Noted Scholastic Theologians on the Question Whether Muslims Worship the True God

An X-user who employs the screen name, “Fanatic Thomist,” produced a very useful florilegium of passages from scholastic theologians answering affirmatively to the question, “Do Jews and Muslims worship the true God as Christians?” Below are embedded all of his postings, followed by the English and Latin text which, upon my request, Fanatica Thomist graciously supplied.

Under the heading of each scholastic theologian he cited will follow the Latin text, the English translation, and the corresponding, embedded X-posting.

First: João da Silveira

First evidence is from João da Silveira, a 17th century Catholic biblical commentator. He wrote a great and detailed commentary on the Sacred Scriptures. In his exposition of John 4:22 where Christ says to the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not know.”, He says:

Latin Text: POSTQUAM Dominus mulierem erexit ad altiora, iam aliquantulum respondet quaestioni propositae, & Iudaeos Samaritanis anteponit. Vos, Samaritani, adoratis, quod nescitis; quia licet verum Deum adorarent, multas falsas opiniones, & errores, circa Deum habebant. Unde recte dicuntur, nescire Deum. Sicut licet Turcae verum Deum adorent, quia tamen multa falsa permiscent, recte dicuntur, Deum ignorare. Et licet Samaritani, ut notant Albertus Magnus, D. Bonaventura, Rupertus, Hugo, Caietanus, Iansenius, verum Deum Israel reciperent, simul Idola, & falsos Deos adorabant; & ideo dicuntur, nescire Deum; quia Deus in substantia, & natura unus est. Aliter etiam explicant Tertullianus lib. de Trinitate cap. 6. D. Chrysostomus homil. 32. Theophylactus, Euthymius, D. Thomas, Hugo, qui ait: Vos Samaritani ex ipso modo adorandi ostenditis, vos nescire Deum: quia putabant, eum esse localem, & particularem Deum, & in illo monte tantum exaudire, & non in alio loco; haec enim omnia repugnant divinae naturae, cum nullo loco circumscribatur; ideo dicatur: Vos adoratis, quod nescitis.

English Translation: AFTER the Lord raised the woman to higher things, now he responds somewhat to the question proposed, and places the Jews before the Samaritans. You, Samaritans, worship what you do not know; because although they worshipped the true God, they had many false opinions and errors concerning God. Hence they are rightly said not to know God. Just as although the Turks worship the true God, because nevertheless they mix in many false things, they are rightly said to be ignorant of God. And although the Samaritans, as Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, Rupert, Hugh, Cajetan, and Jansenius note, received the true God of Israel, at the same time they worshipped idols and false gods; and therefore they are said not to know God; because God is one in substance and nature. Tertullian also explains otherwise in lib. de Trinitate cap. 6. St. Chrysostom homil. 32. Theophylact, Euthymius, St. Thomas, Hugh, who says: You Samaritans from the very manner of worshipping show that you do not know God: because they thought him to be a local and particular God, and to hear only on that mountain, and not in another place; for all these things are repugnant to the divine nature, since he is circumscribed by no place; therefore it is said: You worship what you do not know.

Second: Fr. Carolus Gislenus Daelman

Second evidence comes from an 18th century theologian who wrote a work on St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. His name was Fr. Carolus Gislenus Daelman. Discussing the various errors among infidels and heretics, he notes:

Latin Text: An de facto adhuc sint aliqui, qui errant circa Mysterium Trinitatis.

R. Affirmative, & vocantur Sociniani a Lelio Socinio, de illorum numero fuit Michael Servetus, haeresi Calvinianae superaddens haeresim Sabellianam & Arianam, qui idcirco ex inducatu Calvini Genevae vivi combustum, fuit passus. Sociniani etiamnum inveniuntur in Poloniae & Hungariae partibus, item in Hollandia & Anglia; & cum negent Mysterium Trinitatis ab aliis Trinitarii vocari solent. Judaei moderni etiam unam in Deo tantum Personam admittunt, quia plerique eorum ante Christum natum hanc Fidem tantum habuerunt, quamquam dubitandum non sit, quin Patriarchae & praecipui illorum in Veteri Lege illud Mysterium cognoverint. Turcae etiam non admittunt Deum trinum in personis; venerantur quidem suum Mahometem tamquam magnum Prophetam, & singularem Dei amicum, sed non tamquam Deum. Pagani sic dicti, quod in pagis extra Civitates sua idola colerent, cum non admittant, nec colant verum Deum, etiam negant Personarum Trinitatem. Turcae etsi Deum verum admittant & colant, tamen annumerari solent Paganis, quia non colunt veram Legem Dei, nec in se nec in figura; Judaei illam colunt in figura, quae licet jam cesset, cum vera Lex advenerit, tamen aliquando bona, fuit.

English Translation: Whether in fact there are still some who err concerning the Mystery of the Trinity.

Answer: Affirmative, and they are called Socinians from Laelius Socinus, of their number was Michael Servetus, who adding to the Calvinist heresy the Sabellian and Arian heresy, and who therefore by the instigation of Calvin at Geneva suffered being burned alive. Socinians are still found in parts of Poland and Hungary, also in Holland and England; and since they deny the Mystery of the Trinity they are customarily called Trinitarians by others. Modern Jews also admit only one Person in God, because most of them before Christ was born had only this Faith, although it should not be doubted that the Patriarchs and their chief men in the Old Law knew that Mystery. The Turks also do not admit God as triune in persons; they indeed venerate their Mohammed as a great Prophet, and singular friend of God, but not as God. Pagans so called, because they worshipped their idols in villages outside the Cities, since they do not admit, nor worship the true God, also deny the Trinity of Persons. The Turks although they admit and worship the true God, nevertheless are customarily numbered among the Pagans, because they do not worship the true Law of God, neither in itself nor in figure; the Jews worship it in figure, which although it now ceases, when the true Law has come, nevertheless was once good.

Third: Fr. Daniello Concina, O.P.

Third evidence comes from the very great Italian Thomist preacher and theologian, Fr. Daniello Concina, O.P. (1687-1756) who wrote a valuable course of dogmatic theology. Writing on the subject of validity of oaths, he says:

Latin Text: IV. Ex hominibus viatoribus illi tantum vere iurant qui ratione instructi verum Deum cognoscunt. Hinc pueri ante rationis usum, amentes, furiosi omnes denique ratione carentes iuramenti sunt incapaces. Pagani, Athei, qui nullum Deum agnoscunt, verum iuramentum emittere nequeunt: quia nullum habent quem valeant invocare, Deum. Idem de Ethnicis dicendum, qui verum Deum non agnoscunt; falsos tamen colunt deos, & per eosdem iurant. Isti ex conscientia erronea adstringuntur observare similia iuramenta, quae in se vana, & nulla sunt; quaeve, errore sublato per verae fidei susceptionem, prorsus evanescerent, minimeque servanda forent. Iudaei, Turcae, ceterique omnes qui verum Deum agnoscunt, tametsi satis imperfecto modo, vinculo iuramenti tenentur: quia revera isti invocant verum unicum Deum in testimonium veritatis; quamvis ipsi hunc verum Deum eo quo decet modo non percipiant.

English Translation: IV. Of men who are wayfarers, only those truly swear who, instructed by reason, know the true God. Hence children before the use of reason, the insane, the mad, and finally all those lacking reason are incapable of oath-taking. Pagans and Atheists, who acknowledge no God, cannot emit a true oath: because they have none whom they can invoke as God. The same must be said of Heathens, who do not acknowledge the true God; nevertheless they worship false gods, and swear by the same. These from erroneous conscience are bound to observe such oaths, which in themselves are vain and null; and which, with error removed through the reception of true faith, would entirely vanish, and would by no means be to be kept. Jews, Turks, and all others who acknowledge the true God, although in a sufficiently imperfect manner, are held by the bond of oath: because in reality these invoke the true and only God as witness to truth; although they themselves do not perceive this true God in the manner that is fitting.

Fourth: Fr. Giuseppe Zagaglia

Fourth evidence comes from another theologian, Fr. Giuseppe Zagaglia who wrote a massive theology course, in the 8th tome of his work on Faith, Hope and Charity, he says, responding to an objection:

Latin Text: Sed contra. Turcae in aliquibus conveniunt cum Judaeis, & cum Christianis, credentes aliqua ex revelatis; ideo non possunt pertinere ad Paganismum, qui non admittit, ea, quae credunt Judaei, nec quae credunt Christiani. Quod autem conveniant in aliquibus cum Judaeis, est certum, quia admittunt Circumcisionem, & se abstinent a carne porcina, ut Hebraei. Quod cum Christianis patet etiam, quia fatentur sanctitatem Christi, & Matris Mariae Virginis, quam non admittunt Pagani. Responsio communis est, quod si Turcae admittunt aliqua ex revelatis in Sac. litteris, non tamen admittunt ut revelata a Deo Ecclesiae, sed ut dicta a suo Magistro Mahumete Sectae Turcicae auctore: unde cum supernant utrumque Testamentum, & resistant fidei, quam nunquam objective susceperunt, adhaerendo eidem in totum, vel saltem in partem; neque unquam consenserint in fidem Christi, nec in umbra legis, & figuris veteris testamenti contenta, nec ut in manifestationem Evangelii; & ideo per hoc Mahumetismum merito reducunt ad Paganismum, licet in hoc disconveniant a Paganis, qui sunt Gentiles, qui non adorant verum Deum, sed falsos Deos, neque unum solum, sed plures. Ubi Turcae profitentur adorare verum Deum, licet adorent illum ut unum solum in essentia, non autem ut trinum in personis. Itaque ratio, quare reducantur Turcae ad Paganismum, est quia resistant fidei Christi, quam nunquam objective susceperunt, sed eam semper impugnaverunt, & impugnant, sicut Gentiles.

English Translation: But on the contrary. The Turks in some things agree with the Jews, and with the Christians, believing some things from revelation; therefore they cannot pertain to Paganism, which does not admit those things which the Jews believe, nor what the Christians believe. That they agree in some things with the Jews is certain, because they admit Circumcision, and they abstain from pork, like the Hebrews. That they agree with Christians is also evident, because they confess the sanctity of Christ, and of Mother Mary the Virgin, which the Pagans do not admit. The common response is, that if the Turks admit some things from what is revealed in Sacred Scripture, nevertheless they do not admit them as revealed by God to the Church, but as spoken by their Master Mohammed the author of the Turkish Sect: hence since they reject both Testaments, and resist the faith, which they never objectively received, adhering to it either in whole, or at least in part; nor did they ever consent to the faith of Christ, neither in the shadow of the law, and figures contained in the old testament, nor as in the manifestation of the Gospel; and therefore through this they deservedly reduce Mohammedanism to Paganism, although in this they differ from Pagans, who are Gentiles, who do not worship the true God, but false Gods, and not one only, but many. Whereas the Turks profess to worship the true God, although they worship him as one only in essence, but not as triune in persons. Therefore the reason, why the Turks are reduced to Paganism, is because they resist the faith of Christ, which they never objectively received, but they always fought against it, and fight against it, like the Gentiles.

Fifth: Fr. Jacques-Hyacinthe Serry, O.P.

Fifth evidence comes from none but the eminent Fr. Jacques-Hyacinthe Serry, O.P. (1659-1738), who was arguably one of the greatest Thomist theologians of France who wrote a lot against the Molinists. In his Opera Omnia, tome 6, p. 435 he writes:

Latin Text: Discant ex Divo Thoma nobiles viri illi, superstitionem nedum positam esse in deferendo cultum divinum falso Numini, cui minime debetur, sed in deferendo etiam illum Deo vero indebito modo. Superstitio, inquit S. Doctor 2. 2. Quaest. 92. ar. 1. est vitium Religioni oppositum secundum excessum, non quia plus adhibeat in cultum divinum, quam vera Religio, sed quia exhibet cultum divinum cui non debet, vel eo modo quo non debet. Hinc est, quod tot Auctores errores Turcarum referant sub expresso titulo Superstitionum Turcarum, ut videre est in Theatro Dominii Turcici cap. 1. art. 8. in Jo: Baptista Montealbano, cap. 2., & in aliis permultis, nam etsi colant Turcae verum Deum, non tamen eum colunt, sicuti colendus est; & (quod est pejus) honore prosequuntur, atque invocant Seductorem, veluti ipsius Prophetam, ac Legislatorem. Quis ergo citra gravissimum errorem dicere potest, quomodo dicunt Chinenses illi (vel quomodo dicit, qui scripsit vice ipsorum) nullam apud Turcas superstitionem formulam esse quod nullus vigeat inter illos usus sive Idolorum sive Imaginum, sive Sacrificiorum?

English Translation: Let those noble men learn from St. Thomas that superstition is not only established in offering divine worship to a false divinity, to whom it is by no means owed, but also in offering it to the true God in an improper manner. Superstition, says the Saintly Doctor 2. 2. Quest. 92. ar. 1. is a vice opposed to Religion according to excess, not because it applies more to divine worship than true Religion, but because it exhibits divine worship to whom it should not, or in the manner in which it should not. Hence it is, that so many Authors refer the errors of the Turks under the express title of Turkish Superstitions, as can be seen in the Theater of Turkish Dominion cap. 1. art. 8. in John Baptist Montealbano, cap. 2., and in very many others, for although the Turks worship the true God, nevertheless they do not worship him as he ought to be worshipped; and (what is worse) they pursue with honor, and invoke the Deceiver, as his Prophet and Legislator. Who therefore without gravest error can say, as those Chinese say (or as he who wrote in their place says) that there is no superstitious formula among the Turks because no use of either Idols or Images or Sacrifices flourishes among them?

Sixth: Fr. Leonardus Marius Goezanus, S.J.

Sixth evidence comes from a great 17th century Catholic Jesuit Biblical commentator, Fr. Leonardus Marius Goezanus, S.J. (1588-1652). In his commentary on the Bible, first volume, question 1, section 1, discussing the nature of the divine revelation, he writes:

Latin Text: QUIA ex verbo Dei religio fidesque dependet, ideo sicut plurima sunt circa religionem dissidia, plurima quoque sunt circa verbum Dei: summatim tamen omnia ad quinque potissimum classes revocari possunt.

Nam PRIMO, quidam sunt omnis omnino fidei & religionis exortes, qui scil. vel Deum omnino non credunt, vel ei circa res nostras providentiam & curam negant. Sic uti enim Apostolus Hebr. 11. ad verum accessum ad Deum (id est, ad verum Dei cultum) requirit fidem duorum horum articulorum, quod sit Deus, & quod remunerator sit, ita si quis vel alterum, vel utrumque horum articulorum negat, veram religionem subvertit: nam quomodo per pietatem & cultum religabit se quis Deo, quem non credit, vel quem de rebus suis opinatur nihil esse sollicitum.

SECUNDO, alii licet neque verum Deum, neque (quae sine vero Deo non est) veram religionem habeant, habent tamen aliquam religionis speciem, vel potius κακοζηλίας: & vel unum, vel (quod frequentius fit) plura sibi numina delegerunt, a quorum nutu & arbitrio regantur.

TERTIO sunt, qui unicum quidem & verum Deum credunt, tamen quia Deus non loquitur singulis immediate, sed per intermedios & internuntios, errant circa mediatorem, & consequenter etiam circa Dei verbum, hoc enim apud pseudo-prophetas falsosque Prophetas non reperitur.

QUARTO, sunt qui & verum Deum & unicum credunt Mediatorem, interim licet Mediator hic a nobis secundum visibilem praesentiam abiturus reliquerit post se quosdam quidem Apostolos quosdam autem Prophetas, alios vero Evangelistas, alios autem Pastores & Doctores, idque ad consummationem Sanctorum seu fidelium, & in opus ministerii ad aedificationem corporis Christi; alii nihilominus horum regimen doctrinamque contemnunt, neque de verbo Dei, sive numerum librorum, sive sententiarum explicationem spectes, sentiunt, ut Ecclesia, illiusque perpetui administratores continua serie senserunt. Cum tamen horum authoritatem apud nos ita ratam Christus voluerit, ut sicut de ipso tum in baptismo, tum in transfiguratione voce caelitus delapsa a magnifica gloria Pater promulgavit: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui, ipsum audite, ita de his suis vicariis ille dixerit: Qui vos audit, me audit, qui vos spernit, me spernit, & sicut misit me Pater, & ego mitto vos.

QUINTO demum aliqui & unum Deum credunt, & verum Mediatorem recipiunt, de eis, quos ille operis sui vicarios, Ecclesiaeque Pastores constituit, indivisa charitatis doctrinaeque unione adhaerent, etsi enim totum Ecclesiae corpus sub uno capite, id est, Mediatore subsistet, administratur tamen per diversas membra subministrationum & officiorum, & qui ab hac corporis unione recedit, capiti non potest esse coniunctus.

Ex his primi sunt Athei: Secundi Idololatrae. Ad tertiam classem pertinent Turcae, & Judaei post tempus novae legis. Ad quartam Haeretici. Quinti demum sunt Orthodoxi, qui contra Atheos credunt Deum, contra idololatras Deum unum & verum, contra Turcas & Judaeos, aliosque falsorum Divinae legis interpretum aut promulgatorum sectatores, credunt in UNICUM verum DEUM & HOMINUM MEDIATOREM JESUM CHRISTUM. Ac demum contra haereticos credunt UNAM ECCLESIAM & UNI ECCLESIAE obediunt. Quam vero prudenter ipsi id faciant, & quam sancte, quique sint, apud quos haec fides, & consequenter verum & plenum Dei verbum reperiatur, iam deinceps particularius examinabimus. Lector ex his omnibus diligenter dispiciat, in qua classe seipsum inveniat, & siquidem hactenus erravit, ad eam, quae sola vera est, redeat: sin autem in Ecclesia vera se invenit, Deo veritatis doctori gratias agat, sibi gaudeat, & in solicitudine ac humilitate conservet thesaurum fidei, ne ob insidiatorum multitudinem aut vitae inconstantiam ei eripiatur: memor magnorum virorum, quibus ambitio, vel libido thesaurum illum excussit.

English Translation: BECAUSE religion and faith depend on the word of God, therefore just as there are very many dissensions concerning religion, there are also very many concerning the word of God: yet summarily all can be reduced to five principal classes.

For FIRST, some are entirely devoid of all faith and religion, who namely either do not believe in God at all, or deny him providence and care concerning our affairs. For just as the Apostle Heb. 11. requires for true access to God (that is, for true worship of God) faith in these two articles, that God exists, and that he is a rewarder, so if anyone denies either one, or both of these articles, he subverts true religion: for how will anyone bind himself to God through piety and worship, whom he does not believe, or whom he thinks to be unconcerned about his affairs.

SECOND, others although they have neither the true God, nor (which is not without the true God) true religion, nevertheless have some appearance of religion, or rather κακοζηλίας: and they have chosen for themselves either one, or (which happens more frequently) several divinities, by whose nod and will they are ruled.

THIRD are those, who indeed believe in one and true God, nevertheless because God does not speak to individuals immediately, but through intermediaries and messengers, they err concerning the mediator, and consequently also concerning the word of God, for this is not found among pseudo-prophets and false Prophets.

FOURTH, are those who believe both in the true God and the one Mediator, meanwhile although this Mediator about to depart from us according to visible presence left after him some indeed Apostles some however Prophets, others truly Evangelists, others however Pastors and Teachers, and this for the perfection of Saints or faithful, and for the work of ministry for the edification of the body of Christ; others nevertheless despise the government and doctrine of these, nor do they think about the word of God, whether you consider the number of books, or the explanation of opinions, as the Church, and its perpetual administrators in continuous succession have thought. Although Christ wanted the authority of these to be so established among us, that just as concerning himself both in baptism, and in transfiguration the Father promulgated by voice fallen from heaven from magnificent glory: This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him, so concerning these his vicars he said: He who hears you, hears me, he who despises you, despises me, and as the Father sent me, so I send you.

FIFTH finally some both believe in one God, and receive the true Mediator, concerning those whom he constituted as vicars of his work, and Pastors of the Church, they adhere in undivided union of charity and doctrine, for although the whole body of the Church subsists under one head, that is, the Mediator, nevertheless it is administered through diverse members of ministrations and offices, and he who withdraws from this union of the body, cannot be joined to the head.

Of these the first are Atheists: The second Idolaters. To the third class belong Turks, and Jews after the time of the new law. To the fourth Heretics. The fifth finally are the Orthodox, who against Atheists believe in God, against idolaters in one and true God, against Turks and Jews, and other followers of false interpreters or promulgators of Divine law, believe in the ONE true GOD and MEDIATOR OF MEN JESUS CHRIST. And finally against heretics they believe in ONE CHURCH and obey ONE CHURCH. How prudently indeed they do this, and how holily, and who they are, among whom this faith, and consequently the true and full word of God is found, we shall now examine more particularly hereafter. Let the reader from all these things carefully discern, in which class he finds himself, and if indeed he has erred thus far, let him return to that which alone is true: but if he finds himself in the true Church, let him give thanks to God the teacher of truth, let him rejoice for himself, and in solicitude and humility let him preserve the treasure of faith, lest on account of the multitude of plotters or inconstancy of life it be snatched from him: mindful of great men, from whom ambition, or lust shook out that treasure.

Seventh: Fr. Eusebius Amort

Last, but not least evidence comes from a dictionary on the cases of conscience and ecclesiastical controversies penned by Fr. Eusebius Amort who was an 18th century eclectic theologian. Distinguishing between infidels and pagans, he notes:

Latin Text: Amplum est discrimen inter infideles & paganos: hi enim verum Deum agnoscere nolentes, divinos idolis suis honores deferunt, ut sunt Mogolenses, Sinenses &c.; illi vero verum Deum quidem adorant, non tamen credunt mysterium Trinitatis, nec alias Religionis Christianae veritates, ut Turcae, Judaei &c.

English Translation: There is a wide distinction between infidels and pagans: for these, being unwilling to acknowledge the true God, offer divine honors to their idols, as are the Mongols, Chinese etc.; but those indeed worship the true God, but nevertheless do not believe the mystery of the Trinity, nor other truths of the Christian Religion, as Turks, Jews etc.

Filed Under: Articles