Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do these quotations refer to non-Christian PEOPLE? The first one appears to do so. However, if one “avoids them,” how are Catholics supposed to evangelize non-Catholics?

I have heard from a few Orthodox Jews that we Jews are supposed to avoid Christians, or at least not associate with them too much. I don’t know how many Orthodox Jews actually believe this, but I don’t think it is really part of official Jewish teaching at all. I also wonder whether Christians got this idea from Jewish notions of religious separation.
 
Last edited:
Scripture cannot be edited or added to. Nor can it be “reinterpreted” to have a different meaning than the Church has always taught. There is NO getting around this rule.
 
Eddie18 said:
Scripture cannot be edited or added to. Nor can it be “reinterpreted” to have a different meaning than the Church has always taught. There is NO getting around this rule.
Click to expand...
That’s not exactly correct, at least in the sense you think it is.

While the words of the scripture don’t change, Catholic understanding of what those words mean is constantly improving under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Divine Tradition is not a finished process, and there will never be a time when it is finished. Catholicism is not a “closed book” religion. Scripture and Divine Revelation are ever-flowing fonts that bring new truths to each generation.

You have a very static view of the Church. It is not a museum piece, but a living organism, the very body of Christ.
 
What you just said was firmly condemned by Pope St. Pius X:

Excerpt from “The Oath Against Modernism” by Pope St. Pius X in 1910

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

“…I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. …”
 
Eddie18 said:
I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously
Click to expand...
He’s entirely correct, and your totally incorrect. Dogmas do not evolve. Our understanding of them does, though. But there is a lot more to Catholic teaching than Scripture and Dogma. You really need to educate yourself about this. Talk to your pastor or spiritual advisor.
 
Notice the quote from Pope St. Pius X also states that the “meaning” cannot change either!

So Scripture states that those who reject Jesus, the Gospels, and baptism are CONDEMNED. Now you are suggesting that somehow the Church’s understanding of that Scripture suddenly “evolved” into a belief that the EXACT OPPOSITE is true (that they are NOT condemned)? That is to say the Church taught erroneously in the past! I can’t even believe you are suggesting something so absurd. You have seriously crossed the line here.
 
Eddie18 said:
Notice the quote from Pope St. Pius X also states that the “meaning” cannot change either!
Click to expand...
And he’s correct. The meaning does not change, but our understanding of it is constantly growing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Your pastor can explain this too you.
 
Last edited:
How about the Church’s concept of invincible ignorance? This is something I do not believe Protestants maintain. It is a difficult concept to understand and interpret but it is important to Catholic teaching, is it not? I am almost certain that flat-out condemnation of those who do not believe in Jesus or who are not baptized is NOT a tenet of Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
It’s apparent that the CCC differs from Scripture on this.That’s frightening!
Click to expand...
Why did you say this was “frightening”? Very many Catholic scholars, theologians, priests and bishops worked on the CCC, including Cardinal Ratzinger himself, and it was approved by Pope John Paul II? Do you think that your understanding of Scripture is somehow better than theirs? Are they in error? I would think not. It’s because they read scripture the Catholic way. Not line by line, verse by verse, word by word, but in the meaning of the whole in light of Divine Tradition and the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps you should explore why you thought it was “frightening”, and what that means about your understanding of how Catholic teaching works. That your understanding of Catholic teaching does not match what you found in the CCC should be a warning that something is wrong, either with the experts who wrote it, or with you.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
I am almost certain that flat-out condemnation of those who do not believe in Jesus or who are not baptized is NOT a tenet of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
It isn’t. That’s the point that Eddie is failing to understand.
 
One last thing. Why are you trying to interpret Scripture on your own without the guidance of a pastor or spiritual advisor, or someone else who has been extensively trained in the Catholic way of reading Scripture? Catholicism is not a “do it yourself” religion, and even experienced experts don’t find reading Scripture an easy task.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone else’s on this or any other internet forum. Go straight to your pastor or spiritual advisor for the help you need.
 
Last edited:
AndrewAxland said:
Why are you trying to interpret Scripture on your own without the guidance of a pastor or spiritual advisor, or someone else who has been extensively trained in the Catholic way or reading Scripture?
Click to expand...
Can I give this a billion likes?
 
Pup7 said:
Can I give this a billion likes?
Click to expand...
One million is enough!

By the way, I keep running out of little heart thingies, so there have been plenty of times when I’d like to give more than a few to you, but couldn’t. Thanks for being such a interesting poster!
 
Clearly there is a discrepancy here. Scripture says condemned, and the CCC says the opposite. I know that Scripture cannot be added to, edited, or changed, even by the Church. Certainly a catechism cannot override Scripture. This is what Catholics have always been taught and Pope St. Pius X is very clear on the subject in his Oath against Modernism. If the Church’s understanding of the subject suddenly evolved into the EXACT opposite, then the Oath against Modernism becomes erroneous document, which is impossible. Pope St. Pius X could not have erred when making that solemn declaration.

No one is going to tell me this verse from Scripture has evolved into the opposite:
Galatians 1:8: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

I am a lifelong Catholic and have many spiritual advisors who are experts on the Catholic faith, and they confirm exactly what I’m saying. You need to take a serious look at your understanding of Catholicism.
 
Thanks! I try - I get a little wound up sometimes (or I look as though I’m way more wound up than I am) LOL. 🙂

I’m out of likes too today!
 
Eddie18 said:
Clearly there is a discrepancy here. Scripture says condemned, and the CCC says the opposite. I know that Scripture cannot be added to, edited, or changed, even by the Church. Certainly a catechism cannot override Scripture. This is what Catholics have always been taught and Pope St. Pius X is very clear on the subject in his Oath against Modernism. If the Church’s understanding of the subject suddenly evolved into the EXACT opposite, then the Oath against Modernism becomes erroneous document, which is impossible. Pope St. Pius X could not have erred when making that solemn declaration.

No one is going to tell me this verse from Scripture has evolved into the opposite:
Galatians 1:8: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

I am a lifelong Catholic and have many spiritual advisors who are experts on the Catholic faith, and they confirm exactly what I’m saying. You need to take a serious look at your understanding of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Part of the job in interpreting Scripture is comparing it to the original and not the translation, considering the audience, the time period, and the history of the era in which it was written.

You can’t just take it at face value. Hence the Magisterium, the priesthood, the Catholic Church herself. Consider that as well.

Love your neighbor. Judge not. The golden rule. You gonna discount all that too?

Oh, wait. I get it.

You’re not a Vatican II guy, are you?
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
Clearly there is a discrepancy here.
Click to expand...
Eddie18 said:
I am a lifelong Catholic and have many spiritual advisors who are experts on the Catholic faith
Click to expand...
Great! Then why don’t you ask them why there seems to be a discrepancy between what the CCC and Nostrae aetate say and what you think scripture says. They’ll explain it to you in great detail. You’re wasting your time trying to figure this out on your own.
 
Last edited:
Actually a catechism is not magisterial teaching, but a compendium of magisterial teaching, which, being fallible, is capable of containing erroneous non-magisterial teaching. The key is to find out if the Vatican has commented on a proper interpretation of Nostra Aetate. Aware of anything?
 
I didn’t say the thing itself was a magisterial teaching. I said the person using it was making an appeal to magisterial authority. To suggest that such an appeal to authority “smacks of Protestantism” is patently absurd.

I have no interest in arguing with you. You are welcome to look up as many things as you like. I have work to do.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top