www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholicism & Islam: worshipping the same "God"?

Well it is certainly disturbing when a prominent Uniate academic is hosting an international conference that has the baseline message that Orthodox Christianity is really the same as Islam and that hesychasm is really Sufism under disguise.
Sounds like some Uniate overture to a new age pan-ecumenical we're uniate with this, and that, and oh, that too. The shame of it is that His Grace kallistos Ware is a featured speaker who is unknowingly walking right into a conference designed to promote the ideas of Sayyed Hossein Nasr and Frithjof Schuon (a comparative religionist who is actually a Sufi Sheikh convincing his students that Islam is really the inner esoteric heart of all Abrahamic religions).

Its called, Ecumenism of the Heart. It is hosted and sponsored by James Cutsinger, Professor of Religion, University of South Carolina next year. He claims uniatism is the universal model for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to become united by realizing that Hesychasm is really Sufism (hence, ecumenism of the heart.). I used to have the website url for it but misplaced it but the title might get you there or try the USC calendar of upcoming events. But this is another big reason we Orthodox are leery of Uniates. Many of the Orthodox in SC come from 300 years of Muslim persecution because they resisted forced conversion and now a Uniate scholar tells them they were really Muslim all along!? Are there any protests from the uniate side or is this conference's position to be publically taken as truly representative of your ecumenical position?

The AOEM as a distinct unit within the Antiochian Archdiocese was dissolved several years ago and they are now completely integrated into the Archdiocese.

This, I believe was the original intention at the time of their reception. Obviously a period of growing together--for lack of a better word--was needed and the need recognized.

[ignatius] What happened to the AEOM that it was dissolved?

Nothing. The parishes became fully Antiochian Orthodox. Although I am former Georgian, Russian, Greek, and OCA, I am currently in the Antiochian parishes that used to be AEOM. So I know firsthand.

[ignatius]I had heard that there were some, let us say, pastoral problems but don't know specifics.

Ben Lomond was the problem. The rebel clergy are defrocked after their appeal to the Patriarch, and the parish is still in full communion with the rest of Orthodoxy under Fr. George K. Washburn.


[ignatius] Are they still considered to be part of the Antiochean Orthodox Church?

[me] yes.

[ignatius] What about Fr. Gilquist?

He is still head of the Antiochian Missions and Evangelism Board, even though he is in failing health against cancer, and Fr. Gordon
(a deep close friend of mine) is actively filling his shoes.

Thomas Mether posted above: "But this is another big reason we Orthodox are leery of Uniates."

I cannot understand why someone who is leery of Uniates would feel constrained to post on a Uniate board/forum when there are plenty of Orthodox boards available.

I once was told by a Jordanian Muslim friend that I was considered to be a Muslim, even though a Christian, because I worshipped the God of Abraham...I never got that, but I've always remembered it as the day I was "elected" to Islam.

Well, perhaps it means that you get a discount at the local Halal Meat grocery store.

Hey, cents off on the dollar can be a good deal.

Blessings! (And prosperity -- of whatever kind!!)

Orthodox Study Bible

There were some inaccurate statements made
about the Orthodox Study Bible. I happen to be in a very good position to know because
our assistant priest, Fr. Bob Sanford, is the Vice President of the Bible Division of Thomas Nelson publishers and head of the Orthodox Study Bible project (they are about one year away from a translation from the LXX).

First, while its conception _was_ spearheaded by converts from evangelical Christianity, the actual project involves an international team of both convert and cradle-born Orthodox scholars and translators. This is true of the New Testament (already done) and the complete Bible (with the Old Testament from the LXX). Orthodox and patristic commentaries were consulted to establish
how passages had been read in the Church.

Like C.S. Lewis' reasoning for the "mere" in Mere Christianity, a certain "minimalist" reasoning guided the team in composing notes and lectionary. First, they preferred older better established traditions than newer. Thus, the OSB has drawn some criticisms from Russian circles because Greek, Antiochian, or rather, Byzantine traditions were chosen
when there was a conflict between them and Slavic ones (which deviate in lectionary and commentary). Second, the team only included what was shared by all Orthodox traditions (again, for natural reasons, following Byzantine rather than Slavic traditions and readings when these departed from the rest).
This will emerge in the Old Testament notes where the Russians developed a certain way of reading all passages about sophia in a way not attested in the rest of the Orthodox tradition.

I cannot understand why someone who is leery of Uniates would feel constrained to post on a Uniate board/forum when there are plenty of Orthodox boards available.[/B][/QUOTE]

[me] To keep you honest.

Dear Thomas,

(me) and to be a gift from God asking us to prove our love! Long may you be here to do so!

Joy!

Bless, Reverend Father Deacon!

(Alex, yer rubbin' off on me...I'd better not start peppering my speech with "eh", or its you versus me in a wrestling match... )

While I am gratified you agreed with my analysis, I must respectfully part ways with you on yours.

Your analogy implies that the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim conceptions of God are equally true and equally valid, and can be held simultaneously without difficulty.

This is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic belief in Trinity as Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation is NOT empirical observation (which is what the description of the elephant is). God Himself tells us who He is, not experimentation on our part.

NDHoosier:

I think you missed the point of the analogy. None of the blind men had it right, thus there is no way one could derive "equally true and equally valid" from the analogy. Rather, the analogy indicates that there is some truth present in all. I would certainly not suggest that they are, in fact, views that can be held without difficulty.

I keep beating the dead horse of Truth. Truth is Truth no matter where it is found. The Muslims worship the God of Abraham, the God who is the creator and author of all. That is, in fact, the God the Jews worship and the God the Christians worship.

We do grave disservice to ourselves when we deny that for we create, in effect, a different God. I repeat: we worship the same God but with a different understanding and knowledge.

The Moslems will tell us that we are wrong, that we cannot have three persons in one God -- but that is because they insist on a mathematical understanding -- and the Trinity is not about math. They tell us we create a form a polytheism, but that's because they do not hold the same understanding.

Consider this: "All praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds, ... King of the Day of Judgement. You alone we worship, and to you do we turn for help." Could not a Christian say this in all truth and honesty? That is the the prologue from the Quran!

Truth is immutable -- it's only when we insist that people hold the same understanding of the Truth that we begin to create division where none exists.

Pope John Paul II recognizes this and has used this to initiate dialog. We start with what we have in common so we can lead to what is missing. We worship the same God, but we believe we have a better understanding.

Edward, deacon and sinner

It's interesting, because the idea of "relative truth" is a Quranic concept, ISTM. The Quran introduces the idea that Judaism and Christianity are partially true and partially false, and it is only Islam that is fully true. This, in fact, is one of the ideas that the clever Muslim missionaries used in the Balkans to convert Orthodox and Catholic Christians to Islam without having to "reject Christianity outright", but only rejecting bits and pieces of Christianity.

But, in any case, the underlying problem I see here is that Muslims, as a matter of faith, believe that the Quran is infallible in every verse, and that it is a direct recitation of God/Allah "dictated" to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel.

Therefore, ISTM, that while some surahs like the "Fatihah" that Fr. Dn Edward cited may seem rather unobjectionable, the meaning of these verses has to be understood in light of others, such as:

"Say: He, Allah, is one. Allah is He on whom, all depend. He begets not, nor is he begotten. And none is like him". Surah 112.

or

"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the Messiah the son of Mary. ... Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust" Surah 4:72.

or

"Certainly they disbelieve who say" Surely Allah is the third of the three; and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve." Surah 4:73.

Therefore, the Muslims themselves are the ones who are saying that we Christians have a heretical view of God, from the Islamic POV, such that when we worhsip Him in a Trinitarian way, or in a Christological way, we are "unbelievers", and are condemned to the fire. That's quite a strong statement, ISTM. Beyond all of the gloss of nice relations and mutual understanding, it is always these verses, combined with the Islamic view of the Quran as letter-by-letter infallible, that will forever be a stumblingblock to Christian-Muslim relations, ISTM.

I think that the most that can be said about Islam is that it perceives itself as worshipping the God of the OT. It is, however, in my opinion, no more closer to the truth than the Gnostics were, or the Arians were, and, in fact, in its very emphatic denials of Christ, seems at its core to foreclose access to the saving grace of Christ Himself. Of course, there are Muslims who may be "invincibly ignorant", according to the Roman Catholic understanding, and as individuals may have access to grace, but the religion itself, as a religious system, is seriously flawed and unsalvific, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Brendan

[Therefore, the Muslims themselves are the ones who are saying that we Christians have a heretical view of God, from the Islamic POV, such that when we worhsip Him in a Trinitarian way, or in a Christological way, we are "unbelievers", and are condemned to the fire. That's quite a strong statement, ISTM. Beyond all of the gloss of nice relations and mutual understanding, it is always these verses, combined with the Islamic view of the Quran as letter-by-letter infallible, that will forever be a stumblingblock to Christian-Muslim relations, ISTM.]

One must ultimately call a spade a spade. The Kuran is a very blatant book that wears its heart on its sleeves and isn't some sophisticated treatise that can work in a subtle manner. It is strewn with references to prayer and fasting, AND it, with the hadiths, is replete with insulting blasphemy and tirrades let loose upon us with a passion, as well as exhortations to jihad (don't get me started with the "internal" vs. external jihad baloney). There's the caveat that everyone brushes over. You need to approach the book as a whole. Sure it's sugarcoated and fudged with its precepts of prayers and fasting and its praises to God, as well as its poetic allure, but it still has a lot of unpleasant baggage hauled along with it. The religion is one dedicated to a dynamic and crusading warrior mystique, speaking from a historical context.

The "stumbling block", those brash verses, is there for all to see in the circumference of the Dome of the Rock. It is an open mockery of our religion (the verses circling around the dome), whose purpose was initially there to remind that the Muslims achieved victory against the Crusaders. Today, however, it's there as a very forward insult and slap in the face for us Christians.....and speaking of double standards, the ever-growing Muslim community in Italy brought about by the insanely disastrous immigration policies of a moronic government has demanded that a Giovanni da Modena fresco from the Rennaisance be destroyed completely, because a miniscule portion of it which isn't immediately discernable shows Muhammad suffering in Hell. This is only the beginning. But of course, if I suggested that we do away with the Dome of the Rock because of its insulting references to our God, I can expect to answer to the barrel of a gun or to a hooded executioner.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2001222211,00.html

Are we bringing Saudi Arabia into Europe here? Not a good idea folks. And most are oblivious to this because of their favorable (and thus tragically flawed) view of the Kuran as a benign creed.

Sorry folks, one could say they worship our God if they remained silent about Christ, but a religion that openly attacks my God, Christ, and denies him openly in its sacred texts, is not worshipping my God. We forget God has an identity. We say all three religions worship the "God of Abraham"; had you said "God, or a monotheist entity", I would agree, but the God of Abraham is the man who walked this Earth 2000 years ago. If Islam rejects Christ, they reject the God of Abraham, despite their unwavering and correct adherence to monotheism.

In IC XC
Samer

[This message has been edited by SamB (edited 07-02-2001).]

I certainly did not mean to belittle the OSB, or the great contribution its compilers made to Orthodoxy--not only to American but elsewhere. I understand that a Russian edition of it is being prepared, and possibly in other lanugages as well.

Yes, it would be more accurate to say that the converts from the AEOM spearheaded, or precipitated, or led the way for its publication.

However, it is not pejorative to point out that it is not a "one size fits all" book. In Orthodoxy, no one authority is considered to have it all: Pope, Bible, St. Augustine or any one father, or any summa or systematic theology text. Nor does pointing that while many have found the book wanting in various aspects, detracts in the least from the wealth of useful information that it DOES have.

One of the criticisms levelled against the OSB is using the Hebrew rather than the LXX psalter. But the reason is simple: Thomas Nelson would not allow any scripture translation other than the NKJV to be bound up with its NT. They do own the copyright of actual Biblical text. I believe that the original notes had to be included as well; these don't hurt anything and are not intrinsically unOrthodox.

For further information about the OT project, please visit www.lxx.org. [lxx.org.] There are even downloadable samples available there--some of them drafts of whole books, or large parts thereof.

I do not fault Pope John Paul for his position on Islam, even if it deeply contradicts the historical decrees of Orthodox hierarchs on the nature and position of Islam relative to the True Faith. After all, and in all fairness, he is Patriarch of the West and not one of us. We have no right to judge him according to an unhappy history we, as Orthodox, share as the victims of oppression by Islamic forces.

On the other hand, to expect Albanian,
Arab, Armenian, Assyrian, Bulgarian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Greek, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Romanian, Serbian , Syriac, or Russian Orthodox to share his irenic approach to Islam is not rational.

b.