Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)

[dabukthumpa]

I think this Catechism paragraph cites Lumen Gentium 16. Dealing with the Muslims. This is an interesting topic - and from reading on down the line - many times the question at hand was lost - and many other debates of interest fell on the plate.

The Second Vatican Council is an interesting Council - it is unlike any othe Ecumenical Council in that it makes no infallible declarations. Rather it presents its teachings in essay for which lead to many misinterpretations. Paul VI stated that Vatican II does not contain "extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility." This means that Vatican II does not contain any definitions of doctrine or specifically worded dogmatic canons, and therefore, it is not on the same level as other ecumenical councils. Vatican II's documents were written in lengthy essay form, not in canonical form. Because of this, Vatican II's documents often lend themselves to being diversely interpreted.

So how do we weigh Lumen Gentium's teachings on the Muslims- Well there is some problems here. Mostly it lies with good sound reasoning and logic.

How is it possible to say the Muslims "worship the one true God" - when they do not believe in the Trinity?

Jesus Christ gives us the fullness of God's Revelation in Himself? It is illogical to make the assertion that someone can worship something as true - when indeed they are not. Muslims do not profess the trinity! They may believe in monothiesm - but that does not make them worshippers of the One True Triune God as revealed to man through Jesus Christ. Vatican II makes the statement that "along with us" they worship the one true God - I have a hard time accepting this to be true. Do I think VII is heretical - no but I do think many things are left very anbigious - and these ambigious teachings need to be measured against good sound Authentic Teaching of the Church - Mainly againt the unchanging Deposit of the Faith as taught by Council and Popes.

The Council of Florence made it very clear Dogmatically What the true teachings are when it comes to those of other faiths. This is a bit long so I attached it to the reply ( you need to read the Papel bull before you continue with the reply - you will be interested in reading) If the attachment was too big to attach click onto www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm and read before you continue.

Pretty strong stuff, and as a Catholic I must believe that what this Council taught is TRUE!! This Bull meets all the requirements for infallibly taught Dogma - but one in looking at Vatican II has to measure some of these anbigious statements agains that Bedrock of Foundational teaching the Church has. Both Trent and Vatican I accepted and further proclaimed the solemn teachings of Florence. And in the Last Chapter of Lumen Gentium in dealing with Purgatory Vatican II also refers to the Council of Florence.

Ultimatley the anbigious statement in Lumen Gentium 16 - deals with the language of "the plan of salvation includes" also "the muslims" - well that is a no brainer! In 1Timithoy we see that "God desires all men to be saved" but that does not mean that all men will. The plan of Salvation includes everybody - but the gift of and graces of Salvation come only through Jesus Christ and Him alone - and as St. Paul tells us in the book of Ephesions - "which is His body the Church" This is why we have the Dogma!!! No Salvation Outside the Church.

Interestingly enough - the next section of Lumen Gentium deals with the Saving Mission of the Church - the Church is making it more clear that it is not enough to be just a good muslim and you will be saved - no rather it is making it clear that they too need the Church to be saved - and that until that Divine Command given by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Last Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew is met ( go therefore and baptize the nations - in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit) even the muslims salvation lies in great peril.

God bless - dabukthumpa

The_Council_of_Florence.doc

[Chrysologus]

www.catholicism.org contains writings of the excommunicated heretic Fr. Feeney and is not in communion with Rome.

[Chrysologus]

The great heresy of the traditionalists is failing to recognize culpability. God doesn't beaver dam someone who follows his conscience and leads a life of contrition, even if that person is unbaptized. God calls all to repentence though Jesus Christ, even people who've never heard of Jesus Christ or don't understand who he is. This can include Muslims and people of all faiths. If these people understood the necessity of the church and sacraments, they would request them immediately. This baptism of desire saves them.

[Don John of Austria]

If the crusades were somehow taught infallibly as a matter of faith and morals, that would mean that they are dogma and "de fide," which would mean that their necessity was revealed by Christ. This is, of course, impossible, as the idea of crusades originated in the eleventh century and faded around the sixteenth. They were a papal undertaking, which by no means makes them dogma any more than World Youth Day is some sort of dogma.

THis is rediculous by you definition The assumption of Mary would be no more dogma than world youth day, and they were a Couciler udertaking as was many a Dogmatic teaching that was not directly reveled by Christ, such as the Trinity, The Holy Spirit moves Councils and reveals through them, or yo denyng that?

[Don John of Austria]

"God doesn't beaver dam someone who follows his conscience and leads a life of contrition, even if that person is unbaptized. "

You don't know that the only Means of salvaton that we know of for sure is the Sacramental path of the Church. The Baptism of desire might save them. We trust in Gods mercy.

[Don John of Austria]

And war is not "faith and morals" it's discipline.

Please show me were you get this information, certianly the Church has always thought that war is a moral issue.\

By the way I never Siad that the Crusades were Dogmatic of even that they were individually infallable only that they were as binding as anything outr of VII.

[Don John of Austria]

Oh and Ironmonk I most certianly know what infidel means I was refering to it so that people realized that that was who was being spoken of.

And yes what ever you might think the Medieval desired the complete and total detruction of Mohommedism.

[ironmonk]

Oh and Ironmonk I most certianly know what infidel means I was refering to it so that people realized that that was who was being spoken of.

And yes what ever you might think the Medieval desired the complete and total detruction of Mohommedism.

Just as they did protestanism...

Not the people, but the teachings.... there is a difference.

The fact of this topic is that CCC 841 is not heretical, and the Muslims worship the same God we do; they have false teachings about God, but that is not the point.

The Church cannot teach heresy. The Church CANNOT be wrong. Every time I have heard someone say it is, after research it is clear, the Church has ALWAYS been correct.

ANYONE who thinks the Catholic Church is teaching something wrong on faith or morals, should NOT partake in the Eucharist.

Faith teaching examples: Trinity, Real Pressence, Mary, Saints, Confession, etc...

Moral teaching examples: no pre-marital sex, do not kill, love one another, don't lie, etc...

Discipline teaching examples: bow before receiving the Eucharist, vow of celebacy for priets, punishment, war, etc...

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Winchester]

If the crusades were somehow taught infallibly as a matter of faith and morals,

The Crusades themselves, as military undertakings were not infallible. The notion of pursuing a crusade being moral was stated in council. That does not by any stretch of the imagination condone abuses by Christians during the crusades, which managed to beat back a violent mititaristic religion which threatened to destroy Christendom, thus saving it for the Christians to virtually destroy themselves.

The religion of Mohhamed was quite bent on our demise, in action if not in written theology.

[Chrysologus]

THis is rediculous by you definition The assumption of Mary would be no more dogma than world youth day, and they were a Couciler udertaking as was many a Dogmatic teaching that was not directly reveled by Christ, such as the Trinity

I don't see how my statement was ridiculous. The Assumption of Mary was revealed before the apostolic age ended. It has always been believed by the church and was stated dogmatically by the pope in the 20th century. The idea of crusades, however, is not part of public revelation and not always practiced by the church. For that matter, crusades are a thing, not a doctrine, so can't be infallibly taught or anything, as that doesn't make any sense.

The Holy Spirit moves Councils and reveals through them, or yo denyng that?

Maybe I misunderstand what you're trying to say here, but nothing is revealed to the world in councils. Councils only state, elaborate on, proclaim, and defend what has already been revealed. All public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

You don't know that the only Means of salvaton that we know of for sure is the Sacramental path of the Church. The Baptism of desire might save them. We trust in Gods mercy.

I disagree. It's my understanding that the baptism of desire is part of the church's sacred tradition. It is a doctrine that has been taught by the church fathers and has been especially emphasized by the modern magisterium. It must be believed by all Catholics, though I don't believe that it's ever been proclaimed dogmatically.

Please show me were you get this information, certianly the Church has always thought that war is a moral issue.

Certainly war and its justification is a moral issue, but the church proclaiming a war is entirely different. The church is not a political or governmental institution, it's a religious and moral one. It just happens that religion and morality forbid certain types of politics and government.

By the way I never Siad that the Crusades were Dogmatic of even that they were individually infallable only that they were as binding as anything out of VII.

Well, then that's different. But the crusades are over now, so I don't think that Catholics have any obligation to think anything particular about them. By their very nature, the crusades can't be considered doctrine, because doctrine is eternal, but the crusades were limited in time. The church may have enforced crusades in the past, but she doesn't anymore, so no Catholic today is obliged to believe or do anything about them. This is just my opinion, and I haven't researched the matter very much, but I don't know of any modern church documents on the crusades. If I could find some, I would read them.

The church is ever-young and there's no need to rely exclusively on her past documents and disciplines as you seem to do. The church today is just as useful, if not more so than she has ever been. Talking about the crusades or what Catholics used to think of Muslims seems rather pointless to me. In fact, Vatican II explicitely stated that Christians should forget our troubled history with the Muslims and look to a more peaceful relation with them in the future. I choose to understand the church's past in light of her present, not the other way around. I care much more what Vatican II had to say than what Lyons II had to say, in so far as we aren't dealing with dogmatic canons.

[Don John of Austria]

Ironmonk I do think that the Church is capable of teaching things that are incorrect about Faith and Morals, if it was not possable there would be no need for organs of Infallability. Remember the Ordinary Magisterium( ie the large majority of Bishops) supported Arius before Nicea It was only through the Holy Spirit that the Correct and Holy veiw of the Pope and other Champions of Christ divinity won. I am not saying that the Church is wrong on this point, as I think the Actual Church teaching is not clear in the Catachism. I do think that this is open for debate as I really do not believe it meets any of the criteria for Infallability nor has it been declared of limits for discussion like Female Ordnation has been.

Also I disagree with you on the War thing I think it is defenintly within Faith and Morals---Killing people is a moral issue.

"Not the people, but the teachings.... there is a difference"

I would say not the people, but the faith,and yes there is a differance . However if it had ment that every Muslim in the World would have been killed the Church would not have flinched a bit. Study the History of the Middle ages a bit more Closely particularly Spain and you will see why.

[Don John of Austria]

Oh and you still haven't answered my question.

[Don John of Austria]

"

The church is ever-young and there's no need to rely exclusively on her past documents and disciplines as you seem to do"

The Church IS HER TRADITION...SHE IS HER PAST DOCUMENTS< SHE IS HER PAST. Nothing more can be said.

[cmotherofpirl]

Ironmonk I do think that the Church is capable of teaching things that are incorrect about Faith and Morals, if it was not possable there would be no need for organs of Infallability. Remember the Ordinary Magisterium( ie the large majority of Bishops) supported  Arius before Nicea It was only through the Holy Spirit that the Correct and Holy veiw of the Pope and other Champions of Christ divinity won. I am not saying that the Church is wrong on this point, as I think the Actual Church teaching is not clear in the Catachism. I do think that this is open for debate as I really do not believe it meets any of the criteria for Infallability nor has it been declared of limits for discussion like Female Ordnation has been.

Also I disagree with you on the War thing I think it is defenintly within Faith and Morals---Killing people is a moral issue. 

"Not the people, but the teachings.... there is a difference"

I would say not the people, but the faith,and yes there is a differance . However if it had ment that every Muslim in the World would have been killed the Church would not have flinched a bit. Study the History of the Middle ages a bit more Closely particularly Spain and you will see why.

Individual Bishops can be in error. A bishop speaking in union with Rome cannot.

[Chrysologus]

The church is not ONLY her past. Documents from the past are important, but so are modern ones. That's all I'm trying to say.

[cmotherofpirl]

And you are absolutely right.

Dogmas do not change. But doctrine can be developed over time as it is consistantly studied by the Church.We have only been studying it 2000 years.

Give it time. THe Psalms say for God" a thousand years are as a watch in the night."

[Don John of Austria]

"Individual Bishops can be in error. A bishop speaking in union with Rome cannot"

What do you mean by union with Rome?

Cryso--" But the crusades are over now, so I don't think that Catholics have any obligation to think anything particular about them. By their very nature, the crusades can't be considered doctrine, because doctrine is eternal, but the crusades were limited in time. "

The assumption was limited in time, it was an event, it is not an abstract doctrine.

[Don John of Austria]

"Individual Bishops can be in error. A bishop speaking in union with Rome cannot"

What do you mean by union with Rome?

Cryso--" But the crusades are over now, so I don't think that Catholics have any obligation to think anything particular about them. By their very nature, the crusades can't be considered doctrine, because doctrine is eternal, but the crusades were limited in time. "

The assumption was limited in time, it was an event, it is not an abstract doctrine.

[ironmonk]

The crusades had moral justification. The crusades themselves fall under discipline.

The official teachings from the Magisterium will never be wrong.

Individual and groups of bishops can be wrong if they go against the official teaching of the Church... i.e. the Greek Orhodox bishops when they split off from Rome.

The Catechism, is the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Nothing is in error withing the Catechism.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[dabukthumpa]

Chrysologus - Your response to my input into the disscussion is weak. Is that all you have to say - is that the site I used has info by Father Feeney - and therefore the citing of The Council of Florence has no value?

My addition to the argument at hand poses some very vital questions concerning how we are to relate to those of Non - Christian religions.

I simply used the cite because it gives a precise translation of the Bull from the Council of Florence concerning The Churchs' believe in the Trinity, God, The HOly Spirit, Jesus, and Salvation - all of which at the Council of Florence was Dogmatically defined! I have no recouse to Father Feeney - nor to any Neo-Traditional sect. I hope you weren't implying I did.

Secondly - no one on this cite - had anything to say to the questions posed - rather I got the impression that it was disregarded by the choice of the website I chose to give some of my information.

Whether you people like it or not - The Council of Florence Defined some things infallibly that at times do not necessarily coincide with what some of you claim is legitimate teaching concerning Salvation. For instance - Show me where the Church (meaning the Magisterium - not a few minority of Church Fathers) Declare and define - or teach that "Baptism by Desire is Church Doctrine" You can't -

Secondly- show me where The Church teaches that by just following your conscience the best that you can will guarentee you salvation! Rather - We are taught to have a well informed conscience - that to seek the Truth and adhere to it is the norm - St. Paul in His epistles warns us that we have no excuse for not coming to the correct understanding of God - and Salvation (Romans 1:18-32 & Chapter 2) First He let's us know that just by Creation we can come to know God (VAtican I taught Infallibly - that man on his own can come to the understanding tha God exists) but that ultimatly in Jesus Christ - and in Him alone - can one come to Salvation! Vatican I also taught infallibly - (but it is only through Jesus Christ and the Grace he offers, and the means of Salvation offered by the Church can one come into a right relationship with God!) It is not enough just to know that there is a God - and live the best according to your conscience - Otherwise VAtican II would not have stressed so much in Lumen Gentium on the Saving Mission of the Church! The document itself says - "Basing itself on upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Christ, presents to us in His body, which is the Church, is the ONE MEDIATOR AND THE UNIQUE WAY OF SALVATION. In explicit terms He Himself arrirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the NECSSITY of the Church."

Granted Lumen Gentium does state that "Those also CAN attain to salvation who through no fault of there own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." But the document does not say you will go to heaven - or you will be saved - it just says what is true - that one can - possibly - if there was never any way for them to come to know Christ - That part is left up to God. However - the Council makes it very clear that this is not enough - to have a good conscience - or to be a good person of another religion - it states - "But often men, decieved by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie..." The document then goes on to state the Churchs SAVING MISSION - why because the Church is necessary for salvation!!! This mission is a Divine one - and mere possibilities for Salvation are not good enough for the ChurcH - it is her mission to incorporate those outside the Church into her bosom- so that they too will have the Faith necessary working throught Works - given by grace for Salvation.

Dominus Vobiscum