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

[Michie]

The people themselves. But knowing that's the way people are, "news" organizations take advantage by creating headlines that tell people what they want them to believe, even if the headline isn't substantiated by the article. Not exactly a sign of integrity.

Mainstream media is no better. And I find it a great sign of weakness when someone who does not like what is posted always cites the source as if that’s a valid argument and never acknowledge the good stuff they claim they want to see. What people choose to read or glean is up to them. I’m not crazy about America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, etc. some here love those sources. Everything has a bias these days. It’s up to the reader to determine whether they want to read the headline or read the content and do a bit of research. Like I said, this is the stuff people discuss. Anything edifying or good as far as the faith is concerned drops off the page with no comment 99.9% of the time. But yet they complain in this thread with the horrible source to keep it on top of the forum? C’mon. Nobody is that gullible. People love this stuff whether they claim to hate it or not. Look at the longevity of this thread and the conversation produced here. People seem to enjoy being disgruntled. All the while... the good stuff? Meh. It’s rarely acknowledged. My advice is for each member to post things they want to see. That’s what I do. And others can too. That would be great.

 

[Gnarwhal]

It really isn't Pope Francis that says this; it's the Catechism. I wish that the Catechism didn't say this. I think that in one of the Epistles of John, it says that one who doesn't have the Son, doesn't have the Father either. That seems pretty clear that if you reject the Son, you reject the Father too. I don't see how you can read that and just say that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God. Muslims may think that they worship the same deity, but objectively, I don't see how the Islamic deity is the same as the Christian deity. When I entered into the Church, this part was in my mind, but I felt that I couldn't do anything about it.

Best to go with the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism. The latter is the only catechism declared "free from error".

 

[Lady Bug]

I don't want to lead anyone astray by making any more comments lol.

 

[Markie Boy]

A couple of things. There is some teaching of Islam that is radically different from Christianity - so much so that it can't be coming from the same source. They may claim it its, but simple logic would not support it.

Also - in John 14:6 Jesus says no one comes to the Father except thru me. They may think and say they are worshiping the same God, but if the only way to God is thru Jesus, and they deny Jesus, I don't know how that would work. And I don't know how to get around Jesus' statement without twisting his words.

Far as the Jews - God reached out to them, and they know who God is for sure. Are they still doing good just doing what they do, or did they miss the boat?

Islam is different - it started way after Jesus coming.

I guess I have seen quite a few Catholic apologists just get tired of trying to mop up after Francis - some of them have actually stated it pretty much that way. It seems one almost has to do the same thing with the Catechism. Or at the very least, decide which Catechism to follow.

 

[narnia59]

Best to go with the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism. The latter is the only catechism declared "free from error".

The Baltimore Catechism is not a universal catechism and has no authority for the universal Church.

I think the words used by Pope Clement XIII are that the Roman Catechism is "far removed from any error" which is materially different than "free from error." And that in itself is certainly not an infallible statement. And then in 1947 Pope Pius XII issued a correction (or at least a correction of understanding) that it was not a necessity that the "traditio instrumentorum" be presented in order for an ordination to be valid.

And there are other problems with the Roman Catechism. Infant children have NO means of salvation other than Baptism, and not even a hope for a place like "limbo." It states there are only two parts of the Church -- the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. No Church suffering. There is no mention of indulgences. A man who is born out of wedlock is automatically disqualified from the priesthood. Someone who has a physical deformity is automatically disqualified from the priesthood because that would "offend the eye." Those are all I can remember off the top of my head.

There is also a significant gap in dealing with moral issues that plague our day that are addressed in our current catechism.

Pope John Paul II said this about our current catechism --

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms."

Do you reject JPIIs words on this?

 

[narnia59]

Mainstream media is no better. And I find it a great sign of weakness when someone who does not like what is posted always cites the source as if that’s a valid argument and never acknowledge the good stuff they claim they want to see. What people choose to read or glean is up to them. I’m not crazy about America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, etc. some here love those sources. Everything has a bias these days. It’s up to the reader to determine whether they want to read the headline or read the content and do a bit of research. Like I said, this is the stuff people discuss. Anything edifying or good as far as the faith is concerned drops off the page with no comment 99.9% of the time. But yet they complain in this thread with the horrible source to keep it on top of the forum? C’mon. Nobody is that gullible. People love this stuff whether they claim to hate it or not. Look at the longevity of this thread and the conversation produced here. People seem to enjoy being disgruntled. All the while... the good stuff? Meh. It’s rarely acknowledged. My advice is for each member to post things they want to see. That’s what I do. And others can too. That would be great.

It seems that I have offended you Michie. For that I do truly apologize.

 

[narnia59]

A couple of things. There is some teaching of Islam that is radically different from Christianity - so much so that it can't be coming from the same source. They may claim it its, but simple logic would not support it.

Also - in John 14:6 Jesus says no one comes to the Father except thru me. They may think and say they are worshiping the same God, but if the only way to God is thru Jesus, and they deny Jesus, I don't know how that would work. And I don't know how to get around Jesus' statement without twisting his words.

Far as the Jews - God reached out to them, and they know who God is for sure. Are they still doing good just doing what they do, or did they miss the boat?

Islam is different - it started way after Jesus coming.

I guess I have seen quite a few Catholic apologists just get tired of trying to mop up after Francis - some of them have actually stated it pretty much that way. It seems one almost has to do the same thing with the Catechism. Or at the very least, decide which Catechism to follow.

Yes, one can choose to reject the work of Pope Benedict and the statements of John Paul II about the authenticity of our new catechism. People often pick and choose what part of Catholic teaching they want to follow.

 

[Michie]

It seems that I have offended you Michie. For that I do truly apologize.

No not at all @narnia59. I’m not upset with you at all. I do get tired of the same suspects skulking around to take every opportunity to complain about sources, etc but never contribute anything else to the forum. That does not include you. No worries.

 

[Gnarwhal]

The Baltimore Catechism is not a universal catechism and has no authority for the universal Church.

I think the words used by Pope Clement XIII are that the Roman Catechism is "far removed from any error" which is materially different than "free from error." And that in itself is certainly not an infallible statement. And then in 1947 Pope Pius XII issued a correction (or at least a correction of understanding) that it was not a necessity that the "traditio instrumentorum" be presented in order for an ordination to be valid.

And there are other problems with the Roman Catechism. Infant children have NO means of salvation other than Baptism, and not even a hope for a place like "limbo." It states there are only two parts of the Church -- the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. No Church suffering. There is no mention of indulgences. A man who is born out of wedlock is automatically disqualified from the priesthood. Someone who has a physical deformity is automatically disqualified from the priesthood because that would "offend the eye." Those are all I can remember off the top of my head.

There is also a significant gap in dealing with moral issues that plague our day that are addressed in our current catechism.

Pope John Paul II said this about our current catechism --

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms."

Do you reject JPIIs words on this?

Clement XIII did say that and then three sentences later he said, "In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error"

 

[narnia59]

Clement XIII did say that and then three sentences later he said, "In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error"

Again "far removed" is not the same thing as "free from." It means the possibility of error is remote. And his statement is found in a document that is not itself infallible and thereby guaranteed to be free from error. So there remains the possibility that his statement itself is in error.

But you didn't answer my question. Do you reject the words of JPII about the catechism that Pope Benedict oversaw and he promulgated? Do you reject that it is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine? When John Paul II declared it to be a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith" do you contend he erred in saying that? Do you reject that it is a "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine"?

It would seem that you do, or at a minimum refuse to "receive this catechism in a spirit of communion" as he requested.

Do you see the irony in that you want to quote one pope from the past who was asking people to take the most recent catechism seriously as a good standard of the faith yet you want to completely reject John Paul II doing the same thing?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You know Jim, I’d take you more seriously if you ever commented on the good things posted in this forum. But alas, during this latest return after dusting your sandals for the umpteenth time, you are back with your bone to pick with me. There are many Catholics and clergy that contribute to LSN, like it or not. You could ignore it if so inclined but obviously you can’t help yourself. There is a big difference between disagreement and dislike. We are allowed to disagree with any pope’s opinion.

You were banned from Catholic Answers forums as you often remind us. Did they ever ban LSN?

I don't have a bone to pick with you per se and I never understood your hostility towards me. It began
way back after I returned after having colon cancer and a clique was revealed in One Bread One Body,
who had an ongoing agreement with each other, to ignore anyone not part of their group.
I can only conclude that you were part of that clique, especially after a poster returned and congratulated
you for continuing your tactic. When I asked what tactic that was, but I was ignored.

I left several times before and return once in a while only to help those who are new here and
those who are converts to Catholicism. LSN is not Catholic and should not be used in here
to present the Catholic Church's position on issues and certainly none of their attacks on
Pope Francis. It's one of the reasons why this forum should not be called Catholic, as I
posted before. Just rename it to the "Michie," forum, which is what it really is.

Other devote Catholics have left as they got tired of having their threads and replies knocked
out by your threads and post which, although can be informative, seem to have another agenda
than just providing information. I've gotten email from these Catholics over the decade and
it's sad to know that they were driven out of this forum and won't bother returning. I'm more
hardheaded and keep coming back, which is a character flaw on my part.

OH and yeah I was banned from CAF when someone posted a caracture picture of then candidate
Barrack Obama as a monkey, and I called the thread, racists. Long story, but I was allowed back in
and the forum was shut down because of the narrow minded moderation there.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don't have a bone to pick with you per se and I never understood your hostility towards me. It began
way back after I returned after having colon cancer and a clique was revealed in One Bread One Body,
who had an ongoing agreement with each other, to ignore anyone not part of their group.
I can only conclude that you were part of that clique, especially after a poster returned and congratulated
you for continuing your tactic. When I asked what tactic that was, but I was ignored.

I left several times before and return once in a while only to help those who are new here and
those who are converts to Catholicism. LSN is not Catholic and should not be used in here
to present the Catholic Church's position on issues and certainly none of their attacks on
Pope Francis. It's one of the reasons why this forum should not be called Catholic, as I
posted before. Just rename it to the "Michie," forum, which is what it really is.

Other devote Catholics have left as they got tired of having their threads and replies knocked
out by your threads and post which, although can be informative, seem to have another agenda
than just providing information. I've gotten email from these Catholics over the decade and
it's sad to know that they were driven out of this forum and won't bother returning. I'm more
hardheaded and keep coming back, which is a character flaw on my part.

This response confuses me greatly. First, the "updated Catechism" (Catechism of the Catholic Church) says (point 841) that the Muslims "profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." Aside from being a little more polite about it in phrasing (not using the term "infidel"), what exactly has changed compared to the Catechism of Pius X that I cited?

Second, the whole reason I was appealing to the Catechism of Pius X, aside from the fact it explicitly entreats upon the subject, is because some were suggesting that the idea that Muslims worship the same god as Catholics was some new thing that either Francis or the Catechism of the Catholic Church came up with, so I was pointing to an earlier notable catechism that said the same thing.

So I'm very confused as to why you object to me using an older catechism rather than a newer one.

Go back and read your post and reread what you copied and pasted from the Catechism of
Pius X.

It's not the same as in the current Catechism as the Church has a more tolerant mindset today.

We no longer are prohibited from going into protestant churches as back in those days, and
we have strong ties with Protestants and Jews, especially with the political environment we live
in today. The Catechism of Pius X, as it states, would prohibit this.

FYI, I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church and experienced the
hostility between Catholics and Protestants back then.

 

[Michie]

I don't have a bone to pick with you per se and I never understood your hostility towards me. It began
way back after I returned after having colon cancer and a clique was revealed in One Bread One Body,
who had an ongoing agreement with each other, to ignore anyone not part of their group.
I can only conclude that you were part of that clique, especially after a poster returned and congratulated
you for continuing your tactic. When I asked what tactic that was, but I was ignored.

I left several times before and return once in a while only to help those who are new here and
those who are converts to Catholicism. LSN is not Catholic and should not be used in here
to present the Catholic Church's position on issues and certainly none of their attacks on
Pope Francis. It's one of the reasons why this forum should not be called Catholic, as I
posted before. Just rename it to the "Michie," forum, which is what it really is.

Other devote Catholics have left as they got tired of having their threads and replies knocked
out by your threads and post which, although can be informative, seem to have another agenda
than just providing information. I've gotten email from these Catholics over the decade and
it's sad to know that they were driven out of this forum and won't bother returning. I'm more
hardheaded and keep coming back, which is a character flaw on my part.

OH and yeah I was banned from CAF when someone posted a caracture picture of then candidate
Barrack Obama as a monkey, and I called the thread, racists. Long story, but I was allowed back in
and the forum was shut down because of the narrow minded moderation there.

No. I was one of the people praying for you with your bout with colon cancer. Say what you will Jim but there is no clique here. You’ve always followed me around and appointed yourself as my critic. You want the forum to change, then contribute. Stop criticizing. It’s pretty simple really. My only suggestion to you is put me on ignore. Never had a single issue with you until you started with the insults and constant critiques. You were sure to insert them in your last post as well. If you have any further complaints. You can contact staff or pm me. I really don’t care either way.

And by the way Jim, I’ve gotten my fair share of PM’s thanking me for the things I post.

 

[Lady Bug]

Ok I have to throw in a monkey wrench and say that I don't think the Baltimore catechism is approved for use anymore is it? Back when I was flirting with sedevacantism, one such sede church proclaimed its use of the Baltimore catechism. I could have sworn.

 

[narnia59]

Ok I have to throw in a monkey wrench and say that I don't think the Baltimore catechism is approved for use anymore is it? Back when I was flirting with sedevacantism, one such sede church proclaimed its use of the Baltimore catechism. I could have sworn.

It's not like it's been banned or anything. But it is also a local catechism so doesn't have any universal teaching authority. Doesn't mean it wasn't useful, and still could be as long as people don't think it's in any way an appropriate replacement for our current catechism.

I think for serious students of the faith it's good to read the Roman catechism. But the one we should recommend to those looking at the faith or as the best reference to learn our faith is our current catechism. And when people try to sidestep it to go back 500 years it simply adds to the confusion we already have in the Church and that is not a good thing in my opinion.

ETA -- I still remember a good number of the answers to the questions from the Baltimore Catechism, I cut my teeth on it. And those answers are good and those memories are a good thing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No. I was one of the people praying for you with your bout with colon cancer. Say what you will Jim but there is no clique here. You’ve always followed me around and appointed yourself as my critic. You want the forum to change, then contribute. Stop criticizing. It’s pretty simple really. My only suggestion to you is put me on ignore. Never had a single issue with you until you started with the insults and constant critiques. You were sure to insert them in your last post as well. If you have any further complaints. You can contact staff or pm me. I really don’t care either way.

And by the way Jim, I’ve gotten my fair share of PM’s thanking me for the things I post.

I never insulted you personally, I apologize if you took offense, it was not my intention.

I do know about the clique that existed, for I was asked to join before my surgery. I declined
and was put on their ignore list until they were exposed accidently by one of their members.

Spiritually, distractions like this do more harm than good, which is why those more spiritually
mature than myself no longer come here.

God Bless

 

[JSRG]

Go back and read your post and reread what you copied and pasted from the Catechism of
Pius X.

Okay, I read the part where it confirmed that Muslims worship the true god. What's the issue there? Are you disagreeing with it, and claiming that they do not? And if that's your position, then how do you reconcile the fact you said we should ignore the Catechism of Pius X in favor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says the same thing?

It's not the same as in the current Catechism as the Church has a more tolerant mindset today.

Well, obviously it's not the exact same, it uses some different words and omits the nowadays-controversial term of infidel. But the basic substance of Muslims indeed worshipping the true God, even if they have incorrect ideas about it, is still there.

I'm very confused about what you're trying to argue with me about here?

 

[Michie]

I never insulted you personally, I apologize if you took offense, it was not my intention.

I do know about the clique that existed, for I was asked to join before my surgery. I declined
and was put on their ignore list until they were exposed accidently by one of their members.

Spiritually, distractions like this do more harm than good, which is why those more spiritually
mature than myself no longer come here.

God Bless

Jim, I was not asked to join any clique. I do know there was one at one time back in the MikeK and company days but that’s been years ago. I don’t know who you talked to and who started all that but I was not apart of it. I can’t help what people say or do. I can only act as an individual. I suggest whatever hard feelings or misunderstandings we have concerning one another and be forgiven so we can start anew in the spirit of Lent. I do not agree with everything posted here either but I can move past that and still be cordial to them. Seems you are carrying around a lot of hurt. I pray that God will release you of that.

Do you know how many rumors and hatched plans there has been targeted toward me the time I’ve been here? I can’t even count. Eventually those that do that behind the scenes are found out. I just wanted to clear the air since you came out and said what you did here. I have never tried to hurt you and that still stands.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Okay, I read the part where it confirmed that Muslims worship the true god. What's the issue there? Are you disagreeing with it, and claiming that they do not? And if that's your position, then how do you reconcile the fact you said we should ignore the Catechism of Pius X in favor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says the same thing?



Well, obviously it's not the exact same, it uses some different words and omits the nowadays-controversial term of infidel. But the basic substance of Muslims indeed worshipping the true God, even if they have incorrect ideas about it, is still there.

I'm very confused about what you're trying to argue with me about here?

What you copied and pasted:

11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?
A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.

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 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.

In other words, Muslims are considered as "infidels."

The current Catechism does not call Muslims and Jews "infidels."

Just so we're understanding the word "indidel"

in·fi·del
[ˈinfədl, ˈinfəˌdel]

NOUN

1. a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own:
   "they wanted to secure the Holy Places from the infidel"
2. 
   

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I suggest whatever hard feelings or misunderstandings we have concerning one another and be forgiven so we can start anew in the spirit of Lent. I do not agree with everything posted here either but I can move past that and still be cordial to them. Seems you are carrying around a lot of hurt. I pray that God will release you of that.

No, I'm not carrying hurt, and I agree, let's start anew.

However, as a spiritual practice, I'm detaching from social media sites like this. So, if
you don't see me, it's not because of anything you or anyone else did.

God Bless