Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pup7 said:
I think you’re frustrated because you’re not getting the answers nor the reaction you wanted.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think he’s frustrated because he’s using classic Fundamentalist Protestant exegetical reasoning instead of classic Roman Catholic reasoning. There is not a single word that he has posted that could not have been written by a Fundamentalist Protestant, which is why I asked if he was a convert. In any case, he picked up the wrong exegesis somewhere and has to talk to his pastor about correcting it.

This one is not being intentionally obtuse. His confusion is sincere.
 
In his stances on Communion for the divorced and remarried.
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
How then can any Catholic possibly give any value to non-Christian religions?
Click to expand...
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...
Hi Eddie, when you mean some Catholics believe non-Christian religions are somehow acceptable, are you saying that we believe that what they are saying is the truth?
 
Pup7 said:
150% completely irrelevant - as there is ONE Magisterium.
Click to expand...
It isn’t possible to be 150% irrelevant.

There are two expressions of the Magisterium. Ordinary and Extraordinary. We’re bound to adhere to both, but the Ordinary Magisterium does not necessarily enjoy infallibility, so if it’s possible that there is an error. Because we’re still bound to it, we have to adhere to it in the light of past teachings.
 
ratio1 said:
And that was my point.
I hope you don’t take this negatively. But if you do I’m happy to shut up from now on and delete this post. I’m just trying to help. You often have quite good valid points to raise but impatience seem to be something you may want to watch out for. And I say this not just from this thread and not only from the other thread when we had a what I thought a minor disagreement but also from multiple other thread where I observed and didn’t make a comment.
Click to expand...
I’m a fully grown adult. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. If you have a problem with me, then I suggest you PM me and not cast your aspersions in a public forum. It may also behoove you to consider that there are occasions when the Internet doesn’t translate well, and perhaps someone’s comment is just one of many, many times that comment has been made - and it’s worn out. Furthermore, in regards to your observation, the comment I made didn’t even thread back to anything remotely short or snipped. I said I doubted an individual had received the reactions he’d been looking for. Andrew commented that unlike others in this thread, this particular person wasn’t deliberately trying to be obtuse, and I commented that I saw his point.

Again, next time, a PM is more appropriate. Not a public forum.
 
Last edited:
Private. Message. System. Please use it for stuff like this. Bad form. 😒
 
I think I should’ve restricted my response to a PM, so I’m equally culpable, and to the rest of the folks in the thread I apologize for that.

Please, by all means, back to the thread. 🙂
 
All I have done in this thread so far is point you to 6 quotes from Scripture, and point out their obvious meaning. If you are upset over Scripture, then you really need to do some soul-searching. Not a single person in this forum has provided a different meaning for these verses because their meaning is obvious. Past popes have concurred that non-Catholic religions are condemned. For example, here are two excerpts from the encyclical “Mortalium Animos” by Pope Pius XI 1928:

“The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind” Encyclical “Mortalium Animos” (On Religious Unity), by Pope Pius XI in 1928

“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” Encyclical “Mortalium Animos” (On Religious Unity), by Pope Pius XI in 1928

Go ahead and read the entire encyclical “Mortalium Animos” at papalencyclicals.net - it is very straightforward on the subject.
 
Eddie18 said:
All I have done in this thread so far is point you to 6 quotes from Scripture, and point out their obvious meaning.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly the style of exegis that is specifically associated with Fundamentalist Protestants. They frequently use this technique to “prove” that Catholicism is wrong. If you play your game, you would never call a priest “Father” because Jesus specifically forbade it in Matt. 23:9. “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.”
If you take it literally, you cannot even call your own biological father your father.

And there are countless other examples.

And your doing the same thing with the quotes from the Pope Pius XI. You are simply cherry picking anything that looks like it supports your point of view, and ignoring everything else, like Nostra aetate which I directed you to several times. That is not how Catholics read papal documents.

If you want to have an intelligent and productive discussion about Scripture and Church teaching with a Roman Catholic, then you will have to do it the Catholic way, rather than the Fundamentalist Protestant way. There is not one single word that you have written in this whole thread that would sound out of place in a radical Calvinist church.

Again, you should really speak to your pastor or spiritual advisor about this. Especially if you are a convert.
 
Last edited:
But the six quotes say God and Jesus shall judge.

Not man.

They were and are admonishments for believers - if you believe and you know the truth, and you continue to deny me, you will be judged.
StAugustine said:
That’s their subjective perception, not the objective reality.
Click to expand...
(As background so others don’t have to dig, this was in response to my assertion that the Muslims believe in God and that Jesus was a divine prophet, but not the Son of God.)

It’s also the subjective perception for the Jewish faith. Are they also condemned because of that? I really don’t think so.
 
I would say so for the Jews as well after 70 a.d. with the destruction of the temple. God visibly demonstrated the abrogation of their religion, and insofar as they failed to recognize Christ as God, they became darkened in their knowledge of God.
 
You’d have to demonstrate the catechism is proclaiming their subjective experience to be objective reality, but it can’t otherwise it’s heresy. There is no concord between the objective reality of who God is which has been revealed to Christians alone, and the fantasies invented by men. They simply do not REALLY match, except perhaps accidentally and by a vague intention.

Catholic tradition is a bit more comprehensive than the compilation of a catechism from 1992. How about the catechism from 1990? But that would be the Roman Catechism. And if you read the intro of the CCC it clearly says it does not abrogate any currently approved catechism.

3rd paragraph from the end of the Apostolic Constituotion Fidei Depositorum by JPII-

“This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which must take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.”

Interesting. So if other catechisms teach it is a sin against faith to worship with Protestants and schismatics and adherents of false religions, what is it to admit they OBJECTIVELY and in reality have the same God as us?

A heresy. Nostra Aetate is speaking of subjective impressions of non-believers, not objective reality of their belief.
 
So you are saying I’m misinterpreting the quotes? Well why don’t you break each quote down for us word for word and tell us the true meaning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top