Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)

[Don John of Austria]

Almost the entire thing, according to the Church's definition of definitively.

[ironmonk]

Im sorry, that just doesn't cut the mustard with me. "Its right because the Church says it's right" - there have been a few times during history when a Pope has declared something "infallibly", it was proven wrong, and the conditions for infallibility were not shown to be met.

That has never happened.

However, I believe I speak in unison with the Scripture, as well as the Fathers, when I say that CCC 841 is wrong, and it is heretical. It contradicts Tradition and Scripture, and it is the invention of liberalists with no regard whatsoever for Truth, or what the Roman Catholic Church has taught for two millenia.

No it's not. Read the whole section, maybe you will understand it better.

Jesus said: "What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven."

That covers all of your misunderstandings.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Chrysologus]

Doctrine develops into dogma. Dogma doesn't really develop, but it can be re-evaluated and understood in new ways.

Only those things which were stated by councils, popes, and the ordinary magisterium have been taught definitively and thus infallibly. Truth isn't fallible or infallible--truth is truth. Teachers are fallible or infallible. The Catechism is a fallible, though authoritative, teacher.

[Good Friday]

Ah, but that's where I've got you: Isn't everything in the Catechism taught by the ordinary magisterium? It is taught by the Pope in union with the Bishops, so it is taught by the ordinary magisterium. Doesn't that make everything in it that's not discipline, infallible?

[ICTHUS]

I posted a list of Scriptures, as well as a quote from St. John Chrysostom, at the beginning of this thread that appear to contradict CCC 841. Please answer as to why they do not contradict CCC 841.

God bless,

Ryan

[Winchester]

Sometimes it is hard to deal with teachings. The teaching concerning muslims is not easy, but that does not make it wrong.

Ironmonk is correct, you have excised a paragraph which, by itself, can appear heretical. The Catechism is organized by paragraphs not so one paragraph says all that need be said, but for intelligibility and reference, and for the grammatical structure. You have declared a kidney, as it were, not the human body.

The Catechism itself is a teaching tool, not a document used to solemnly define the dogmas of the faith. Those documents are well referenced within the Catechism.

Define "plan of salvation" per the Catechism. Define what is meant exactly by that phrase.

Friday,

I believe the turn of the argument rests upon the function of the Catechism, which is not, itself infallible, but references works which are, and need be explored by the serious scholars. This is not to impugn in any way the Catechism as an erroneous work, merely to point out it is not under the infallibility umbrella. I am not saying there is even one theological error in the Catechism, merely that the Catechism itself is not infallible. I submit to you that rather than teaching with an act of ordinary magistereum, it instead gathers and repeats that which is taught by extraordinary and ordinary magistereum.

Edited August 8, 2003 by Winchester

[cmotherofpirl]

Jews and Muslims worship one God. Therefore they are closer to salvation than a pagan or someone who worships a multitude of gods.

THis is the point the catechism is making.

[VanHooty]

I don't even think that it is trying to make the point that Muslims are even necessarily "closer" to salvation then pagans. I think the passage is mostly indicating a shift in viewpoint from the historical "burn the infidels" to a much more charitable, loving, and tolerant one. I don't see anything in the paragraph that appears to be heretical, as, I have mentioned, all people are somehow part of God's plan of salvation.

[Winchester]

Ven Hooty,

"Burn the infidels" was never a position held by the Church. Charity has always been quite present.

[VanHooty]

I kind of agree. Hence the quotation marks.

However, one may make the argument that back in the Middle Ages there were certain influential members of the church who held such a position. This probably did not do much good for society. For that matter, I recall a series of wars being started over the whole thing...

[Don John of Austria]

For that matter, I recall a series of wars being started over the whole thing...

Good !

Multipule Councils called for Crusades-- These Councils where inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is nice to know that at least at some time in Historywe listened to Him and followed his inspiration-- fighting those Crusades which He called for.

[VanHooty]

...

Now, I don't claim to be a history expert, particularly in regards to the Crusades. However, something is telling me that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

[ironmonk]

I posted a list of Scriptures, as well as a quote from St. John Chrysostom, at the beginning of this thread that appear to contradict CCC 841. Please answer as to why they do not contradict CCC 841.

God bless,

Ryan

The Early Church Fathers are a great resource but they are not infallible (unless of course it was a Pope). It's your private interpretation of scriptures, not what the Church teaches.

Nothing in the bible contradicts the Catechism of the Church, only men's interepretations can contradict the Church.

Here is a verse that you might want to meditate on:

Romans 2:12

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.

13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them

16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.

God is loving and merciful... He loves the Muslims, Hindu's, etc... just as much as us. Jesus died for them also.

Muslims worship the same God we do. "Allah" means "God". They worship in a wrong way and they have errors in their teachings, but none the less they do worship the One True God, Father of Jesus, God of Abraham, God of Moses, etc...

They even believe that the OT & NT are inspired works of God.

To say they worship a "moon god" shows that you do not understand what they worship.

To say that the Catholic Church is wrong in a matter of Faith and Morals is to rebel against the Church... I hope you don't take the Eucharist if you think any teaching of the Church's in matters of Faith and Morals is wrong, because you could bring judgment upon yourself. To take the Eucharist is to say that you believe everything the Church teaches.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Don John of Austria]

vanhooty--one of the conciler documents is on this thread if you like I will post more.

[Norseman82]

This subject came up Friday when Cardinal Francis George spoke at a young adult group at a parish I occasionally attend mass at. His take is that in the sense that Muslims worship the God of Abraham - like the Jews - they do worship the one true God. But in the sense that they deny Jesus as the second Person of the Trinity, they don't.

[Winchester]

VanHooty,

Regardless of the Crusades being called in a council (I'm not sure that would make them infallible), the Crusades were not started over an interest to burn infidels, they were started to defend Christian pilgrims from the ravages of Muslims who attacked them.

[Don John of Austria]

Winchester --wether Infallible or not, it makes them as Valid as 99.9% of Vatican II.

[ironmonk]

VanHooty,

Regardless of the Crusades being called in a council (I'm not sure that would make them infallible), the Crusades were not started over an interest to burn infidels, they were started to defend Christian pilgrims from the ravages of Muslims who attacked them.

The Crusades had to do with discipline and taking back what was taken from Christians.

The Crusades had nothing to do with faith or morals.

Win,

You would be correct in saying that the Crusades are not infallible.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Don John of Austria]

The Church at the Time Said they had to do with Faith and Morals--- They Excommunicated people who resisted them, these excommunications where proclaimed in Council. How exactly is it that you determine what has " nothing to do with Faith and Morals" unless it has been declared so By the Church for example the order of the Mass is a disiplne and has been stated to be so by the Church, can you show me were the Church said the Crusades where not at all having to do with faith and morals. I personally think a religious War has something to Do bioth with Faith and Morals--- Unless you are Saying that war is not a moral issue.

[Don John of Austria]

Because the liberation of the holy Land should concern all who profess the catholic faith, we convoked a council, so that after consultation with prelates, kings, princes and other prudent men, we might decide and ordain in Christ the means for liberating the holy Land.

Boy it sure looks like this Pope thought it as a Matter of Faithas the lauching of a Crusade was the Primary reason that He convoked Lyons II.