Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anon10271182 said:
The one priest said he turned to Zen because he “wanted a deeper faith.”
His homilies must be astonishing!
As to whether Catholicism and Zen convergence is good or bad, who am I to judge?
😉
Click to expand...
Sarcasm! that will win hearts for Jesus!
Maybe @Cruciferi can find me an gif for that
 
Last edited:
The Church doesn’t alter the content of her faith. If anything appears to change the content of faith, it’s false. Stick to the teaching of prior popes if the current ones confuse you. That’s all.
 
StAugustine said:
The Church doesn’t alter the content of her faith. If anything appears to change the content of faith, it’s false.
Click to expand...
That itself, in the way you seem to be intending it, is false.
but the good thing about it is, neither you nor I are the Magisterium, so I won’t be up at 3am worrying about it.
 
Last edited:
It’s actually not. Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition in his syllabus of errors-
  1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
 
StAugustine said:
How do I intend it?
Click to expand...
Only you can clarify that, but it seems that when you claim the Church does not change, you are denying the living development of the Church and it’s doctrines.

And when you worry about things that “appear to change the content of faith” you must consider your own deficiencies in understanding. Appearances are appearances, not necessarily reality. When you don’t understand something, lots of things can “appear”, like heretical Popes.
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
It’s actually not. Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition in his syllabus of errors-
  1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc
Click to expand...
It is true that this was the teaching in the past, but (I suppose) using his authority to bind and loose, this teaching has apparently been changed by Pope Francis as noted above. To repeat:
August 23, 2017
“The closing pages of the Bible show us the ultimate horizon of our journey as believers: the heavenly Jerusalem, the celestial Jerusalem. It is envisioned first of all as an immense tent, where God will welcome all mankind so as to dwell with them definitively … This is our hope."
https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...papa-francesco_20170823_udienza-generale.html
 
Last edited:
Regarding the non-magisterial and apparently novel ideas of Pope Francis, I can only hold that his entire notion of reconciliation with the modern world is false, as Blessed Pope Pius IX did.
  1. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
-Condemned.

As to the notion of doctrines CHANGING in their ESSENCE with the progress of human discovery-
  1. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. — Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
-condemned.
  1. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. — Ibid.
-Condemned.

Again- all condemned.
  1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
  2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
  3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
  4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
All condemned as false.

So, the loyalty you want to have to the present, why isn’t it matched to loyalty to the past?

Here is magisterial teaching excerpted from magisterial documents of a BLESSED.

We haven’t even TOUCHED SAINT Pius X yet!
 
StAugustine said:
It’s actually not. Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition in his syllabus of errors-
  1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
Click to expand...
Yes, that too.

Universalism ( Apocatastasis ) was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] taken from
 
Last edited:
Exactly. This is yet another example of what I’m pointing out this discussion.
 
The idea of development of doctrine being a substantial change or a process of evolution is a heresy condemned by Pope Saint Pius X.

The Church can change the accidental elements of a dogma, the externals, the way of talking about it, but not the essence.

For example the affirmation- “Nobody is saved outside the Catholic Church” does not become its opposite over time. But the affirmation, while REMAINING an affirmation is refined in greater detail, externally, not in itself.

Pope Saint Pius X condemned-
  1. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
In other words, these elements of the Church and her authoritative teaching are NOT things that came about by gradual addition. They were always present from the beginning.

Again he condemns-
  1. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
Catholicism as a flexible and adaptable kind of spirituality is false. It is a determined and clear body of doctrine which is inflexible.

Again he condemns-
  1. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
False. The Church in her structure as well as her dogmas does NOT undergo a perpetual evolution. Rather truth is simply explicated more clearly over time. And the attempt to make that a mushy process is counter-intuitive to the entire notion of the Church.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10lamen.htm/amp
 
Last edited:
As mentioned earlier, you are using “bind and loose” wrong…that has to do with forgiveness of sins, totally different subject
 
Ignorance is a punishment for a life lived without repentance and is actually somewhat merciful.

For example, the scriptures clearly speak about it being better that a person NEVER would have heard the truth as opposed to rejecting it after having heard it.

Well, if a person is unwilling to turn from evil to good, and God knows they would turn away after having heard the truth, then the punishment of ignorance is actually a MITIGATING punishment. By not exposing them to what he knows they will reject, he reduces their future punishment.

Even the judgment of God has its merciful elements, in a preventative sense.

And note- they are not punished FOR ignorance, but WITH ignorance for not following the natural law and their conscience.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
It is true that this was the teaching in the past, but (I suppose) using his authority to bind and loose, this teaching has apparently been changed by Pope Francis as noted above. To repeat:
August 23, 2017
“The closing pages of the Bible show us the ultimate horizon of our journey as believers: the heavenly Jerusalem, the celestial Jerusalem. It is envisioned first of all as an immense tent, where God will welcome all mankind so as to dwell with them definitively … This is our hope."
General Audience of 23 August 2017 | Francis
Click to expand...
Pope Francis and Pius IX aren’t in conflict. One can always hope all will be saved. Personally I hope for things God doesn’t already conflict with if you know what I mean. 😃

If “all will be saved” ergo hell is empty, then that means no matter how one lived or believed it doesn’t matter. Everyone is saved and goes to heaven. THAT is an old old heresy. And no, that heresy didn’t get overturned. Nor will it get overturned. If only a few are saved, as Jesus validated, then is it a reasonable hope all will be saved? Nope! But one can always hope I suppose even if it is unreasonable because God said differently.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but it’s unwise to hope for what the Church has condemned-

Denzinger 717b

Errors of Zanini de Solcia * condemned by Pope Pius II

[Condemned in the letter “Cum sicut,” Nov. 14, 1459]

717b (2) That all Christians are to be saved.

http://patristica.net/denzinger/#n700
 
"Again he condemns-

Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
Catholicism as a flexible and adaptable kind of spirituality is false. It is a determined and clear body of doctrine which is inflexible."

Uh-oh, that one’s not gonna be very popular if it ever gets out.
 
StAugustine said:
Again he condemns-
  1. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
Click to expand...
That’s the body of the quote, I think you included my commentary which is not. Just FYI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top