The disaster that is Novus Ordo theology…
The Trinity, the Muslims, and the Jews:
A Brief Reply to Steve Kellmeyer
What passes for “orthodox Catholic commentary” these days is unbelievable. Take Steve Kellmeyer, for example, author of the blog The Fifth Column. Theologically, Kellmeyer is a product of the Franciscan University of Steubenville / Catholic Answers type of “orthodox Catholicism”, and it shows.
In a blog post entitled “Cardinal Burke’s Breakup” (Nov. 24, 2016), Kellmeyer rebukes “Cardinal” Raymond Burke for daring to maintain that Catholics and Muslims do not worship the same God. While there are many things to criticize Mr. Burke on, this statement is not one of them.
Kellmeyer verbatim:
With his latest statement, wherein he insists that Christians and Jews don’t worship the same God, it’s pretty clear that Cardinal Burke is no longer fully in his right mind. When a cardinal starts contradicting Aquinas, the councils of the Church and the Pope, he is in trouble.
(Steve Kellmeyer, “Cardinal Burke’s Breakup”, The Fifth Column, Nov. 24, 2016; links in original)
We’ll interrupt right here for a moment. Kellmeyer declares that Mr. Burke is “no longer fully in his right mind” — why? Because he holds that Catholics, who worship the Most Holy Trinity, do not worship the same God as Muslims, who explicitly reject the Most Holy Trinity. Kellmeyer claims that St. Thomas Aquinas “contradicts” Burke and provides a link to the Universal Doctor’s treatise against the Muslims, De Rationibus Fidei (“Reasons for the Faith against Muslim Objections”), but Aquinas says no such thing, and our Fifth Columnist doesn’t elaborate.
As for those “councils of the Church and the Pope”, of course Kellmeyer is only referring to Vatican II and the false papal claimants after Pope Pius XII.
But it gets better. Kellmeyer continues:
If you want to say Islam denies Christ and therefore doesn’t worship the same God, then we ALSO must conclude that Jews don’t worship the same God. Muslims at least consider Him a prophet, Jews consider Him a deluded heretic, so there’s even less justification for saying Jews worship the same God.
Yes, imagine that! The Jews also do not worship the true God! The fact that Kellmeyer considers this an absurdity tells you all you need to know about “conservative” Novus Ordo religious education.
Yet, it gets better still:
But, since Jesus said “salvation is from the Jews”, that conclusion creates theological problems that cannot be resolved.
Now this really takes the cake! As though our Lord had been referring to the apostate Jews who rejected Him! In John 4:22, the Son of God said to the Samaritan woman at the well: “You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know: for salvation is of the Jews.” Our Blessed Lord spoke these words while the Old Dispensation, the Old Covenant, was still in force, and hence it was true to say that salvation is from the Jews, meaning, the true God has revealed Himself to the Jews alone, and they carry His promises, which were fulfilled in Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 7:6; Ex 19:5-6; Heb 1:1-5; Lk 1:31-33,68-79).
The New Covenant, being the fulfillment of the Old, no longer knows of this distinction between Jew and Gentile: “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Salvation is no longer confined to the one or the other:
Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. If, then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly; nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh: But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(Romans 2:25-29)
Apparently this is news to Steve Kellmeyer. Scary thought!
Our Lord’s Words that “salvation is from the Jews”, then, have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the Talmudic Jews of our day, who reject Him: “For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin” (Jn 8:24); “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also” (1 Jn 2:23).
Let’s get back to Kellmeyer. He tries to make his case for the idea that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God by listing the following “similarities” between the two religions:
God is All-Just, All-Merciful
Jesus and Mary are sinless.
Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.
Jesus is judge on the Last Day.
These are all Muslim beliefs.
So these are all Muslims beliefs, huh? That’s very nice, but there is another Muslim belief, one that Kellmeyer didn’t mention: Muslims explicitly insist that the god they worship is not the Most Holy Trinity. Minor detail.
Here is what the Muslim Koran says regarding that (there are many passages, but we’ll cite just one):
O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
(Sura 4:171; Pickthall translation)
So, when Kellmeyer and other Novus Ordo apologists say that Muslims believe in “one god”, they are only telling you half of the story. The other half is that the “one god” they adore is not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and they themselves will tell you so. Perhaps we should simply believe them when they tell us what they worship.
Since being a Trinity — that is, being One God in Three Divine Persons — pertains to God’s very Essence, when a Muslim worships “one god” that is not the Trinity, he worships an essentially different (and therefore false) god. Thus, the Muslim, despite whatever he may intend, does not in fact worship the true God. It’s really not that difficult.
Kellmeyer continues:
When I taught RCIA, I used to point out that people who only understood addition and subtraction are not denying math, they are merely ignorant of the higher forms of math. When it came to theology, the pagans know the four basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), but not much else. The Muslims understand algebra, but have no grasp beyond that. The Jews, the Chosen People [sic], understand geometry. Non-Catholic Christians can get through most of trigonometry without too much trouble. And non-Catholic liturgical Christians, such as the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptics, even manage single-variable calculus. But if you want to understand the whole width and breadth and height of the subject, only the Catholic Faith will do.
This is perhaps very cute but dangerously incorrect.
First, it is outrageous but very telling that Kellmeyer should refer to today’s apostate Jews as “the Chosen People” — he obviously has not understood that with the institution of the New Covenant, it is the Catholics who are now the Chosen People, so to speak, the carnal distinction between Jew and Gentile having been transcended and replaced by the spiritual distinction between believer and unbeliever (cf. Rom 11): “We ought to remember that Catholics are, far more than the Jews were, the chosen people of God…” (Fr. Richard F. Clarke, “The Ministry of Jesus: Short Meditations on the Public Life of Our Lord”, in Beautiful Pearls of Catholic Truth, p. 542).
The error that today’s Talmudic Jews are God’s “Chosen People” is a very common and popular one in the Vatican II Sect and happily propagated in “conservative” Novus Ordo circles (e.g., EWTN, Ignatius Press, Catholic Answers, Franciscan University of Steubenville, etc.). It is a heresy also most dear to “Pope” Francis’ heart. In 1928, Pope Pius XI refuted it once more when he suppressed the pro-Zionist organization Amici Israel:
…the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism.”
(Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree Cum Supremae, March 25, 1928; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis XX [1928]: pp. 103-104; trans. by Novus Ordo Watch; underlining added.)
And, of course, in the Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, we pray: “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life” (underlining added).
The Zionist idea that today’s Jews are God’s Chosen People is a firm component of Novus Ordoism. As we have shown, it is most certainly not a Catholic idea.
Getting back to Kellmeyer’s analogy about mathematics: In typical Vatican II fashion, our Fifth Columnist makes it seem as though each of the non-Catholic groups mentioned above have a part of the truth and are simply lacking its “fullness”. But that’s false because in addition to whatever “parts” of truth they may have, they also have other elements that are erroneous and heretical. In other words, when we look at their body of religious doctrine, we find not simply an “abridged” or “shorter” version of Catholicism — as though some true doctrines were simply lacking — but also a slew of doctrines that are positively false, and these are mixed together with those doctrines they may have that happen to be true.
To stay with Kellmeyer’s analogy, we may say that while the Muslims and Jews understand algebra, they deny and teach error concerning trigonometry, calculus, and so forth. Thus, his analogy is false because it omits a central fact found in the available data.
Let’s use a different analogy to make things even more clear: If we want to say that Catholics have a glass full of water, then Kellmeyer is saying that the other religions also have a glass of water, but it is not entirely full, it is only filled partially. But this is false. Rather, the other religions have a glass that is filled partially with water and partially with liquid rat poison. While it would be correct to say that the glass does contain elements of H2O, this is dangerously misleading and beside the point, because the substance is had only as a whole — one would be drinking diluted rat poison.
That is why, as we once explained in a lengthy article, it is misleading to say that the Catholic Church has — to use a favorite Vatican II phrase — the “fullness of truth”. It is misleading because it implies that the other religions have the truth in part, but ever since the fullness of Revelation was given in Jesus Christ (see Heb 1:1-2) and ended with the death of the last Apostle, this cannot be said even of Judaism anymore:
Before the Revelation of Jesus Christ, i.e. during the Old Dispensation, it was possible to speak of the true religion (Judaism at the time) as possessing only partial truth since the full Truth had not yet been revealed. And thus we could say that the Jews, although they did not consciously worship a Trinity, nevertheless worshipped the True God because the Trinity had not yet been revealed and was thus neither affirmed nor denied by them — unlike the Muslims and Jews of today, who expressly deny worshipping the Holy Trinity.
Kellmeyer continues:
Now, none of these groups are totally wrong. It’s just that only one group has a really thorough, comprehensive understanding.
Again, that’s false. It’s not that the Muslims and the Jews have an insufficient understanding, they have a positively flawed understanding. They do not simply have less water in their glass, they have rat poison mixed in with it and filled to the brim! That changes things a bit, doesn’t it?
Kellmeyer ends his post thusly:
Our job is not to deride them for what they do not know, but rather to teach them. Cardinal Burke has, for whatever reason, lost sight of how it all works.
This has nothing to do with deriding people — Burke simply pointed out a fact that should encourage us all to engage in mission and evangelization (so much detested by Francis!). If anyone is deriding anyone here, it’s Kellmeyer in his gratuitous rebuke of Burke as basically “not all there” for saying Muslims and Catholics don’t worship the same God. That is derision — unjustified derision. Kellmeyer is the one who has lost sight of how it all works; or rather, we suspect, he has never had sight of it to begin with.
His blog’s name, The Fifth Column, is most appropriate.
;
About Cardenal Burke, you have the following observation of Vox Cantoris in the blog “callmejorgebergoglio”:
Vox CantorisNovember 20, 2016 at 1:40 AM
Friend, the “trans” to whom you refer is simply wrong. The person to whom you refer was born suffered from hermanphrodotism. That is in fact, a baby born with both male and female genitalia. The treatment, at some point, may involve surgery to assign either one or the other for practical living purposes. That, is what happened in this case. The person was not a “transexual,” but had both genitals and female genetic chromosomes.
hereisjorgebergoglioNovember 20, 2016 at 1:55 AM
Thanks, we are just quoting the Catholic World News report which can be read here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080309073746/http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=19829
Thank you for this Catholic reality check.
Kellmeyer seems to have gotten his MA in theological cherry-picking and his PhD in the ability to be unreasonable in the face of the scriptural, historical and traditional facts and Truths. Nothing new from Novus Ordo world.
PS. Who do the Lutherans, Anglicans etc. Worship? Have they not created ‘another Jesus’ to follow who suits them ‘better’?
And ‘charismatics’ who constantly invoke the name of the Holy Ghost to back up their self-appointed authority? Then use their unconsecrated hands to pass on all sorts of strange ‘spirits’
PPS. Many moons ago when I believed ‘Catholic’ meant every nominal ‘Christian’ denomination on the planet (even if they despised Catholicism – how merciful/idiotic) I had a family member who converted to pentecostal laying of hands at random times and unwisely did not decline to be a guinea pig. I felt like something integral was taken away or something without integrity was placed in my soul. Would be interested to know what a true preist of the Eternal Order of Melchisedech, if any read here, might have to say about this.
I’m no priest, but I’d speculate that the “spirit” being placed by charismatic heretics is a demon masquerading as an “angel of light”. Devils and demons have been part of every heresy going back to the Simonians in scripture. Most of what the weirdo freako satanists do in their rituals can be traced back to ancient heresies like the gnostics and albagensians. So… back on point… demonic.
Now as for the “Lutherans & Anglicans, etc”… they worship themselves, just like the first apostate does (Lucifer). What I think would pose as a more difficult question is “who do schismatics worship?”. Orthodox & Old Catholics for example? You could argue they have devolved into heresy since their inception so they’re just like any other Protestant, but this was not always the case and schismatics have always been objectively lost to the flames if not converted before death.
As far as I know, it would not be right to accuse Protestants — at least the run of the mill type, not Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists, etc. — it would not be right to accuse mainline Protestants of worshipping a false god. To my knowledge, they worship the Most Holy Trinity. They do so falsely and often in a heretical worship service, and thus their worship is forbidden and objectively hateful to God, but it is the true God to whom they offer this false worship. So, it would simply be a matter of justice to acknowledge that they worship the true God. Again, it’s false worship and mortally sinful objectively, but the object of that worship is the Holy Trinity.
I didn’t accuse the Protestants of worshipping a false god. I did
accuse the Charismatics of invoking demons in their bizarre false
worship when they invoke a so-called “holy” spirit. It isn’t holy
because it is heresy and if it is a spirit it can only be a demon.
Perhaps the mainline Protestants claim to worship the Holy Trinity… Fair enough. However, all false worship is essentially satanic whether they realize it or not. I’m not judging the internal intention of the Protestant, simply the objective effect.
Bear with me here a moment. The original True religion prior to Abraham was a natural law based Tradition handed down from Adam to Noe and spread through his sons over the earth after the deluge. This religion revolved around sacrifice and awaiting the promised Messiah.
This True religion devolved into subjective abuses and after a few generations became what we know as Paganism… human sacrifice, temple prostitution, multiple demonic so-called “gods” etc. This is simply a heretical “false worship”… i.e. a perversion of the True religion. And St. Paul tells us that “the gods of the gentiles are demons”.
Similarly, the Protestants have perverted the True religion of our age after the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Any perversion of the Truth is demonic and inadvertently satanic. This isn’t doctrine, but reasonable speculation given the history of religion.
Pax Christi
In Catholic moral theology, there is an essential distinction between idolatry — the adoration of the creature rather than the Creator — and heretical worship of the true God. You cannot equate the two. A large portion of the Israelites at some point adored a golden calf. That wasn’t heretical worship of the true God, it was the worship of a false god.
Sorry, your response was faster than my finished thought. I didn’t see your reply.
I don’t know where the distinction lies… when does error become idolatry? When does the worship of a movie star become formal idolatry? When does worshipping your own authority and randomly generated false religion based on personal interpretation become personal idolatry?
I guess it is similar to when does aggravated assault with a deadly weapon become attempted murder? That’s fair, but one leads to the other when unchecked. And the intent is almost identical either way so is the outcome in most cases. Likewise… heresy will lead to idolatry if unchecked. It has done so before and it is doing so now in the neo-pagan culture of death we live in today.
False gods abound in music, athletics & movie “stars” that are worshipped by children and adults instead of Christ. Many times even on Sunday. When does error become formal idolatry? There’s probably a definable line somewhere, but its sort of a hair spiting argument that has no value. Heresy and idolatry both sever one from the Church and both lead straight to hell. Both are also inspired by the demonic.
Pax Christi
These are all things you would consult a good moral theology manual about. They will give you a clear answer. It’s fine to raise these questions, but one cannot ask them rhetorically (and I know you’re not doing that), as though all these things were equal.
I highly recommend “Moral Theology” by the Dominicans Fr. McHugh and Fr. Callan as an excellent standard work that is both exhaustive and yet succinct:
Volume 1:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1500331139/interregnumnow-20
Volume 2:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1500332275/interregnumnow-20
Thanks for the recommendations. I do have a few Moral Theology books and you are correct that there are distinctions in this realm of theology… however in the practical sense… it is PASS/FAIL. As a layman I have no reason to care about the finer distinctions in this instance.
All I really need to know is “is it false worship? & does it lead to hell?” (Yes/No) then make the right choice. Heresy leads to hell just as quickly as idolatry, just as quickly as satanism and they all have a similar flavour, i.e. sinful false worship rooted in evil (objectively).
I haven’t lumped heresy in with murder… although it could fit since heresy murders the soul and in the old days heresy was punished by the state very similarly to murder… but I’ll leave the carving these things up and labelling them to the theologians and scholastics before I get myself into any trouble.
Going back to my original comment… if it is not from the Holy Spirit/Ghost and it is impossible that it is because they are heretics… then it is from a demon, assuming it is a “spirit” at all. It is possible that no spiritual effect is happening and that the effect is purely mental… but again looking at the history of heresies and their connection to occult style influence, “demonic” seems more likely.
It’s not that shocking to say. Protestants don’t have a monopoly on being influenced by the fallen angels. All false religions, Hollywood, secular, Drugs, Porn and just about every form of over indulgence is also influenced by the demonic. “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world… against the spirits of wickedness…” (Eph 6:12)
Just business as usual.
You might argue that the Protestants have not yet begun to worship multiple gods yet, but this isn’t exactly true if you think about it. Like I said in my original post, “Protestants worship themselves”… this is a false god. And this false god changes when the wind blows so it is actually multiple false gods. This could be compared to a less formal form of Paganism.
Also, authority comes from God and Protestants deny the authority of His Church… they replace the authority of God and His Church with their own individual interpretation. So instead of worshipping God and being obedient to Him, they worship their own individualist ideals and are obedient to no-one but their base desires and fleeting ideals.
Going on what Protestants i know relay – God is the Father, and the divinity of Son and Holy Ghost is less than the Father – even that the Son is some sort of defense attorney; the ‘Holy Trinity’, as far as believed at plebeian level, is not as Catholics should know it. Most protestants I have to interact with could not say the Creed without confusion.
Having had the unfortunate experience of being around Protestant Charismatics off and on through my life (family converts), I can say that their get togethers seem to invoke something very evil. At one such assembly a woman was wearing a crucifix and the pastor began to rant about how evil the crucifix is. Next thing you know the crowd is swooped up in the group mind of this idiocy and the woman was displaying signs of ‘possession’, then it got even worse and people were going mad all over the place. Whatever “Charismatics” invoke to do their ‘hands-on’ or spirit work, it is anti-Catholic and belongs to the realm of hysteria. Charismatics seem to only believe in God because they have so many ‘exciting’ and self-affirming encounters with the ‘devil’. My advice is stay away from Charismatics. Their ‘group mind’ is what they seem to worship and, it seems to me, that group mind is not God or of God.
PS. If anyone has an aversion to the Crucifix or the Real Presence, or if folks advocate (e.g. nopes) those whose ‘faith’ is founded on an aversion to either (VII), the operation of error should be obvious.
PPS. Cardinal Manning predicted Protestantism as the ideology for the elevation of Antichrist.
Honestly, I didn’t think I could be surprised by anything coming out of a Novus Ordo-type’s mouth, but that anyone could be so bat-shit stupid and still considered any kind of authority at all in the Novus Ordo bizarro world did, in fact, stun me.
Yeah. For anyone who has any Catholic sense.
But something happened -at least in the English speaking west – after WWII. Pope Pius the 12th, seemed a swan song. For those indoctrinated by Hollywood and dumped into Protestantism the culture of Pierre Teilhard was the pill that every fake Peter took to hand the populace over to Simon/Judas.
I think you’re right. He doesn’t look German, he looks like a member of the Tribe
If Christians and Moslems worship the same god, then, the logical conclusion is that god is a schizophrenic. But since this is an absurd and blasphemous claim – absurd since to worship and blaspheme the same god is the height of absurdity. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from one who asserts (or parrots the assertion) that the same god is worshipped by Catholics and Muslims, is that they are still departed from the realm of rationality.
As St Anthony the Great wrote, in one of his letters (Letter 2:4-5, version by Gerhard Garitte):
As for those rational natures in which that law of the covenant grew cold, the senses of their hearts have died, so that they were no longer able to know themselves according to their first creation, they became altogether irrational, and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator ( De rationalibus autem naturis, quibus ex testamenti lege anima earum et sensus cordium earum mortua facta sunt, (ita) ut non iam potentes fuerint illae intelligere secundum primam creationem, hoc dico quia hae irrationabiles factae sunt omnino, et ministrabant creaturae et non creatori).”
A Maimonides, St Thomas, and Avicenna all use the same philosophical arguments to prove God exists. Insofar as Jews, Catholics, and Moslems believe in the one God which is revealed by natural reason than it can be said that they all worship the same God. Moslems and Jews are just wrong about other facts accessible by reason and faith. But just as someone who loves math but is bad at it, still loves number just as much as his brothers with superior mathematical ability, so too Jews and Moslems worship the same God.
This is how I would do justice to the claim that these three religions worship the same God.
The existence of the One God is a natural truth of the human mind.
To have become convinced that there exists one God does not however, by itself, entitle a person to worship God.
To do this one must be in state of grace, which is achieved by first having supernatural faith then by the valid reception of Baptism or Confession as appropriate.
Supernatural faith is the assent of the intellect to truth, revealed by God, proposed by the Catholic Church, under the influence of (actual) grace.
The Catholic Church has an indispensable permanent integral role as being the agent, divinely appointed and founded, which collates and proposes Christian doctrine for the assent of the faithful. In this context the Catholic Church refers to the Pope, and the bishops in communion with the Pope; that is, the hierarchy or teaching church. It is therefore vitally important to identify the true Catholic Church from among the various alternatives and contenders.
In addition to the virtue of faith by reason of which we believe what God has revealed, the faithful person must explicitly know some articles of faith as having been revealed.
It is frequently said that God will accept the prayers of those who pray to him ‘with sincerity’ regardless of denomination.
In fact, if the person is sincere then God will provide the means by which he/she can make his way to the Catholic Church. (cf. Cornelius in Acts)
Not sure what you mean by being “entitled” to worship God. What you’re saying makes it sound as though a person who is not in a state of grace does not have an obligation to worship God, and is not even permitted to. That’s false.
I agree; bad choice of word. I can’t think of a suitable single word. Without faith a person lacks the capacity whilst being nonetheless subject to the obligation.
I think what you mean is that although one must indeed worship God at all times, fulfilling the obligation is only supernaturally meritorious for those who are in the state of grace.
Yes. Only Catholic worship is pleasing to the one true God, but when a Jew or Moslem comes to know by the virtue of natural reason that God is one and they render obedience to the natural law out of love and gratitude to the one God, they render a Catholic act of worship, albeit confusedly and although it does not suffice for their salvation. They do this, despite themselves still trapped in fatal ignorance so long as they persist in their other false and evil doctrines.
Point is they do worship the same God, they are just deluded and often pernicious in other errors.
But for as long as they worship a being that is explicitly NOT the Most Holy Trinity, they are not worshipping the true God, although they may very well MEAN TO. The Three Persons are essential to God, they are not some mere accident.
Who cares what they think their doing when they spout evil and error: who would try to assign a reason to the ravings of a madman? We note the error and attempt to correct it in case the madness is not fatal.
The jews and moslems recognize the one creator, and say that they are worshipping Him. The triune God is this Creator. They deserve the headpat of partial credit, even as a kid who gets a math problem wrong but uses correct mathematics in some instances in his work. He still fails, but we recognize he was doing math at times, no matter how confusedly.
The fact of the Trinity is a mystery and so far as I understand the doctrine, human reason unaided by grace is unable to come to it, but human reason can come to the fact of the Creator. There is a virtual difference between the God knowable by philosophers and the Trinity.
If I am wrong, I recant my position, but I think that some in their zeal, which is admirable, go too far in protesting modern errors. Surely the novus ordo oftentimes twists mere recognition of a Creator to serving religious indifference.
Look, if I say that a soap bubble is the creator of the world and then proceed to adore that soap bubble, that doesn’t mean I am worshipping the true God, just because the true God DID create the world.
You bring up the issue of “giving credit where credit is due”, but we are not here talking about culpability or sincerity or anything like that. We are only interested (in the above post, that is) in what the Muslims do OBJECTIVELY. If a man picks up a copy of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” THINKING that it is the Word of God, is he then reading then the Word of God? No, he is not. You’re now introducing the argument that we should at least recognize that the guy knows there IS a Word of God and INTENDS to be reading it and even went through the trouble of looking for it and purchasing a book, thinking that he found it, and that’s all very nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s not reading Sacred Scripture but the diabolical work of a Communist.
So, I think you are confusing apples with oranges here. We are not concerned with what a Muslim intends to be doing, or thinks he is doing, but with what he is actually doing. As Bp. Donald Sanborn once said, “Allah is not the true God because Allah is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But being the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is ESSENTIAL to the Father and not merely accidental, hence it cannot be dispensed with.
If someone truly believed in a soap bubble which could be indicated by the five ways, then I would say that that poor confused soul was confusedly worshipping God (very badly, and in a way which offends God). I think St. Paul would say something similar, as we find in the book of acts with his speech to the athenians about the unknown god. I would also say, as I have heard Bishop Sanborn say on a similar topic, that the parts of the soap bubble theology which were true, were catholic and taken from the Church.
Allah doesn’t exist, so Allah isn’t essentially anything aside from a diabolic distortion of Catholic Truth.
I think it is a mistake to separate the intention behind an act of worship from that act of worship. Worship is a moral act and therefore a complete description of it includes the intention.
Thank-you for your time and the hard work you put into your site.
Good distinction. The argument was getting clouded.
Allah doesn’t exist, so Allah is essentially nothing except a diabolic distortion of the truth of God. Since this is the case, you will only find “Allah” in the minds of the poor deluded moslems; The objective view of the phenomenon is to be found in the minds of the moslems; just as the objective view of any mental delusion. I don’t believe that mental delusions are spoken of apart from the deluded subject. If Allah does objectively exist, then he is a demon; but moslems do not think they are worshipping a demon, but the creator of the universe, and so they are again suffering a delusion.
Many Moslem philosophers that I have encountered in my studies were more or less modernists, in that they believed the “supernatural” aspects of Islam were fables for the unwashed masses; they believed (if they truly believed in anything), in the “god of philosophy”. Would you say that the “god of philosophy” is objectively different than the Trinity?
I am committed to believe that worshipers of the divine soap bubble, worship god obscurely, poorly, and outside the Church, just as the Athenians prayed to the unknown God. I would also imagine that a sensible worshiper soap bubbles would see that the soap is a fable since the bubble would need to be omnipotent to have created the universe.
Thank-you for your work on this blog.
The argument that includes what an infidel does or does not “think” he is worshiping is not appropriate here since we do not know the hearts of men. This does nothing but cloud the objective issue.
What is objective issue here? 1. Allah is not a trinity. 2. The One True God is a Trinity. 3. If Allah is not a trinity he is not God. 4. If Allah is a spirit then he is a demon for reasons mentioned above. 5. The internal thoughts or errors or delusions of individuals who worship Allah have no bearing on the objective issue. Similarly, it is possible that most Pagans had no idea they were sacrificing their children to the enemy of mankind aka satan when they did their horrendous rituals. But objectively it doesn’t matter what they think or even know. This is the distinction you are blurring with this line of thought.
The Moslems are not usually called pagans. Are Arians pagans? Mohemmed had been understood as a heretic by several doctors of the Church, and Dante portrays him as a schismatic heretic in hell “see how I split myself”.
Do Luthrens worship the same God, do the orthodox, do Unitarians?
Would you say that the Orthodox do not objectively worship the same God, since they do not properly understand procession?
The objective here is to properly understand what Moslems are so that they can be effectively proselytized.
But who said that unless you’re a pagan, you’re worshipping the true God? Pagans are typically understood to be polytheists, to my knowledge, or worshippers of physical creatures as gods.
Unitarians do not worship the true God.
“Would you say that the Orthodox do not objectively worship the same God, since they do not properly understand procession?”
Now THAT is a great question! I do not know the answer. I mean, I guess it’s always been said that they worship the Trinity, but it is likewise true that they reject the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father AND the Son, believing He proceeds from the Father only. I will not touch this one because it is a very complex and highly sensitive subject matter, and I could very easily make a mistake here that could end up being heretical, so I won’t touch it. Great question, though.
If we compare the qualities of God and Allah as portrayed by the Church and the Ummah respectively, they are not the same thing. But the question is always ensconced in a human reality, and when we approach an individual moslem, we should give him the benefit of the doubt, following the advice of St Ignatius of Loyola to interpret someone’s words in the best possible light. We should deal with them as though they are a poor deluded soul who doesn’t know any better and means to worship the God who is goodness itself, until we have evidence otherwise.
Since this is what should be standard operational procedure for dealings with moslems (unless I am mistaken), it is so because it conforms to reality in a certain way; I have always taken this conformance to indicate that Moslems do worship the same God, only confusedly, wrongly, and that they are serial blasphemers. Perhaps the relationship between utility and truth is not what I think it is, but I have never been convinced otherwise.
I would also say that in my recent reflection on this post that it appears to me that the state of the hypothetical muslim, I am imagining is one which is akin to the modernist in that they must be a person who interprets the evils of their religion away as superstition. It is not clear to me that a modernist worships the true God, so perhaps I should say the same about the moslem; so thank you for that insight.
Stevo,
I think you are confusing two things: the objective reality of what god is worshipped by Islam, and the subjective intention of each individual Muslim. I am talking about the former; you seem to be talking about the latter. The pastoral approach to evangelizing Muslims, or assessing each individual Muslim’s personal culpability, are wholly separate things altogether.
If by the “god of philosophy” you mean the God that is knowable through reason alone, then it is the true God, yes, insofar as one does not exclude the true God from one’s intent, as the Muslims and Jews do, for example, by expressly adding that the god they believe in is NOT the Most Holy Trinity.
St. Paul was not saying that the Athenians were worshipping the Most Holy Trinity when they worshipped “the unknown god”. He was just using their admission that there might be a god they do not know as an occasion of introducing them to the true God, whom they truly did not know.
To add, Steve, do you know what Moslems believe? Ever heard of mecca and the kaaba?
Do you know what Rabbinicalism believes?
To keep it short, triumphalism against Christ and His Church is what both believe.
Good remarks here. I would like to say that, as a more or less “arabizing” catholic, the term “Allah” means God (Al-Lah, the Almighty litteraly) and its the only term with we talk about God in maronite/melkite/syriac arabophonic communities. The same in hebrew : Ellah/Eloah. The same in aramaic : Allaha. Try some Pater Noster in aramaic for instance. Just saying in case you would evangelize muslims, because it is still a common error made by catholics who rightly intend to denounce islam, but by ignoring the importance of the language, they fail…As if me, as a french catholic, I would try to evangelize or convince some sort of anglo-saxon protestants and would criticize them to worship “God” and not our french-speaking “Dieu”. We french sedes are struggling a lot to evangelize muslims considering the stupidity or idealism of the novus ordo conservatives on such issues (“father” Guy Pagès and others…all modernists and JPII/Benedict XVI fanatics). PS. I am of course certainly not implying that muslim worship the One True God.
What you are saying doesn’t make a lot of sense. Especially on the Pater Noster. Where in the Pater is there a reference to “the almighty”? Nowhere.
Also, these arabs, if converted could simply use another term such as “the Holy Trinity” or “God” or “Jesus” or “The Father” etc. Something Catholic not the term monopolized by infidels i.e. “Allah”.
Maronites (if I am not mistaken) have been inundated and/or surrounded by Turks/muslims for centuries and this has (according to you) possibly had a negative effect on their language & culture… I’m no expert but case in point.. I think it was a small group of Maronites that allegedly had a liturgy that contained the short form of the Sacred Blood consecration along with other oddities that were later corrected by the Holy See due to validity compromise.
These are fundamental errors not simple language barriers. So your argument breaks down into absurdity if you flip it around. A muslim convert goes to Saudi and calls Allah, “God” or “Jesus” or “The Holy Trinity”, or (insert Catholic term of God here) and the Jihadists hack of his head. Not even remotely the same. I seriously doubt your evangelical efforts are going to work pandering to this kind of mentality. Arabs don’t respond to weakness. You might want to re-think your strategy.
Hi. 1. The lands such as Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebnon and even Hidjaz were christian or christianized long before islamic heresy came up.
2. The arabic term of “Allah” comes from the hebrew “Eloah” and the aramaic “Alaha”.
3. What do you think a catholic says when he shouts “Allelouia” ? You see the core here ALLE-Louia ? Or it is too difficult ? Too “arabic” maybe ? -Sigh-
4. You aknowledge yourself being ignorant on these matters of semitic languages, so why do you even open your mouth ?
5. If you just react because you don’t like arabs or because you think that arab = islam, then you certainly will never understand the catholic faith.
6. You are actually making the very mistake that you seems to denounce…cultural thief.
7. What strategy ? Only God and catholic orthodoxy are my strategy.
8. “Arabs don’t respond to weakness”. Wow, I should have read that first, so I could know you were such a pointless ignorant.
Nothing personal, but you should really study a bit before opening your mouth. Pax Christi.
You: 1.“…were christian or christianized long before islamic heresy came up.”
Me: Yes, but they’ve been conquered and Islamized for nearly 1000 years.
Also, calling Islam a heresy is not quite “orthodox” if you look at how the Church has addressed them historically. Infidel does not = heretic. You could argue that Islam is a mishmash of heresies but Islam has never been part of the Catholic Church.
You: 2. “The arabic term of “Allah” comes from the hebrew “Eloah” and the aramaic “Alaha”.”
Me: According to who? And what does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with the “Our Father”? Why so dead set on Islamized terms for God? Twisting words and deriving their origins does what now?
You: “3. What do you think a catholic says when he shouts “Allelouia”?”
Me: “Alleluia” is Hebrew, so what?
You: 4. “You acknowledge yourself being ignorant… so why do you even open your mouth?”
Me: Not being a linguistic scholar or “expert” and “being ignorant” are not the same thing. I lived amongst Arabs, worked with Arabs and fought with Arabs, celebrated with Arabs. No, being Arab does not make you Muslim, but the region has been under Muslim oppression for centuries. I “opened my mouth” because you sound like a pie in the sky idealist whose about to get thrashed by some very practical Arabs that you are about to irritate with your pseudo-scholarly nonsense.
You: 5. “If you just react because you don’t like arabs or because you think that arab = islam, then you certainly will never understand the catholic faith.”
Me: Who said I don’t like Arabs? And it sounds like you need to brush up on your Catholic history. Also, look up “liberalism” because you sound like a liberal. “The Liberal Illusion” might be right up your alley.
You: “6. You are actually making the very mistake that you seems to
denounce…cultural thief.”
Me: Huh?
You: “7. What strategy ? Only God and catholic orthodoxy are my strategy.”
Me: Didn’t you say you’re on some kind of evangelical quest to convert Arabs? I’m warning you that your attitude/mentality is not going to work. At best laughs and dismissal, at worst broken teeth (yours).
You: 8. “Arabs don’t respond to weakness”. Wow, I should have read that first,
so I could know you were such a pointless ignorant.”
Me: Really? What country are you living in? How many Arab people have you “converted” with you nonsense? Maybe you’re in a very liberal and tolerant area somewhere in the city? I don’t know. But keep up your nonsense…
we’ll see who’s “ignorant” of Arabs and how strength is a core value for their people in most cases… hence “all mighty” or Allah.
You: “Nothing personal, but you should really study a bit before opening your
mouth.”
Me: Thanks for the advice buddy, but you have no idea what you’re doing. I hope you like soft food. Who knows, maybe they’ll just make fun of you?
Oh boy, I let this sit in the spirit of Christmas to give you a shot at fixing the errors in your post. It has gone uncorrected so now I have to comment.
1. The entire point is that Islamists conquered the Christians centuries ago in the middle east & influenced the culture by occupation. I don’t understand your confusion. Also, Islam is not a heresy per se as they are usually refereed as Infidels in ages past by Holy Mother Church.
2. It doesn’t matter where “Allah” comes from as it is a word monopolized by the Infidels. Get over it they stole the word. Move on to a more Catholic word.
3. What?
4. Not being an “expert” and being “ignorant” are not the same thing. I am not ignorant of Arab culture nor the history of the region. I’ve lived among the Arabs, have you? I “opened my mouth” because you are spouting nonsense.
5. Who says I don’t like Arabs? Jumping to FALSE conclusions based on random pseudo-information seems to be your forte.
6. What?
7. You claimed to be on some kind of evangelical mission to convert Islamists did you not? Your strategy is garbage. Arabs respond to strength, not pseudo-scholarly pompus nonsense.
8. Ignorance eh? What do you know? You read a few lines of language history and now you’re an expert on Arab mentality and culture? This would be hilarious if it wasn’t sad.
Nothing personal buddy, but you’re kind of an idiot. (Sarcasm)
“recognize the one creator…” utterly empty statement. May as well say that Akhenaten, or Joseph Smith, or Freemasonry, ‘recognize the one creator’. Truth be damned in all cases. God is Truth, is Trinity – Sancta Trinitas Unus Deus – scorned rejected and blasphemed by those mentioned, to Whom they remain or choose to be blind.