Is the object of Catholic, Jewish and Islamic worship the same God? - Updated

+

JMJ

Do Jews and Muslims worship the same God as the Catholics?

This question is raised often in the context of the statements made in the Second Vatican Council concerning these two religions.

Namely:

In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.( Lumen Gentium 16)

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, (Nostra Aetate 3)

Nostra Aetate 3 - Footnote: 5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

It has been objected that these teachings are novelties.  However, there are two references that pre-date the Second Vatican Council by decades.

12 Q. Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized 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.  (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)

So what can be conclude from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X? That there is a distinction between those who "worship false gods as idolators do" and those "admitting one true God".  This distinction, while the language is over a hundred years old, is clear - the Muslims are not grouped with those who worship false gods, as such they worship the one true God.

I also discovered that

Note well that assuming that they consequently offer true worship is a false conclusion as true worship is only found in the true religion.

Next we have the Catholic Encyclopedia's article:

Infidel: in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammed; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful.  (Catholic Encyclopedia)

This article is more explicit in that it states that the Jews and Muslims (Mohammed) adore God.

So the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on this topic are not necessarily novel although, since they exclude part of the truth, are somewhat ambiguous.

The question is: How can this be right? Even the pre-conciliar references?

Well I know that Protestants ask the same question and reach the conclusion that it cannot be right. That however is neither 'here' nor 'there', but it does set off alarm bells if the impulse is to agree with a Protestant on a point of Catholic Doctrine.

The first aspect is to whom are they addressing their worship?

The God of Abraham.

Is the God of Abraham not the God of the Catholics as well as the Jews?

One objection that has been raised is:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.1 John 2: 23

2:21. I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth.
2:22. Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ?  This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son.
2:23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.(source)

Now it is obvious that the Jews, Muslims etc do no have the truth.  However, that has nothing to do with the fact that they are directing their worship to the God of Abraham.

As such, they do worship the same God as the Catholics.

Their error, since we know that they aren't idolators worshipping false gods, is one of a rejection of the truth.

Were they baptized they would probably be classified as heretics denying the Divinity of Christ. Which has happened before ie Arianism.

It is not a question of denial of a Truth of the Faith, it is a question of to whom the Jews and Muslims objectively offer their worship.

They are addressing it to the God of Abraham.

It is simply that.

Now the modern error is to ascribe this worship the note of True Worship. This is likewise an error as True Worship is found only in the Catholic Church.

P^3

PS - June 7, 2014

I have been involved in a discussion on a forum. Attached is one portion of the discussion:

+JMJ+

Ok - let's try this ... Again with a different tack.

1. The article was written by a Canon Lawyer, who died in 1941.
2. He wrote a number of articles and as far as I can tell was not a Modernist.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia bears an Imprimatur , back when it was not just a rubber stamp

QUOTE

Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. In constituting the Editors the ecclesiastical censors, he has given them a singular proof of his confidence and of his desire to facilitate the publication of the work which he has promoted most effectively by his influence and kindly co-operation.

4. Doctrine within the Church can develop and be made clearer as defined in V1. For example the Doctrine of invincible ignorance as related to eens.. See Pius IX. Another example is the theological conflict about whether or not women have a soul.

5. So when an armchair theologian, such as ourselves, come across an apparent contradiction it is not necessarily valid to just reject the sources that reflect that legitimate development.

6. The same applies to the documents of the Second Vatican Council. In some cases they simply repeating Church doctrine. If one avoids a confirmation bias by looking at the whole context - it can be used effectively in arguments. As I have done. The look on the face of the Jesuit in the audience when I quoted V2 in support of EENS was fantastic.

In order to do this it is necessary to not jump to conclusions about statements made out of context.

7. Much of the 'arguments' presented against the acceptance of the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and the article in question (whether you have realized it or not) focus on the religion of the Jews and Muslims, their concept of God.

That is NOT the point being made. The point being defended is simply this:

QUOTE

The Jews and Muslims direct their worship to the God of Abraham, the One True God

Read this statement very carefully. Then try applying English grammar rules to the following statement:

QUOTE

Q. Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized 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.  (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)

There are two groups of people identified as indicated by the conjunction 'or'. Those who adore false gods is the first group. The second are those who adore the 'one true God', but deny the divinity etc.

In the following article that was subject to the scrutiny previously described what do we have?

Simply the same point that was expressed above. Nothing more, nothing less.

QUOTE

: in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammed; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful.  (Catholic Encyclopedia)

If a person rejects, out of hand, the Catholic Encyclopedia Article one is likewise rejecting the teaching found in the Catechism of St.Pius X.

Which by the way, I acknowledge as a higher authority than the Encyclopedia as it is an act of the Magisterium.

In cases such as this, where development of doctrine is legitimate, one cannot take older statements in isolation of more recent ones, in order to support one's rejection of the more recent expression doctrine.

A more thorough examination of the context, meaning, and authorities involved is required.

So this is not simply a game of 'name that quote' looking for a more ancient expression of doctrine. If that were te case, it would be possible to reach the conclusion (wrong as it is) that one can't trust anything younger than the 3rd or 4th century.

in that case the holder of such an opinion is in good protestant company.