Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the key here is whether the Church, whose Popes are believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, CAN change in such a radical way in doctrine (certainly not in dogma). It seems to me more than “loosening or binding” if, as you say, the changes have been radical. This, I believe, is the singular “problem” for Catholics to come to terms with. I believe the former, harsher pronouncements of past Popes, PROVIDED they involved faith and morals and were spoken in encyclicals ex cathedra, CANNOT change according to Canon Law. Now the issue it seems is whether these encyclicals met the appropriate criteria.
 
Last edited:
You are correct in everything you said here but I think it’s important to add that Catholics aren’t bound to believe only “ex cathedra” ( solemn teaching), but also the ordinary everyday teaching of popes. Multiple popes have confirmed this.
 
You are referring to the Ordinary Magisterium, which is NOT proclaimed ex cathedra, as is the Extraordinary Magisterium. Still, I believe Catholics are NOT bound to believe “ordinary everyday teaching of popes” in matters OUTSIDE of faith and morals. At the same time, NONE of the words of popes should be summarily dismissed without deep reflection. According to Vatican II, it is NOT the TYPE of document that reveals its degree of authority (as pre-Vatican II, bulls and encyclicals were considered the most authoritative) but the CONTENT of the documents. Now if that content does NOT involve only matters of faith or morals, is it STILL binding among Catholics?
 
Last edited:
Here is what past popes have said on the subject:

Pope Pius IX, Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecumenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith. "

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz. 2313):
“It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth me.” [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.”
 
Last edited:
Thank you for this information. Do more recent popes concur? Have such popes spelled out in writing what is bound as a matter of belief by all Catholics in the Ordinary Magisterium, especially if a document contains something that is not strictly in the domain of faith or morals?
 
It;s always good to start with the basic current teaching of the Church, which is the fullest teaching. For the layman, understanding that basic teaching AND becoming docile to it can be a lifetime of work. Especially the docility, because we like to disagree with things. The Church is not about finding disagreement, it’s about prayerful discernment and docility.

Eddie and others, start with the CCC on these issues. And pray.
It’s great that you have an interest in tradition and writings of the past, but Catholic Tradition is living, and it is expressed in a living context.
 
Last edited:
@goout This “Catholic tradition is living” stuff is nothing but modernism.

Pope St. Pius X, Oath against Modernism
“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.”

Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (Appealing for Peace), Nov 1, 1914
"Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.”
 
Last edited:
By definition, solemn teaching + ordinary teaching = one infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church

The Church solemnly defined this at the First Vatican Council:

“All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed.”
 
Is there any written document from the Second Vatican Council that precisely defines what is binding and what is not binding?
 
would it be too much to ask, for those who are confused:
to simply read the current catechism, and prayerfully consider what the Church teaches?
 
Eddie18 said:
This “Catholic tradition is living” stuff is nothing but modernism.
Click to expand...
CCC: 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
 
You’re wasting your time because this poster rejects VII and the CCC.
 
I would assume these local traditions fit under the heading of customs, which can be altered or abandoned. I know dogma is unchangeable. And I believe practice is changeable. That leaves doctrine and discipline. What is the belief of the Church regarding the changeability of doctrine and discipline? And is the Magisterium of the Church or the CCC clear on what is considered doctrine and what is considered discipline?
 
Eddie18 said:
These verses contain words directly from our Lord confirming that those who deny Jesus, don’t believe in the Gospels, and who do not get baptized are condemned. How then can any Catholic possibly give any value to non-Christian religions?
Click to expand...
There are also some “non-Christian” religions that accept Jesus and recognize the sanctity of the Gospels. Consider that Judaism has value as it provides the background of Christianity:

:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
(King James Bible, John)
 
No, it’s the modernist interpretation of the phrase, as the quotes I posted show.
 
The Church does not teach the Pope is positively guided by the Holy Spirit. It teaches that the Holy Spirit protects him from officially creating errors. It’s a negative protection, not a positive leading in an extraordinary sense.

However if he is faithful to his office he receives grace to discharge it properly, but so does every bishop and priest. It’s called the graces of state.
 
I consider it teaches nothing in contradiction to the past. Therefore in order to flesh out those passages that are apparently in discrepancy with the past, we have to learn from the past and let the prior teaching be the context.

Pope Benedict XVI called that something…
Oh yeah, hermeneutics of continuity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top