The Church Dogmatically Teaches The Muslims Worship The One True God

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 December 2009 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1260940789' post='2021671']
Being Christian means emulating Jesus to the best of our ability. Your uncalled for attacks on members here as well as as attacking Catholics could not be considered as something Jesus would do or condone. You need to learn charity before you enter in Christian debates.
[/quote]


Criss-Cross

You don't know what you're talking about it! I have been accused of cutting and pasting and not using my own words by someone on this thread, and THAT, sir, is the issue! As ususal, you hold no condemnation for the perpetrator, because all Catholics in your eyes have halos around their heads.
The hypocrisy on this thread simply knows no bounds, including your obnoxious pious platitude to "emulate Jesus". Funny, I don't recall the Savior being interested in judging people guilty without even an investigation! And yet there you stand, guilty of this very thing. It's pathetic.
I'm leaving this thread right now as it is a complete waste of time.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='16 December 2009 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1260941264' post='2021675']
To be fair, I have not been the model of Christian charity either. It's not just our verbose and raucous friend who has failed to live up to Jesus's example.
[/quote]

Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone. As Mark puts his stone back on the ground.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='15 December 2009 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1260940371' post='2021664']
There you go again---instead of admitting the Roman Catholic Church has ipso facto, said Muslims worship the SAME God as the Bible---you do as those who persecuted Christ---just gnash your teeth. You know the words of the popes and V-2 are SO clear and so antagonistic to the exclusivistic claims of Christ--- you have no way out but to hide behind smoke and MIRRORS!
You will do anything to justify those outrageous statements at all costs, and you will do everything you can to protect people like Winchester who makes outright falsehoods of me cutting and pasting "LOADS" of stuff, with no proof WHATSOEVER! But who cares, right? None of you appear to have the slightest interest in truth. It is pitiful.
[/quote]
[size="7"]NON SEQUITUR!!! [/size]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='16 December 2009 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1260941358' post='2021677']
Criss-Cross

You don't know what you're talking about it! I have been accused of cutting and pasting and not using my own words by someone on this thread, and THAT, sir, is the issue! As ususal, you hold no condemnation for the perpetrator, because all Catholics in your eyes have halos around their heads.
The hypocrisy on this thread simply knows no bounds, including your obnoxious pious platitude to "emulate Jesus". Funny, I don't recall the Savior being interested in judging people guilty without even an investigation! And yet there you stand, guilty of this very thing. It's pathetic.
I'm leaving this thread right now as it is a complete waste of time.
[/quote]

One does not justify ones actions by the actions of others. Charity starts with you. I was pointing out that by the use of the word Catholic you were attacking peaceful Catholics as well as those who insulted you. And very few Catholics would would have halos.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='16 December 2009 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1260941346' post='2021676']
I like how Stormstopper is OUTRAGED at absolutely everything.

First he works himself into a towering fury because Winchester accused him of being a copypasta chef, then he is astounded and thunderstruck at how "lacking in integrity" Apotheoun's opinions are. Not his arguments mind you, but his actual opinions. If that's not ad hominem, by the way..... ah, well I won't get into that just now.
[/quote]

Storm is pretty dishonest with the way he quotes others, too. My Post #66 was in response to Winchester, a good-natured reply about Apo. Storm, however, quoted and responded to it as if the reply was meant to criticize him.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='15 December 2009 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1260940564' post='2021667']Maybe-His-Child
[/quote]


Really now? and criss cross? I understand that internet debate often crosses over into elementary playground war before long, but, srsly?

where's the chill pill when you need one?

Have a good night everybody


p.s. Aside from the juvenility I think both sides have made both some good points and really bad and/or useless points. Would be an interesting discussion to read should anybody decide to return to them.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='15 December 2009 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1260933341' post='2021614']
[b]'Baptism' without the Trinity is not baptism, and therefor worthless[/b]. However sincere the act would have been without it being said in name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ie the Trinity, it is not baptism. Worship without the Trinity, it is not worship, and therefor of no avail, for the same reason as baptism is not Baptism without the Blessed Trinity. A thing can not be true and false. Jesus Christ is fully God. If you reject God do you believe in God? A thing cannot be true and false at the same time.
[/quote]
Baptism by blood? Baptism by desire?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='16 December 2009 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1260946067' post='2021707']
Baptism by blood? Baptism by desire?
[/quote]

If something can truly be termed "baptism" the Trinity is there implicitly. If the Trinity is not there no baptism has occurred.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='16 December 2009 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1260946257' post='2021708']
If something can truly be termed "baptism" the Trinity is there implicitly. If the Trinity is not there no baptism has occurred.
[/quote]
Okay. I took his post as saying a baptism without the words of the Trinity being said, then it's not a baptism. In these two extraordinary cases, the Church says you reap the fruits of baptism without the sacrament. If you want to say the Trinity is present implicitly, okay.

[Winchester]

Appropriate response:

[quote]Winnie, I do formulate arguments. You're full of it. I use lots of cut and paste because Catholics have given me a complex about evidence. They sound like baby birds "evidence, evidence, evidence!" It's your fault, now read my posts.[/quote]
Inappropriate response:

[quote]How dare you accuse me of being nothing but cut and paste but provide no proof! How dare you! Cutting and pasting direct quotes from your own church is not allowed.???? Get a life! After writing this, I will promptly report you to the moderator, for whatever it's worth. This is the typical, baseless Catholic response---when they have nothing relevent to say, go for your opponent's character. This was exactly what they tried to do with Jesus, trying to find false accusations. It is inexcusable and I won't tolerate your worthless comments a moment longer.
CUT and PASTE? You betcha buddy boy. I'm cutting AND pasting your baseless and unsubstantiated accusations of cutting and pasting, as well as "dishonesty", to the moderator this minute. [/quote]

Also, you accused Apo of creating doctrine--prior to my allegation that you are a cop paste fanatic. As I said, you can dish it out but can't take it.

[ChildoftheCreator]

Uh, this topic is so hard to read, so many side-notes about people´s character and integrity.

But it would seem to me that the Church should in no way define this because it is rather useless to the faith of the people at large. If the Allah is the same as our God in no way influences how I am going to worship God, so therefore would be a useless dogma to make, if in fact it is a dogma.

That being said, as a matter of personal opinion. I would think that Allah and God are the same, they just do not know Him as we do. The Jews had no opportunity to know the Triune nature of God until Jesus came around. However, they still worshiped the same God as we do. He has not changed. That being said the Muslims worship the God of Abraham, the same one as the Jews do, but they have a different understanding. Don´t they believe that He is the God who created the world and has always existed. Their understanding of Him is just different.

[Apotheoun]

Stormstopper,

I refer you back to what I said several pages ago: "The Magisterium can no more determine the object of Muslim worship than it can say which form of Buddhism is the 'true' form of Buddhism, because both of these things are beyond the competence of the Magisterium, which can only bind the faithful to believe things that are divinely revealed, or logically connected to divine revelation, or which are related to good morals."

Finally, you say that you know something about the faith of the Catholic Church, that is great, but answer me this: Is everything that a pope says [i]de fide[/i]?

[Akalyte]

know what I'm sick of? These Bible thieves attacking Catholicism..I think you need to know where the bible came from before defending your version of Christianity. Protestants have nullified the "word of God" and turned it into the word of man. Your not asking people to believe in God or the bible, your asking people to believe you and your version. Unbelievable how they charge Catholics with being "unbliblical" yet their versions of the bible have countless errors that have been transferred into every other version of "protestant" bibles. Read Henry Graham's "Where we got the bible: our debt to the catholic church"

[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm"]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm[/url]

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='16 December 2009 - 07:42 AM' timestamp='1260967322' post='2021738']
know what I'm sick of? These Bible thieves attacking Catholicism..I think you need to know where the bible came from before defending your version of Christianity. Protestants have nullified the "word of God" and turned it into the word of man. Your not asking people to believe in God or the bible, your asking people to believe you and your version. Unbelievable how they charge Catholics with being "unbliblical" yet their versions of the bible have countless errors that have been transferred into every other version of "protestant" bibles. Read Henry Graham's "Where we got the bible: our debt to the catholic church"

[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm"]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm[/url]
[/quote]

Bam!

[Jaime]

I think that while there might be some discussion on whether or not Lumen Gentium is dogma, there are two things that I believe are true about it

It is an authentic document of the Church

it is indefectible

[size="2"]also this needs to be noted. this was a response from the prefect of the CDF with regards to [/size][size="2"]on the book[i]
Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism
[/i](Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York 1997)[i]
[/i]by Father[i]
JACQUES DUPUIS, S.J.[/i][/size]

[quote][b]V. On the value and salvific function of the religious traditions[/b]

8. In accordance with Catholic doctrine, it must be held that «whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel (cf. Dogmatic Constitution [i]Lumen gentium,[/i] 16)».[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html#_ftn15"][sup][15][/sup][/url] It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-Christians also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions; however, to hold that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology, also because they contain omissions, insufficiencies and errors[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html#_ftn16"][sup][16][/sup][/url] regarding fundamental truths about God, man and the world.

Furthermore, the fact that the elements of truth and goodness present in the various world religions may prepare peoples and cultures to receive the salvific event of Jesus Christ does not imply that the sacred texts of these religions can be considered as complementary to the Old Testament, which is the immediate preparation for the Christ event.[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html#_ftn17"][sup][17][/sup][/url][/quote]

[Apotheoun]

The kind descriptions used in connection with non-Christian religions at Vatican II are not doctrinal in nature, nor are they authentic teaching, which is why they cannot bind a man in conscience.

Catholics are free to inform themselves of what the various world religions teach and to form their judgments accordingly.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='16 December 2009 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1260986439' post='2021817']
I think that while there might be some discussion on whether or not Lumen Gentium is dogma, there are two things that I believe are true about it

It is an authentic document of the Church

it is indefectible

[size="2"]also this needs to be noted. this was a response from the prefect of the CDF with regards to [/size][size="2"]on the book[i]
Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism
[/i](Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York 1997)[i]
[/i]by Father[i]
JACQUES DUPUIS, S.J.[/i][/size]
[/quote]

+1 (in spirit). What he said. Also, its not like this particular statement of Vatican II is completely new.

Pope Gregory VII in 1076 wrote to Al-Nasir, the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya: “Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves of nothing in us so much as that after loving him one should love his fellow, and that what one does not want done to oneself one should not do to others. You and we owe this charity to ourselves [b]especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly in a different way and daily praise and venerate him, the Creator of the world and Ruler of this world.[/b]”


Francisco Suarez (a very notable theologian in my opinion): "Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of [b]Mohammedans[/b] and such unbelievers who [b]believe in one true God[/b]
."

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III



From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:

"12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or [b]though admitting one true God[/b], they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; [b]for instance, Mohammedans and the like[/b]."



From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia entry - Infidels:

"As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but [b]also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans[/b]."


Hilaire Belloc in his book addressed Islam as a heresy, not beginning as a new religion but a perversion of Catholicism:

"Mohammedanism was a <heresy>: that is the essential point to grasp
before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It
was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It
was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon
gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary
with its rise saw it for what it was_not a denial, but an adaptation and a
misuse, of the Christian thing."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT



I think if this concept was really that offensive, that people would have been up in arms over it well before Vatican II. Maybe they were, I'm not sure. But there's no reason to attack Vatican II for stating it when its been noted long before this council.

Edited December 16, 2009 by goldenchild17

[Apotheoun]

I have no problem with the pious idea that pre-Christian religions are a [i]preparatio evangelica[/i], but a religion founded after the time of Christ, and one which explicitly rejects the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation is not a [i]preparatio evangelica[/i], if anything it is an [i]obstructio evangelica[/i].

Edited December 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Winchester]

The problem seems to be a misunderstanding of what we must believe as opposed to what we are free to believe or reject. The mohammedan religion is not part of the economy of salvation.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 December 2009 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1260987259' post='2021823']
The kind descriptions used in connection with non-Christian religions at Vatican II are not doctrinal in nature, nor are they authentic teaching, which is why they cannot bind a man in conscience.

Catholics are free to inform themselves of what the various world religions teach and to form their judgments accordingly.
[/quote]

This doesn't contradict what I've stated

Also it can be said that I as a Catholic (and all Catholics) am free to fully accept the teachings of Lumen Gentium.