Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Jewish religion was and is not bound by the Temple, as I have explained several times before. The Written Law persists regardless of the Temple, and the Oral Law was transmitted and codified. And even if the Law were also to be destroyed in a physical sense, that is, by the banning and confiscation of the Torah from the Hebrew Bible, that law is still carried in the hearts, minds, and behavior of its people. The very persistence of the Jewish religion to the present day reveals that no destruction of a building, a ritual, or a High Priest can obliterate the faith.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the subject of this thread, and because there seems to be confusion about it, I should also point out the past Church mandates insisting Catholics not pray or get involved in worship with any non-Catholics. Below are quotes on the subject from 3 different Councils and also Canon Law that shows what the mind of the Church has always been regarding avoiding non-Catholic religions - it is the same as what I have been saying up till now:

“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion” - III Council of Constantinople.

“It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.” 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258

Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine, 1918): Canon 2315: The Code declares the following persons as suspect of heresy: 1. The propagators of heresy and those who participate with non-Catholics in divinis (Can. 2316)
and
Canon 2316: “Those who communicate with heretics in divinis are themselves suspect of heresy”

“None must neither pray or sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman or layman, let him be excommunicated” - Council of Carthage, 398

Canon 33: No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics - Council of Laodicea (372)
 
It seems people have fallen silent since I posted the quotes from the Catholic Church condemning interfaith worship. These quotes further show what the mind of the Church has been over the centuries with regard to Catholics associating with non-Catholic religions. There is simply no doubt about it.

These quotes also have to make you wonder, how on earth did they approve of the Assisi meetings over the last 4 decades?
 
The 1917 Code of Canon Law is no longer in force. The statements from the various Councils are disciplinary canons, not dogmatic statements.
 
Eddie18 said:
These quotes also have to make you wonder, how on earth did they approve of the Assisi meetings over the last 4 decades?
Click to expand...
As I have previously noted, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is not in force, and the statements of the various councils are disciplinary, and not dogmatic in nature. In recent decades, the hierarchy of the Church has taken a different approach to interacting with other religions. There’s nothing that says you have to like it, or participate in it. However, I would be very reluctant in condemning those who participate in it.
 
Eddie18 said:
It seems people have fallen silent since I posted the quotes from the Catholic Church condemning interfaith worship. These quotes further show what the mind of the Church has been over the centuries with regard to Catholics associating with non-Catholic religions. There is simply no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
No, we’ve fallen silent because you’ve chosen to disregard everything we’ve told you. You’re refusing to acknowledge the entirety of the discussion.

Some of us don’t enjoy beating our heads against brick walls.
 
@(name removed by moderator) is correct in what he says. This has always been the traditional teaching of the Church.

@RyanBlack your answer is problematic from a few different viewpoints.

First, Scripture cannot be added to or changed. There are verses in Scripture that concur with the quotes I provided.

Second, the Church cannot possibly have condemned something for centuries, then turn around and give it full approval. That would mean the Church was in error in all those earlier centuries. Impossible, as this is against the dogma of infallibility of the Church. Error is a corruption of truth, so truth must come first.

Third, the Catholic Church has always taught that General Councils are infallible. This comes from Scripture. The Third Council of Constantinople was a General Council, and one of the quotes I posted comes from that General Council.
 
Eddie18 said:
Second, the Church cannot possibly have condemned something for centuries, then turn around and give it full approval.
Click to expand...
Ummm… Charging interest on loans? Condemned for many centuries, and then totally approved by the Fifth Lateran Council in 1517. The Vatican even runs a bank.
 
There is indeed a difference in the weight of the dogmatic pronouncements and the disciplinary canons of church councils. An example of a canon that is obsolete, at least in the West, is the prohibition against kneeling on Sundays.
 
I’ll take Vatican II and the hierarchy over the Rev. Ignatius Szal.
 
Are the clergy, including popes, who have worshipped with non-Catholic Christians sinning in doing so?
 
This thread pertains to a doctrine that comes from Scripture (Divine Law). If something comes from Divine Law, an ecclesiastical cannot change it. The condemnation of non-Christian religions comes from Divine Law.

Usury is not condemned by Divine Law, so the Church has created ecclesiastical laws to define when charging interest is lawful or unlawful. That can’t be compared to what we are discussing here.
 
Eddie18 said:
Usury is not condemned by Divine Law, so the Church has created ecclesiastical laws to define when charging interest is lawful or unlawful. That can’t be compared to what we are discussing here.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? Of course usury was condemned by scripture, rather strongly:

Exodus 22:24 (25)—If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.

Leviticus 25:36— Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

The Church condemned it strongly for 1500 years on this basis.

It was a MAJOR issue for the Church, not some trivial thing. That’s why the matter had to be decided on at a council.

Listen, Eddie. You’ve obviously created in your imagination a picture of the Church and Church teaching that simply does not coincide with theological or historical reality. It’s so far off that it’s hard for me to see anything Catholic in it at all. It conflicts with the vision of the thousands of popes, bishops, priests, theologians. scholars that worked to create documents like Nostra aetatu and the CCC. To the point where you seem to be saying that you are right, and all of them are completely wrong.

Which is why you should be discussing this with your pastor or spiritual advisor.

If, on the other hand, you are one of those “Catholics” who reject the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, then there is no point in discussing this further. That would mean you are not a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
drac16 said:
I believe that catholics are christians, I just don’t believe they’re Biblical.
Click to expand...
OK. What about the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (i.e. Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc), Church of the East (Assyrian Christians), etc?

You say the Catholics are unbiblical, what do you say about those groups?
 
To clarify, in my comments, I was thinking more in terms of worshipping with non-Catholic Christians. For me, worship with non-Christians is basically an impossibility. If I were to visit a non-Christian place of worship, I would certainly be respectful and not be disruptive. However, I would simply observe, and likely pray, but silently. My prayers would of course be Christian. So I would not be worshipping with those non-Christians whose service I was observing. On the other hand, when I have visited Orthodox Divine Liturgies, I did in fact worship with them.
 
Last edited:
RyanBlack said:
On the other hand, when I have visited Orthodox Divine Liturgies, I did in fact worship with them.
Click to expand...
I have worshiped with Jews. I see no problem with that as they worship the same God we do. The Apostles also worshiped with Jews, and as Jews.
 
[
Eddie18 said:
I’m surprised to see the number of Catholics today who actually believe non-Christian religions are somehow acceptable. Read these verses from Scripture carefully
Click to expand...
Friend I’m having difficulty with this statement and the rest of your POST.

Are you speaking of non-CATHOLIC-Christian or non-CHRISTIANS?

I don’t spend much time on this NEW Forum; but find it difficult to believe that signifiant numbers of Catholics who accept such?

Patrick
 
If you read up on usury in “a Catholic Dictionary” (Attwater, 1957), it says that “Usury is strictly speaking profit exacted on a loan of money just because it is a loan. This is unjust because money as money has no value save and its use…”. This is what Scripture is condemning.

Then the definition goes on to state, “but interest may be justly charged for reasons extrinsic to the loan itself, such as danger of non-repayment or loss of opportunities of other profit. In modern times this latter extrinsic title always exists owing to economic conditions…”. Assuming these additional conditions exist, that’s when the church allows usury. The Church didn’t just go ahead and approve usury against Scripture!

I have simply pointed out the facts and have backed up everything I have said. Asking elderly Catholics or reading in old Catholic books easily confirms what I’m saying. There are obvious inconsistencies in what was taught in centuries past and what is being taught now, and you don’t have any answers. You can draw whatever conclusions you like from the situation, I’m simply pointing out the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Trust me, I’ve consulted many clergy on the subject and they agree. It’s a serious situation people should at least be aware of it so they can make their own decisions. Many Catholics are in complete confusion and have lost their faith because of the situation.
 
Last edited:
Our Lord was obviously referring to non-Catholics, since there were no other notable Christians at the time.

Though I suppose Protestants and others could try and claim, “But we are Christians too, so the verses from Scripture mentioned in the OP don’t apply to us”. If they said that, then obviously a completely different discussion would need to be had on who is right, Catholics or Protestants. But for the sake of discussion in this thread, the religions our Lord was referring to in the quotes in the OP would at a minimum be “non-Christians”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top