Posted on 05/10/2007 12:28:17 PM PDT by Gamecock
-A8
This doesn't even make sense as English, much less as theology.
are “irreformable by their very nature.”15 If the present Roman Pontiff, John Paul II, has proclaimed Muslims to be acceptable as believers
There is no such ex cathedra teaching. You know that, and so does Richard Bennett.
a. The late Pope made a connection between God and Allah.
b. The Catechism is in line with the Pope's statements.
c. You said I am free to disagree with that.
So either you are right or the Pope/Rome is. Tell me, who is right and who is wrong and why?
You mean the same God?
But getting back the subject, I think my statement doesn't properly deliver my point. My point is an obvious one, that Christianity and Judaism as it has exists today have distinct and differing beliefs about the nature of God.
Yeah, but that was his own theological opinion. He wasn't teaching that as Catholic dogma. As I said before, I am free to disagree.
Indeed, that is obvious. But that is not what you said in #7.
-A8
How so? And why exactly are you picking a fight with me??
Yeah, that's why I said, "I think my statement doesn't properly deliver my point." This reenforces my thinking that you're picking a fight with me for some reason.
As for "I think my statement doesn't properly deliver my point", how could I possibly know that this meant, "I meant something entirely different than what I said in #7."?
-A8
Did I say I believe it? I don't.
Second, your statement in #7 about Allah implies that you think that JPII and the Church are wrong on this point, and yet you seem to be dancing around Gamecock's question and trying to avoid coming right and saying, "Yes, I think that JPII and the Church" are wrong on this point." If you think JPII and the Church are wrong on this point, then why the hesistancy to acknowledge that?
Because nothing that has been quoted from JPII or "The Church" is dogmatic teaching. Vatican II was a pastoral council.
So now you *did* in fact say what you meant in #7 about Christians and Jews not worshipping the same God, except you only forgot in #7 to provide the qualifier that you don't actually believe it? Ok. That makes hash of what you said in #24, and #28. The next time you say something that you don't believe, please add that qualifier ("I don't believe this"), so readers are not misled. If when you end up misleading readers either by saying something entirely different than you meant to say, or by saying something that you actually don't believe, but without adding that qualifier, please don't accuse your readers of trying to pick a fight with you when they start asking questions. Instead, take responsibility for your writing error.
If you think JPII and the Church are wrong on this point, then why the hesistancy to acknowledge that?
Because nothing that has been quoted from JPII or "The Church" is dogmatic teaching. Vatican II was a pastoral council.
That's a non sequitur. Just because it was not made "dogma" does not mean that it was not JPII's position, and is not the Church's position. (What is in the Catechism counts as being the Church's position.) And so if you disagree with it, it follows that you think that it is wrong. Therefore, logically, it follows that you think that on this point, JPII and the Church are wrong. So why not be forthright and say "Yes, I think JPII and the Church are wrong about this point."?
-A8
Allah is the God of the Koran. In my opinion that is on the same order as the statement that The God the the LDS is the God of the Book of Mormon. There are signnificant differences between these views of God and the God of the Bible. On the other hand, the God of the Talmud is also significantly different from the Trinitarian God of Christians. All, however, profess to be the God of Abraham.
It may have been JPII’s position, but that does not automatically make it the Church’s dogma. Dogma or doctrine is formally defined and is consistent with the tradition and practice of the Church since the beginning.
A pope can have all sorts of opinions but they are exactly that, his personal opinion, and do not thereby become church dogma.
JPII was occasionally ambiguous in many things he said and did, or didn’t say and didn’t do. He was also much more closely examined or constantly on stage than any other prior pope, and I think sometimes he made remarks that probably needed more clarification, but because of the circumstances in which they were made, never received it.
Because that's not what Gamecock said. He said, "So the late Pope and the Catholicism are both wrong!?!
If you want me to be blunt, then yes, Pope John Paul II was wrong to say that. I may get the Riot Act read to me now, but I really don't care, since hasn't making an ex cathedra teaching. As for Catholicism being wrong, I certainly don't believe that. As for Nostra Aetate and the statement from the Catechism, I do think they are problematic, since Mohammedanism is a false religion.
Thanks for the input livius. :-)
I agree. I never claimed it was "dogma". But not all of the Church's positions are dogma. What is taught in the Catechism counts as being "the Church's position", even if it does not have the status of dogma. And therefore this teaching about Muslims worshipping the same God as Catholics (#841 in the Catechism) should be considered the Church's position on this matter.
-A8
But that is clearly what he meant. He obviously wasn't trying to get you to denounce the entirety of Catholicism. He wanted to know whether you thought that Catholicism is wrong on this one point, i.e. whether Muslims worship the same God that Catholics worship.
-A8
Islam is a syncretist religion. It took its concept of God from Judaism, along with a collection of ritual practices, and took certain already heretical conceptions of Jesus from the Christianity circulating in the Middle East at that time, and finally topped it all off with the pagan concepts, places and rituals of the Arabs.
In that sense, it can be said that what Muslims believe they believe, so to speak, is the same God as that of the Jews, that is, the God of Abraham.
Obviously, it’s a pretty tenuous relationship with the true God of Abraham, but that is what they believe, and that is why it appears in Catholic sources.
On the other hand, a reading of any good Catholic theologian, not to mention the Pope (BXVI, that is), will give you a more accurate view of the Church’s understanding of the difference between the Muslim concept of the God of Abraham and the true concept.
Ok, here's your "Riot Act":
"Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" - Benedict XV
:-)
-A8
Not the Church's dogma (infallible), but the Church's position (potentially fallible). Gotcha. Ping for reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.