplating the “divine mystery” (the one God), though they express it through myths and philosophical inquiry. Plus to escape the human condition they fly to this same true God with love and trust.
Still not convinced? How about the words of St. John Paul II? In a 1985 address to the Leaders and Representatives of the Islamic and Hindu Communities in Kenya he stated:
The close bonds linking our respective religions - our worship of God and the spiritual values we hold in esteem - motivate us to become fraternal allies in service to the human family… (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/august/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850818_musulmani-indu_en.html)
…We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/august/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850818_musulmani-indu_en.html)
Thus one “close bond” linking Catholicism and Hinduism is our worship of the one and only (big G) God. In addition, St. John Paul II refers to “all those who worship him [God]”, obviously including Hindus as he is addressing the Hindus who are sitting right in front of him.
With this in mind, isn’t it curious that the notion of Catholics and Muslims worshipping “the same God” has produced countless apologetics tracts while the notion of Hindus and Catholics worshipping the same God has received almost no attention from either Conservatives or Traditionalists?
Thus, I propose the entire framework and understanding through which the Catholic/ Muslim “same God” issue has been debated ad nauseum is absolutely and positively pointless. This issue was created, yet again, by the pastoral, ambiguous, and novel method of communication the Council chose to employ, on top of its attempt to use politi-speak and selective praise to build an impression of unity with false religions Catholicism can have no real union with.
Once all of the nice words, commonalities, and praise and respect for individual non-Catholics are removed, the Council, in the above quoted statements really says nothing more interesting than the following: There is only one God who is Creator. Therefore everyone who worships the Creator, is really worshipping the one God, whether they know it or not.
So what does this mean for their salvation? Didn’t Lumen Gentium say that, “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator?” Yes it did. And a little further it cites the Scripture passage where Christ wills that all men be saved. The rub is what is not stated.
All Catholics agree that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator because God’s “plan” for salvation includes everybody. But the plan and the reality are two different things. The reality is that the only plan of salvation God has revealed involves Faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism into His Church. Thus God’s “plan” for non-Christians is salvation through conversion in Jesus Christ, not being saved through remaining in a false religion.
Sadly, paragraph sixteen of Lumen Gentium, crafted with the Council’s characteristic lack of clarity, opens the door for Muslims to claim the Catholic Church recognizes Islam as salvific, while Nostra Aetate can easily give Hindus and Buddhists the impression that they are on the right track, with little need to convert to Christianity.
No, the problem is not that Vatican II said too much with these statements, and it’s not even that it said too little. It’s that it didn’t really say much of anything we didn’t already know, but gave the appearance that it did. The fact that there is only one God is hardly new and the fact that many non-Christians believe in some sort of Creator is hardly new. But in presenting what it did say the way it did, in the ecuмenical climate it did, with only positive statements and little no counter-balancing condemnations, it, along with the actions of many post-Conciliar prelates, has led many inside and outside the Church to believe that non-Catholic religions are sufficient for salvation, gutting in practice, if not in principle, the only true incentive of the missionary.
The Pre-Conciliar Church, focusing on salvation of non-Catholics in Her role as guardian of souls, once rightly pointed out the fatal deficiencies in false religion and the need for the conversion of non-Christians for salvation. The Council docuмents, in contrast, shifted perspective from a concerned Mother warning non-Christian souls of danger, to the perspective of an observer who praises non-Christians for the elements of truth they get correct.
This latter approach is similar to a doctor praising a patient for eating a good diet, having good blood pressure, and maintaining low cholesterol while neglecting to tell him he has cancer. Indeed, what good does it do one to worship a Creator, yet reject Christ and the Church He established for salvation? As St. Paul said, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
Well said and thought.
As to the last questions ["This is not the God that Muslims worship, nor is this the God that Jєωs worship"]: has nothing changed since the full revelation of the Gospel which must qualify any true response?
If one rejects baptism after being told of its necessity, it's sin and bars justification or removes it. The Church seems to say - e.g., in the Roman Catechism and I believe elsewhere - that this applies based upon the historic fact of the revelation of the Gospel (and John 3) to mankind, and not to the individual man. St. Thomas would also read a historical change into what must be believed (admittedly moving from baptism), not based on individual revelation to the particular man, but on general and to the mass of mankind.
The question I’m try to sort out does not pertain to salvation. I know the Muslim religion can’t save anyone. What I am wondering is if there’s any way to say Muslims worship the true God, but in a false way. The answer really comes down to two question that I am still trying to work through - one question is positive and the other is negative.
The positive question is, what is the minimum knowledge of God that is required to for a rational creature to believe in the true God? The answer is probably, a) that God exists as a Supreme being, b) that he is the creator, c) that he is good, and d) that His providence governs the world.
Presuming that is right, and presuming a person possesses the positive knowledge necessary to believe in the true God, the next question is: what errors about God would so corrupt the person’s understanding of God that, even though they continue to believe He is the creator, that He is good, and that His providence governs the world, they no longer believe in the true God? In my mind, that is what the question boils down to, and I’m still trying to arrive at the answer. I’m getting close, but I’m not there yet.
One of the reasons I’m considering this is because one of the tactics of the Modernists is saying something that is technically true (if you can make the right distinctions), but gives the impression saying what is false, and therefore results in simply Catholics believing what is false. That’s how they lead so many Catholics into error. But the same tactic also has the opposite effect of causing Traditional Catholics to reject, as false, a statement that is actually true. The one diabolical tactic results in errors on the left and right – the one believes what is false, and the other rejects what is true. I see this all the time with Traditional Catholics, and that's why I’m looking into this issue. And let us not forget that we have a sainted Pope who, in context, taught that Catholics and Muslims do indeed worship the one God.
The question I’m try to sort out does not pertain to salvation. I know the Muslim religion can’t save anyone. What I am wondering is if there’s any way to say Muslims worship the true God, but in a false way. The answer really comes down to two question that I am still trying to work through - one question is positive and the other is negative.
Ok . . . but why do we need to wonder that? Curiosity killed the cat.
Your observation regarding Vatican I - God can be known by reason, ergo . . - was not speculation but an astute observation based on the available and observable data.
The positive question is, what is the minimum knowledge of God that is required to for a rational creature to believe in the true God? The answer is probably, a) that God exists as a Supreme being, b) that he is the creator, c) that he is good, and d) that His providence governs the world.
Ok. It's fine to speculate, but then again . . . see above. Others have speculated differently. Msgr. Fenton noted, in the late 40s, that the common opinion of theologians was that supernatural faith required belief in the Trinity and Incarnation as well.
See, the necessary faith is supernatural. It is a gift from God. He gives as He pleases. Why would God give someone something less than faith in His Son to save that person after He came to earth and made His point and fulfilled His plan on the Holy, bloody Cross? His plan included setting the stage,certainly, with the faith of the Israel in the one God in the OT. But that was an intermediate stage setting us up for the grand revelation and wondrous work of His Son. Why would he go backwards?
Your speculation has a bit of humanism about it. You know, how could God "damn" all those Muslims, Jєωs, etc. now? But again, the necessary faith is supernatural and a gift from God. Molinism and a denial of the Catholic truth of Predestination, creeping along with human "progress" . . . your speculation has that air.
Presuming that is right, and presuming a person possesses the positive knowledge necessary to believe in the true God, the next question is: what errors about God would so corrupt the person’s understanding of God that, even though they continue to believe He is the creator, that He is good, and that His providence governs the world, they no longer believe in the true God? In my mind, that is what the question boils down to, and I’m still trying to arrive at the answer. I’m getting close, but I’m not there yet.
Your smart and I don't want to interrupt your thought necessarily, but want to throw out, as maybe a bit of an anchor or rein, the thoughts above.
One of the reasons I’m considering this is because one of the tactics of the Modernists is saying something that is technically true (if you can make the right distinctions), but gives the impression saying what is false, and therefore results in simply Catholics believing what is false.
Astute point. You are not the only one to notice it. Paul VI did in Auctorem Fidei.
That’s how they lead so many Catholics into error. But the same tactic also has the opposite effect of causing Traditional Catholics to reject, as false, a statement that is actually true. The one diabolical tactic results in errors on the left and right – the one believes what is false, and the other rejects what is true. I see this all the time with Traditional Catholics, and that's why I’m looking into this issue. And let us not forget that we have a sainted Pope who, in context, taught that Catholics and Muslims do indeed worship the one God.
Now that's also astute and strikes me as somewhat original.
I appreciate the reply and hope you don't take my remarks too negatively; they weren't intended to be such.
Oh . . . and I don't think you dealt with my observations about God requiring different things at different times. We are not dealing with an undifferentiated mass, but one which has layers in it, like those layers you see in fossils showing various time periods, for example.
I think this is a relevant observation that needs to be taken account of here.