Here’s why Pope Francis is wrong to say Muslims and Catholics worship the same God

[narnia59]

I wasn't making any conclusions. I was offering an explanation.

Yes your explanation was it's written that way so that ultra inclusive Catholics feel warm and fuzzy. I think it was written that way because it's what the Church teaches, and it's true. And frankly it sounds like a hundred years ago Pius X taught the same thing. Even though he referred to them as infidels, he distinguished them from those who believe and worship false gods as idolaters. So he clearly thought they didn't worship a false god, which only leaves one option -- the God they worship is the true God.

 

[concretecamper]

. I think it was written that way because it's what the Church teaches, and it's true. And frankly it sounds like a hundred years ago Pius

Agreed, what the Church teaches is true

And frankly it sounds like a hundred years ago Pius X taught the same thing.

Yes, he does.

Even though he referred to them as infidels, he distinguished them from those who believe and worship false gods as idolaters. So he clearly thought they didn't worship a false god, which only leaves one option -- the God they worship is the true God.

See, you add your opinion. NO WHERE does is say as you say the God they worship is the true God

Here is what the Pius X Catechism says:

"or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like."

 

[narnia59]

I wasn't making any conclusions. I was offering an explanation.

Agreed, what the Church teaches is true

Yes, he does.

See, you add your opinion. NO WHERE does is say as you say the God they worship is the true God

Here is what the Pius X Catechism says:

"or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like."

It says they admit "one true God." I guess you want to try to make the claim they don't worship the God they admit?

 

[concretecamper]

It says they admit "one true God." I guess you want to try to make the claim they don't worship the God they admit?

They are monotheistic, that's it. The rest is your speculation.

You've already shown that you add words to the Catechism based on what you think. That's what is intended by using gray language. To let well meaning people concluded something that is doesn't say.

 

[narnia59]

They are monotheistic, that's it. The rest is your speculation.

You've already shown that you add words to the Catechism based on what you think. That's what is intended by using gray language.

The Catechism says "together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." I don't have to add any words to conclude from that they they adore the same God we do. Since they adore him together with us.

Pius X says they admit "one true God." Unless you want to make the case there is more than one true God, or that they don't worship the God they admit, there is no other conclusion than they worship the same God we do.

I am not adding words. You are refusing to accept the words that are written. I have no clue why nor will I speculate.

 

[concretecamper]

I am not adding words. You are refusing to accept the words that are written. I have no clue why nor will I speculate.

1. You did add words to what the Pius X Catechism said. I'm not faulting you for it. You melded your interpretation with was was written. Many do it.
2. Words having meaning. It doesn't do any good to add to the meaning of words.
3. The reason why I am so particular about it is that it serve no purpose to read beyond what is written.

 

[narnia59]

1. You did add words to what the Pius X Catechism said. I'm not faulting you for it. You melded your interpretation with was was written. Many do it.
2. Words having meaning. It doesn't do any good to add to the meaning of words.
3. The reason why I am so particular about it is that it serve no purpose to read beyond what is written.

This is pointless. The words are clear, their meaning is clear, and I'm neither speculating nor adding to them. But readers can judge for themselves, I'm done.

 

[Lady Bug]

I probably shouldn't have said anything or maybe it would not have amounted to this thread exploding.

 

[Markie Boy]

What about the big "one world church" they are building - the Abrahamic family house? Seems to go along with this concept.

Honestly - after reading this thread, I can't tell what the actual Catholic teaching is. It looks like the Catechism says Muslims and Christians worship the same, one, true God? Did I read that right?

 

[narnia59]

I probably shouldn't have said anything or maybe it would not have amounted to this thread exploding.

You are not responsible for the actions of others

I think you said earlier on the thread that you could say you believe in one god (which would make you a monotheist) but that your god could be the moon. I think the implication would be that would mean as Christians we worship the same god as the person who worships the moon? I would say that is not a good analogy and this is why -- the Muslims don't profess to worship the moon; they profess to worship the God of Abraham. And do we not profess we believe in the God of Abraham? That seems to be the gist of the division that Pius X makes -- there are those who believe in false gods as the idolaters do (like your moon example) OR there are those like the Muslims who admit the "one true God" yet do not believe in Christ.

When we go back to Abraham and read the story, we find that his wife Sarah couldn't have children so she asked Abraham to conceive a child for her with her slave Hagar. So Abraham had a son named Ishmael with Hagar. But when Sarah's son Isaac was born, she forced Abraham to banish Hagar and Ishmael to the desert because she wanted no competition for Isaac and him to be the sole heir. Scripture tells us that Abraham did not want to banish Ishmael because he was his son. But God told him to do as Sarah had asked, and promised that he would also make a great nation from Ishmael as he would Isaac. The Arab nations are descendants from Ishmael and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac. And the animosity between the two that started because Sarah sent Hagar and Ishmael into the desert continues to this day. And the Muslims profess that Ishmael is the true heir to the Abrahamic covenant, not Isaac. As Christians we would disagree with that and believe that Isaac is the true heir.

But one thing Scripture is clear about -- it is the same God, the God of Abraham who comforted Hagar in the desert and promised her that she and Ishmael were going to be okay and he was going to make a great nation out of Ishmael. And that is the God the Muslims profess to believe in. So is that not the same God we profess and believe in?

As I've said before, that doesn't mean they have an accurate understanding of who God is. Neither do the Jews. Neither do the Protestants in many cases. But that doesn't mean we don't worship the same God. And I still do not understand why people get so upset when the Church says we do.

 

[narnia59]

What about the big "one world church" they are building - the Abrahamic family house? Seems to go along with this concept.

Honestly - after reading this thread, I can't tell what the actual Catholic teaching is. It looks like the Catechism says Muslims and Christians worship the same, one, true God? Did I read that right?

If you accept the words as written there is no other conclusion than that the Catholic Church teaches that Muslims and Christians worship the same one, true God. Can you tell me why you seem to find that so upsetting?

As I said in my previous post, that does not mean we think that the Muslims have an accurate understanding of who God is.

But I know you find the doctrine of OSAS professed by some Protestants to be in error and upsetting. Does that false believe not in some way reflect they don't have a complete understanding of who God is? I would say the view of penal substitution embraced by many Protestants very much distorts an accurate understanding of who God is. I remember listening to a sermon once by RC Sproul in which he said that God said to Jesus on the cross "God damn you." While Sproul professed a belief in the Trinity, and that Jesus is God, and that Jesus died for our sins, he has a very distorted view of who God is. But I would never say that means we don't worship the same God. It simply means the understanding of some about the nature of God is deeply flawed. LIkewise we worship the same God as the Jews, even though they don't profess a belief in the Trinity or Jesus as God. Yet nobody seems to get upset about that.

The thing that's perfectly clear is that Pope Francis is not the first pope to profess this.

As far as the Abrahamic family house, I believe there are separate structures for each faith on the same complex. I guess a better answer is we try to bomb each other out of existence rather than be in dialog with each other as part of the same family of Abraham? A family that they are natural heirs to while we are simply grafted into.

 

[narnia59]

What about the big "one world church" they are building - the Abrahamic family house? Seems to go along with this concept.

Where do you get the idea that the Abrahamic family house is a big "one world church"?

Looks like it's a multi-faith complex that along with a mosque has a Catholic Church and a Jewish synagogue on site. In a Muslim country. And that's a bad thing -- that a Muslim country has actually allowed a Catholic Church and a synagogue to be built?

 

[Lady Bug]

I think the implication would be that would mean as Christians we worship the same god as the person who worships the moon?

No, lol. Please bear in mind that for some oddball reason I haven't slept in literally 36 hours and I'm going crazy. But what I can explain is this:

Two people can cook a recipe that calls for only one potato. The other person may use a russet and the other may use a red potato. The russet person says: I use one potato for my recipe. The red person says: I also use one potato. But that doesn't mean they're using the same potato. Just because each person is using one potato in their respective recipes, it doesn't mean they're using the same potato.

So, one potato represents the god of one religion and the other potato represents the god of the other religion. Each religion says it worships one god - the potato, but one religion worships a russet potato and the other one worships a red potato.

 

[narnia59]

No, lol. Please bear in mind that for some oddball reason I haven't slept in literally 36 hours and I'm going crazy. But what I can explain is this:

Two people can cook a recipe that calls for only one potato. The other person may use a russet and the other may use a red potato. The russet person says: I use one potato for my recipe. The red person says: I also use one potato. But that doesn't mean they're using the same potato. Just because each person is using one potato in their respective recipes, it doesn't mean they're using the same potato.

So, one potato represents the god of one religion and the other potato represents the god of the other religion. Each religion says it worships one god - the potato, but one religion worships a russet potato and the other one worships a red potato.

Okay, so in your view does that reasoning also apply to Protestants and Jews? Because there are a lot of different kinds of potatoes mixed in to the varying beliefs even among Christians. If not, why does it not apply to them but it does to the Muslims?

 

[narnia59]

Lady Bug, regarding the question if your potato analogy applies to Protestants and Jews as well. What seems to be overlooked in the article posted in the OP is that it carries the logic to its fullest, and yes it does. It has a very strong focus on Muslims and Pope Francis. But it also says these things:

1) Other popes than Francis have also indicated that Muslims worship the same God we do. The person cited as a reference for the article belongs to the schismatic FSSPX and attempts to blame that on Vatican II. Does not seem to be aware that Pius X appears to have the same view long before Vatican II.

2) While the article primarily focuses on Islam (that helps with the click-bait as well at the title) it has the same basic position about Judaism. It says that "for many years the Vatican’s relationship with Islam and Judaism has presented a great danger to Catholics," and that Vatican officials are "are busy promoting Islam and Judaism as equatable to Catholicism." The FSSPX guy says that "we have witnessed Popes acknowledging the legitimacy and “truth” of other religions such as Islam, Judaism, and even paganism." So while the clickbait is there with the headline that this is about Muslims and Pope Francis, they are really promoting something much more. Like our relationship with Judaism is also a "great danger" to Catholics. Do you guys really believe that?

3) By the time you get to the bottom of the article you have Bishop Schneider who then expands these thoughts not only to Islam, or Judaism or paganism, but to all non-Catholics as well. Meaning Protestants and Orthodox. He says “non-Catholic communities contain errors, either doctrinal or moral,” and such errors are “contrary to the revelation, and will of God. What is contrary to the will of God cannot bring blessings.” So now we've moved on to the relationship that Protestants and Orthodox have with Christ cannot bring blessings?

But that is the logic carried to its fullest when we start with the proposition that Muslims worship a different God. But most people will never get that far into the article and just read the headline and conclude that Francis is completely out in left field and leading us astray. Rather than recognize the article is far, far from Catholic teaching about all of these groups.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

FYI, the OP article comes from Lifesitenews, which isn't Catholic and doesn't
speak for the Catholic Church.

 

[Michie]

ISLAM

Turning to the question on Islam, Cardinal Burke said he thinks “the response to Islam, at least as I see it on the part of some, is very much influenced by a relativism of a religious order. I hear people saying to me, well, we’re all worshipping the same God. We all believe in love. But I say stop a minute, and let’s examine carefully what Islam is, and what our Christian faith teaches us both. And when we come to the question of Christian faith, immediately there is involved a metaphysics because in the Christian faith God is the creator both of reason and he’s the giver of revelation, by which that what he teaches us, what the law is written on our hearts is illuminated, and we’re given a divine grace to live according to that law.

“This is not true in Islam,” he said. “I’ve been accused of taking an extreme view about Islam or of being influenced by people who don’t understand Islam, everything that I’ve said about Islam, including especially what’s in the book, is based on my own study of the text of Islam and also of their commentators, and when I’ve written on Islam I’ve been at pains to cite their own authors. And the point I wanted to come to is this, I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor. In other words, fundamentally Islam is, Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.

“And it’s not a law that’s founded on love. To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct. And while our experience may be with individual Muslims may be one of people who are gentle and kind and so forth, we have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world. Whereas, in the Christian faith we’re taught that by the development of right reason, by sound metaphysics, and then that which leads to faith and to the light and strength that’s given by faith, we make our contribution to society also in terms of its governance, but the Church makes no pretense that it’s to govern the world, but rather that it’s to inspire and assist those who govern the world to act justly and rightly toward the citizens.”

He believes relativism comes in the sense, “[W]e don’t respect the truth about what Islam teaches and what, for instance, the Catholic Church teaches, and we just make these general statements, we’re all believing in the same God and so forth, and this is not helpful and ultimately it will be the end of Christianity, meaning nothing has changed in the Islamic agenda from prior times in which our ancestors in the faith have had to fight to save Christianity. And why? Because they saw that Islam was attacking sacred truths, including the sacred places of our redemption.

“We have to have a profound respect for right reason, for the natural law which God has written in every human heart. I think most people don’t realize that there is no natural law doctrine in Islam and neither is there an ocean of conscience, everything is dictates of the laws that are given by either in their sacred text or by those who are entrusted with interpreting the law.”

The cardinal said he believes “what’s most important for us today is to understand Islam from its own documents and not to presume that we know already what we’re talking about.”

Finally, never lose hope.

Cardinal Burke Speaks on Attendance Drops, Liturgy, Ad Orientem and Islam

When Cardinal Raymond Burke held a teleconference at the end of August connected with Hope For the World: To Unite All Things in Christ (Ignatius Press), a ne...

www.ncregister.com

 

[narnia59]

ISLAM

Turning to the question on Islam, Cardinal Burke said he thinks “the response to Islam, at least as I see it on the part of some, is very much influenced by a relativism of a religious order. I hear people saying to me, well, we’re all worshipping the same God. We all believe in love. But I say stop a minute, and let’s examine carefully what Islam is, and what our Christian faith teaches us both. And when we come to the question of Christian faith, immediately there is involved a metaphysics because in the Christian faith God is the creator both of reason and he’s the giver of revelation, by which that what he teaches us, what the law is written on our hearts is illuminated, and we’re given a divine grace to live according to that law.

“This is not true in Islam,” he said. “I’ve been accused of taking an extreme view about Islam or of being influenced by people who don’t understand Islam, everything that I’ve said about Islam, including especially what’s in the book, is based on my own study of the text of Islam and also of their commentators, and when I’ve written on Islam I’ve been at pains to cite their own authors. And the point I wanted to come to is this, I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor. In other words, fundamentally Islam is, Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.

“And it’s not a law that’s founded on love. To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct. And while our experience may be with individual Muslims may be one of people who are gentle and kind and so forth, we have to understand that in the end what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world. Whereas, in the Christian faith we’re taught that by the development of right reason, by sound metaphysics, and then that which leads to faith and to the light and strength that’s given by faith, we make our contribution to society also in terms of its governance, but the Church makes no pretense that it’s to govern the world, but rather that it’s to inspire and assist those who govern the world to act justly and rightly toward the citizens.”

He believes relativism comes in the sense, “[W]e don’t respect the truth about what Islam teaches and what, for instance, the Catholic Church teaches, and we just make these general statements, we’re all believing in the same God and so forth, and this is not helpful and ultimately it will be the end of Christianity, meaning nothing has changed in the Islamic agenda from prior times in which our ancestors in the faith have had to fight to save Christianity. And why? Because they saw that Islam was attacking sacred truths, including the sacred places of our redemption.

“We have to have a profound respect for right reason, for the natural law which God has written in every human heart. I think most people don’t realize that there is no natural law doctrine in Islam and neither is there an ocean of conscience, everything is dictates of the laws that are given by either in their sacred text or by those who are entrusted with interpreting the law.”

The cardinal said he believes “what’s most important for us today is to understand Islam from its own documents and not to presume that we know already what we’re talking about.”

Finally, never lose hope.

Cardinal Burke Speaks on Attendance Drops, Liturgy, Ad Orientem and Islam

When Cardinal Raymond Burke held a teleconference at the end of August connected with Hope For the World: To Unite All Things in Christ (Ignatius Press), a ne...

www.ncregister.com

So can we conclude from this that Cardinal Burke rejects Catholic teaching and that of the Popes in this regard?

His reason that Muslims don't believe in the same God is that "I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor."

So I don't think anyone has said that the Muslim understanding of God is accurate. My question remains -- how accurate does a person's view of God have to be in order for it to be the same God?

People will often express that the Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in the same God because they don't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God. But neither do the Jews, yet somehow they do believe in the same God.

Here is an example from a Protestant writing about penal substitution atonement theology.

So where is the mercy of the cross? All we see here is Christ experiencing all wrath and no mercy. How can I say that wrath and mercy meet here?

Let me explain. Christ has never sinned, so, why would a sinless man be suffering God’s wrath? Because he walked into that courtroom, he stood between the judge and the guilty person, and said, “I will serve his sentence.” He took other people’s sin upon himself. He took upon himself sin to such an extent that he became sin. He became vile and detestable in God’s eyes–the most vile and detestable thing that could ever exist–and God poured out the full measure of his wrath upon him. He poured out his wrath upon Christ until that wrath was absorbed and exhausted, until every bit of justice was satisfied.

God's Mercy and God's Wrath Meet at the Cross | Tim Challies

I certainly don't believe that Jesus became "vile and detestable in God's eyes" when he was on the cross. I think that is just as much of a distortion of who God is as the Muslim view that God is a governor. Yet people don't seem to have any problems in thinking that as Catholics we believe in the same God as reformed Protestants do.

Just the Muslims......

 

[Michie]

So can we conclude from this that Cardinal Burke rejects Catholic teaching and that of the Popes in this regard?

His reason that Muslims don't believe in the same God is that "I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshipping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor."

So I don't think anyone has said that the Muslim understanding of God is accurate. My question remains -- how accurate does a person's view of God have to be in order for it to be the same God?

People will often express that the Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in the same God because they don't believe in the Trinity or that Jesus is God. But neither do the Jews, yet somehow they do believe in the same God.

Here is an example from a Protestant writing about penal substitution atonement theology.

So where is the mercy of the cross? All we see here is Christ experiencing all wrath and no mercy. How can I say that wrath and mercy meet here?

Let me explain. Christ has never sinned, so, why would a sinless man be suffering God’s wrath? Because he walked into that courtroom, he stood between the judge and the guilty person, and said, “I will serve his sentence.” He took other people’s sin upon himself. He took upon himself sin to such an extent that he became sin. He became vile and detestable in God’s eyes–the most vile and detestable thing that could ever exist–and God poured out the full measure of his wrath upon him. He poured out his wrath upon Christ until that wrath was absorbed and exhausted, until every bit of justice was satisfied.

God's Mercy and God's Wrath Meet at the Cross | Tim Challies

I certainly don't believe that Jesus became "vile and detestable in God's eyes" when he was on the cross. I think that is just as much of a distortion of who God is as the Muslim view that God is a governor. Yet people don't seem to have any problems in thinking that as Catholics we believe in the same God as reformed Protestants do.

Just the Muslims......

Do not people have to acknowledge Jesus to worship God? There is a big difference for those that have never heard and those that have. I don’t think Burke is going full tilt here but there are certain things that cannot be ignored.

 

[narnia59]

Do not people have to acknowledge Jesus to worship God? There is a big difference for those that have never heard and those that have. I don’t think Burke is going full tilt here but there are certain things that cannot be ignored.

That's my question -- what is the line.

If people have to acknowledge Jesus to worship God then we would have to conclude that the Jews don't worship the same God either. It's why I can't understand why people want to draw the line and say Muslims don't worship the same God but then think Jews do.