The Conciliar decree Lumen gentium does not say that Moslems have the faith of Abraham; it calls them fidem Abrahae se tenere profitentes ['they claim to ...']. Which is certainly true; Ibrahim is a very common Islamic name. The Conciliar text (signed, incidentally, by Archbishop Lefebvre) then does indeed go on to say that nobiscum Deum adorant unicum, misericordem, homines die novissimo iudicaturum. I take this to be an indication of an overlap between the attributes of the Gods of Islam and Christianity. Nostra aetate (3) I take to be engaging in a similar process of analysis. If the Council had wished to make and impose a formal doctrinal statement of the identity of the God whom Christians worship, and the object of the Islamic cult, I presume that it would have needed to do so clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously. The Ecclesia docens has never left her dogmata definitive tenenda lurking in a clause within a statement uttered obiter. Deum cui Musulmani* cultum exhibent haec Sacrosancta Oecumenica Synodus sollemniter profitetur eundem esse quem Ecclesia Catholica adorat. Haec si quis negaverit anathema sit. Something similar to this would have needed to be said. The Conciliar Fathers could not, of course, say anything remotely like that, because we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, which Moslems fiercely deny as blasphemous. By identifying common features of predication the Council implicitly assumes recognition of features of non-identity.
The Council, addressing the circumstances of its time, looked optimistically at what Islam and the true Faith might be said to hold in common. A different context could be said to require a different emphasis: of what radically divides two such different religions. This does not imply that the Council was wrong to say what it said, when it said it. At one moment we say "He who is not with me is against me"; in a different context, "He who is not against me is for me".
It does, however, in my opinion, provide strong evidence that the Council was optimistic to the point of monumentally foolish naivety; and this has a considerable effect upon the sense in which we 'receive' the Council today.
_______________________________________________________________________________
*Musulmani in Lumen gentium; they have metamorphosed into Muslimi in Nostra aetate.
How does that question differ from this other one: do Unitarians and Catholics worship the same God? And: do Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics worship the same God?
ReplyDeleteI understand that the answer to this one is No: do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholics worship the same God? However, what if we think of the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), which reverted to, or perhaps (I am not sure) never abandoned, the belief in the Trinity?
Maybe the underlying question is: if two religions teach that there is only one God, how can He not be the same God? He may be wrongly given unsuitable attributes, but how can He be different? If wrong attributes turn God into a different being, then will not many doctrinal errors make (heretical) Christians believe in fact in a different God?
But Father, haven’t we been told ad nauseam that we must overlook our differences and “accentuate the positive” as the old song went…? No more of that rigid emphasis on immutable doctrines but a “can’t we all just get along” fraternal approach, right?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that’ll fix it! Ecumenism for everyone and damn the torpedoes…
There in fact is no other God than the One that was born in Bethlehem.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought it curious that the Church should have been pervaded with such optimism about human nature in the wake of TWO world wars, the Shoah, and the tide of communism and persecution of the Church that had engulfed so much of the world. If anything, all this should have moved us to dedicate ourselves MORE assiduously, not less, to prayer and penance.
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong to consider it matter for doubt whether the Catholic Church is competent to teach just what it is that Muslims believe?
ReplyDeleteYour assessment here is precisely what I see in the introduction of the novus ordo Mass. An attempt to "Protestantize" based on the same exact naive reckoning.
ReplyDeleteQuite remarkable naivete, expecting such a gamble as a de-Catholicized Mass to be capable of spanning the vast gap between faiths, that is, to "sneak one past" those rascally Protestants, hoping they might fall for it and wander en masse right in TO Mass.
Of course, our guys didn't take into consideration the fact that many of the Protestant sects were just about to jettison structured liturgies entirely and the ones that kept them had no interest in leaving home for what they perceived to be the same thing down the street. I don't believe ALL of those involved in cooking up the NOM were dead set and intent on destroying the Church.
And who knows, maybe it all has been God's way of extending mercy and opening up IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY the Church to those who really aren't very interested.
At this point I wonder how long the courtesy will be extended.
I found this particularly interesting as I once had an argument with a friend about this very subject. Contrary to my friend I maintained that as Moslems believe in God and Christians believe in God and there is only one God then we must both believe in the same God.
ReplyDeleteCan we take it, on your argument, that Arians, not to mention Jews, worship a different God, since they reject the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Church, yet profess faith in the Unity of God?
ReplyDeleteYou exclude a lot of your readers by not adding translations of the Latin. Don't be a big head.
ReplyDeleteI notice you didn't like my criticism. That you miss a lot of readers by not giving a translation of the Latin quote. Is it because I called you a 'big head'
ReplyDeleteTut tut .
I notice you didn't like my criticism. That you miss a lot of readers by not giving a translation of the Latin quote. Is it because I called you a 'big head'
ReplyDeleteTut tut .
There you go again.
ReplyDeleteOh you are naughty. Did not your nannie teach you to be polite?
ReplyDeleteYou should at least put the English translation of the Latin for those not educated to that level but who nonetheless could benefit from your learning.
Should not the rich help the poor?
"The Ecclesia docens has never left her dogmata definitive tenenda lurking in a clause within a statement uttered obiter."
ReplyDeleteMy precise point to Dimond brothers, when they claimed Benedict XV had defined in an encyclical about Dante, that Heliocentrism could licitly be held.
Link upcoming, if you are interested, to a correspondence we had.