Comments for Dialogue between Christ and a Muslim at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 43 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 21 May 2013 20:00:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-17015 @DeLano, The story does not involve salvation attained after death, as you say. Salvation is gained by the Muslim prior to death, and by virtue of the fact that he actively seeks God. Here are the words of Christ (in the story): “You got here by the merits of the very things you deny, my Sonship and my sacrifice, because you had no chance to accept them. You knew nothing but Islam. And yet you lived a good and decent life by the lights you were given. I love you none the less for that. I died for you, too.” Thus, he had attained heaven before death, not after. - MJ Fri, 03 May 2013 12:01:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15373 @ Paul: I'd be interested to know your definition of "a committed Roman Catholic." From that to Islam is quite a leap. - MSgirl Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:10:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15292 Hi, I used to be a committed Roman Catholic but I embraced Islam a few years ago. I do not recognise the Muslim in the invented dialogue above. Jesus did not claim to God - the Qur'an as the final Revelation of God tells you and I the truth about Jesus. Read it and see... - Paul Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:09:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15266 "My little imaginary dialogue is a speculation on such a moment." >> No, it isn't. Your speculation involves an heresy; specifically, the heresy that one can repent after death and receive salvation. This is heresy. It involves the explicit denial of a dogmatic definition of the Catholic Faith: "...they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless *before death* they are joined with her. The heresy has nothing to do with whether God might act in ways unknown to us to join some pagan, heretic, schismatic, Muslim, or Jew to the Catholic Church- this is theologically bulletproof, although we could never know, by definition, of any such thing actually occurring. Your heresy is different. Your heresy involves the contradiction of a defined dogma, and no Catholic would ever believe it. - Rick DeLano Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:11:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15244 I highly recommend the late Avery Cardinal Dulles's "Who Can Be Saved?" at First Things. He writes: "We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth.Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God." My little imaginary dialogue is a speculation on such a moment. - Robert Reilly Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:01:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15241 @ R. Reilly Are you disagreeing, then, with the greatest theologians of the Church that taught that explicit faith in the Trinity and Christ and His sacrifice are needed for salvation? How does your understanding of the Muslim being saved distinguish between natural knowledge of God and supernatural Faith? I assume you recognize this distinction and agree that a natural knowledge of God and following of conscience is not enough for salvation. Furthermore, the Second Vatican Council, in my mind, is not a good source for theology because of its nature. The Popes said repeatedly, before, during, and after the council, that Vatican II is not a doctrinal council but is only a pastoral council. This, to me, indicates that if this teaching is not found in the Church prior to V2, then it is not authoritative. Can you provide evidence of this teaching prior to V2? ps. I know all of the arguments about the Holy Spirit protecting the Church from error and that Councils are an act of the Magisterium, but V2 is not a Council in the sense of the previous Councils. V2 was only meant to be pastoral, not doctrinal, whereas the Authoritative Councils before V2 were all doctrinal, ie., meant to teach truth. Therefore, there is a strong argument that the documents of V2 are not authoritiative. - Sam Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:32:33 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15236 From the Second Vatican Council: “The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church.” - Robert Reilly Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:00:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15213 What a wonderful God , our God. He looks into the heart and judges us. If we are reasonable, we may approach him through the light shown by his Church, the Catholic Church.When it is not due to one's own fault that he could not meet Jesus he is saved by the grace of Eternal loving God. - k C Thomas Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:40:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15208 How very much we modern Catholics wish to invent a religion better than the True Faith, one in which repentance is possible after death. The author of this piece of sacrilege will be praised, glorified, applauded, tears will be shed in passionate expressions of the sentimental beauty of his fable...... But the fable is heretical. It involves an explicit denial of an infallible Truth of the Catholic Faith, infallibly defined ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41)unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Florence, Cantate Domino,1443)" In the fable-religion of the author, it is not so important to become Catholic, since after all one can always accept Christ after death. This is a lie from the deepest pit of Hell, and a blasphemy. Since it is so widely believed just now, we see that heresy has spread throughout the Church, thanks to the Nouvelle Theologie which continues to devastate the vineyard throughout the world. - Rick DeLano Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:33:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15203 Your last post is your best. You do a fine job summarizing your thoughts. I also have tried to make clear what Mr. Reilly had written that was in error. It is really a small, but important, error. Dragging in the dogma of "extra ecclesiam nulla salva" addresses an issue that you are indeed interested in, but which I never brought up in any of my comments. As to knowing which particular human persons are to be saved, paragraph 679 of the CRCC which you cite, makes it clear that that belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ. That has always been my position as well. But do unrepentant sinners freely choose to go to Hell, as Mr. Reilly has written, or are they sent there by God as punishment for their unrepented sins? I will write two things more then stop commenting on this post for good and all: 1) Moral theology always involves some philosophy in an important manner. For example, the traditional distinction you mention of the three-fold nature of the moral act has its roots in Aristotle. This was one of the reasons that when some Catholic moral theologians in the 1960s shifted their approach to a Kantian basis, traditional moral theology became seriously deformed. It took two decades before it began to recover under Pope John Paul II. 2) Whenever theological discussion turns to close reading of texts, the hermeneutical spiral rears its troublesome head. In this case I would suggest that paragraphs 678-679 of the CRCC must be read in the context of the fuller discussion of these doctrines in paragraphs 1033-41. There it becomes clearer that Christ will "send his angels and they will gather ... all evil-doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire." In my way of reading these paragraphs together, it seems eminently clear that unrepentant sinners will be sent by Christ to Hell. But you may interpret these texts differently. Ah, Peri Hermeneias! - Ib Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:46:53 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15199 @Sam: The word you are looking for is supernatural GRACE. When we say someone is in the "state of grace" we mean that person has received the Sacraments, and their soul is free from the effects of mortal sin. The Sacrament of Penance, if properly understood, can remove the "stain" of mortal sin and allow us to receive those special graces from God which makes us eligible to receive salvation. These graces also assist us on this earth and we strive to be worthy to receive them by prayer and penances. Actual grace is what all of us have as necessary for our very existence. Unbaptized people, e.g., Muslims, Jews, Hindus et al still have throughout their lives the effects of Original Sin. All graces flow from God and are gifts from God alone, including the gift of life. That is why no one can will himself into existence. I hope this is helpful. - Manfred Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:41:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15197 Ib, I must be brief and compressed, and thank you for the dialogue: (1) "knowing about" and "knowing of" contain no essential difference in what I write, as my thinking is along the lines not of philosophy but of moral theology: of gravity of matter, full knowledge, and full consent -- the three conditions necessary for mortal sin. Since the Church distinguishes between full knowledge and partial knowledge in matters of imputable sin (of which rejection of Christ has to head the list), we can, too -- and we ought to, since she does. Mr Reilly's article, and my endorsement of it, is based on a premise of invincible ignorance and obedience to conscience. If one is impeded for reasons beyond one's control from coming to full knowledge, one of the essential conditions is not meant and we may hope for mercy (as, indeed, charity compels us to). [I love CNEWA and have read the bulletins for years.] (2) You didn't mention evangelization, it is true: I mention it because it is imperative lest we do fall into a false irenicism and indifferentism. The Church is obliged to preach the Gospel, we are obliged to accept it, live it, and show it forth; otherwise we would relieve ourselves of duties of which we have no right to relieve ourselves and enter into (culpable) false hope for those might otherwise have come to the Gospel and salvation. All of us deceive ourselves all of the time, and God can neither deceive nor be deceived. (3) I've looked at the canons you cite. I am no canonist so I hesitate to comment upon them. I think the larger issue at stake is the understanding of "extra ecclesiam nulla salva." As there is much expert commentary available, I defer to it. Regarding the Nicene Creed and the canons you cite, neither say explicitly that Christ condemns to hell; indeed, the word "hell" doesn't appear in either text. I refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 679, which says, "Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgement on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He "acquired" this right by his cross. the Father has given "all judgement to the Son". Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love." If my sense of Christ's ratification of one's choice is incorrect, I withdraw it: but I stand by what the Church teaches in her Catechism, and in what she teaches in this point. Certainly the Four Last Things are de fide and I accept them. Also, since what we have been discussing is of the most serious matter, I willingly submit all that I have written to the judgement of the Church. I offer my thanks to the editors of TCT, to you, and to those who have been reading. - Dave Sun, 06 Jan 2013 13:56:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15196 @Brad and Dave I know what Faith is, but I don't see how Dave, or anyone else for that matter, could make the claim that the Muslim above, or any Muslim, could be said to possess supernatural Faith, and thus, not be condemned to Hell at judgment. Since Dave and others make this claim, it leads to me believe that they do not know what supernatural faith is. I challenge Dave or anyone else to show how someone like the Muslim above could be said to possess supernatural faith. Can you dos so, Brad? Dave? Anyone? - Sam Sun, 06 Jan 2013 13:32:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15195 Thanks for the response, Mr. Reilly. And yes, I have enjoyed your book very much. It involved, obviously, a lot of hard work and research. I would most certainly like to say more, particularly probing the questions, which are inherent in your book. We face such difficulties when it comes to average encounters with others, let alone when there might be possibility of an inter-religious dialogue. I know that people have this conference and that conference on dialogue and peace and unity and such things. Yes, all good, no question about it. But I have always wondered do such outlets really do anything? I guess anything is possible, but I think that the truth and the expression of dialogue is revealed in an encounter with the Other. But let me stop here. I feel that I might be steering away from the discussion of your column. - Emina Melonic Sun, 06 Jan 2013 12:13:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15192 @dave A few short remarks on your last post: 1) You changed your terms between your posts. In your earlier post you made a distinction between knowing "about" and knowing "of". In this last post you change to "knowing about" and "knowing". It seems you are unclear as to the distinctions you are advancing in your remarks. If I simply reply to the last distinction you made, the act of knowing anything proceeds gradually, so that what you term "knowing about" is an intrinsic grade of "knowing". They cannot really be separated in a simple-minded way. To "know about" is part of the act of "knowing". Coming to know anything involves knowing about it as well. This is a theme of Basic Thomism 101. In relation to Christ and his Church, historically in Muslim lands, Abdullah would encounter Christ and his Church through the continued presence of dhimmi-Christians in the midst of Muslim rule. Thus would begin the process of "knowing" through the initial step of "knowing about." However, rejection at any point in the process would be tout court. Have you ever studied any Roman Catholic philosophy? I recommend Maritain's "The Degrees of Knowledge". It will help you through these philosophical issues. I also recommend following the Catholic Near East Welfare Association website (a Pontifical agency) to come to know the rich presence of Christians throughout the centuries in most of the Middle East. 2) I never mentioned evanglisation in my comments. My point in quoting from the Gospel According to St. Matthew was to remind us of the authentic words of Jesus, which are conspicuously stern, in contrast with the rather mealy-mouthed words Mr. Reilly put into the Saviour's mouth. But I was gladdened to read that you favor evangelisation. Good for you. 3) Is it heretical to obstinately hold that Christ does not send unrepentant sinners to Hell in the last judgment? Clearly, from the Nicene Creed, the teaching of the Magisterium, and from the basic rule of faith, YES. Mr. Reilly doesn't do this in this defective dialogue, he just makes an error for the sake of the literary effect. But if someone (yourself, for instance) were to come to believe that Jesus Christ in final judgment, merely ratifies a sinner's free choice to go to Hell, and obstinately denied the true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, he would be in heresy. Take a look at Canons 747-755 for more background on this. To use a heimlich example, a child does not choose punishment when it breaks a parental rule, nor does a criminal choose prison when flouting the law. Punishment and prison are the consequences enacted by the parent or court upon the child or criminal. Just so, Hell is not the choice of the sinner, it is the consequence of unforgiven sin enacted through God's just judgment. You might find that a helpful start would be to read some orthodox Roman Catholic moral theology (I recommend starting with Benedict Ashley's "Living the Truth in Love: A Biblical Introduction to Moral Theology"). @Greg Yes, it is possible for Muslims to be saved through the way of "through no fault of his own". My point was that a careful look at the actual facts of history (which Mr. Reilly knows well) make it plain that this would be extremely rare. I suggest you read a few histories of Islam, and perhaps Mr. Reilly's book on Islam, which has a good reputation. Also see 1) above in my response to Dave. You could also read my comment with more care and compare the surrounding text of Lumen Gentium to paragraph 14. It is defining everyone who can be counted as part of the Roman Catholic Church. Note well that I was not applying it to those "through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church." What I was responding to was Dave's question concerning the meaning of the phrase "the Gospel of Christ or his Church". My response was that, in order to know the Roman Catholic Church in its deepest sense one must live as Lumen Gentium paragraph 14 describes. From your off-topic remarks, I can only say that you have completely misread my earlier comment. - ib Sun, 06 Jan 2013 10:24:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15191 To Emina Melonic: The purpose of the dialogue was to distinguish between Christianity and Asha’rite Sunni Islam (the majority) and to guess at God's mercy and providence, which enfolds us all. May I take this occasion to say how much I appreciated your review of my book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind? - Robert Reilly Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:27:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15189 @Sam: Definitions of Catholic terminology are available in places other than the comboxes at The Catholic Thing. - Brad Miner Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:59:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15188 @dave still waiting for your definition of supernatural faith? - Sam Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:34:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15186 @ Clement Williams: We must be very careful to differentiate between Islam and the Muslim. There is no Revelation in Islam, nor is there any connection between it and Abraham. Salvation History is shredded by the Qur'an's claim that Abraham was a "hanif," or proto-Muslim, who possessed a set of "scriptures" that were little more than a partial version of the Qur'an. Only Islam connects itself with the faith of Abraham because only Islam claims that he was a Muslim, not a Jew. Noah, David, Solomon, St. John the Baptist and Jesus, among others, were Muslims according to the Qur'an, all of whom proclaimed the coming of Muhammad - Rasul Allah - The Messenger of God. It would be nice if we could reduce the catastrophic break in Salvation History to "sibling rivalry," but that would require a common origin - Abraham - which does not exist. - MSgirl Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:34:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2013/dialogue-between-christ-and-a-muslim.html#comment-15185 It seems that the comments are trying to cover so many different topics. So, I wanted to ask Mr. Reilly what was the intention of the piece? Was it to distinguish Christianity and Islam? Was it to affirm the Catholic faith? Possibly convert Muslims? - Emina Melonic Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:32:26 +0100