Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yes that’s right.
continuity.
Your posts continually show a disregard for the living Magisterium.

So you know the dance, but don’t really do it.
 
No, it’s knowing how to interpret the magisterium. It has an historical and theological context.

The historical context is the actual teaching through time. The theological context is understanding that teaching can never change.

From there we read Lumen Gentium and we can see “Ah, the council is emphasizing the fact that those things false religions have in common with Catholics are Christ preparing their hearts to receive the gospel.”

But it doesn’t mean that the Understanding of the Scholastics (BTW their unanimous teaching is binding also, in the same way as the fathers of the Church) or the fathers saints and Theologians is jettisoned. It’s simply a change in emphasis. But a change in emphasis is not the same as rewriting theology. It’s not bad to emphasize a different aspect of the faith or a dogma, so I don’t abandon Vatican II or the CCC.

BUT-

Now listen carefully- that attempt to rewrite theology into something different under the GUISE of a change in emphasis is the heresy of modernism. It’s heretical.

When we take the language of the teachings of the past and redefine them in such a way as to make a legitimate shift in emphasis (which is not bad) a doorway leading to abandoning the teaching in question, that’s heresy; that’s modernism.

THIS is what the majority are doing in parishes, in RCIA, from the pulpit, and you are falling for it. The sign of it is that you can’t reconcile the present and the past. Your approach is therefore erroneous. Take everything together, and the Old is the context for the modern. That’s the key.

Most don’t use it, I won’t say don’t have it.
 
Last edited:
You know all past magisterial teaching was once living right, and what’s living today will not be living when the next pope comes along?

So where’s your loyalty really? I take it
All, you limit yourself. That’s just another type of cafeteria Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
I would not venture into Schism nor accept heresy, both options are non-negotiable and have been condemned since the birth of the Church. What can be done? I do not know, but i would rather stay in the boat and battle the waves of chaos, then jump ship and endanger my soul
 
StAugustine said:
The theological context is understanding that teaching can never change.
Click to expand...
For 700 years it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It was stated in an ecumenical council. It is still taught today in the Eastern Orthodox church which has not changed this teaching. However, do you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as does everyone else in the Roman Church which changed the creed and added the filioque?
If you are against changing a teaching, why would you accept this change in what was taught and declared in an infallible ecumenical council?
 
Last edited:
I do find it edifying, and thank you for sending this. I also think it will be interpreted in at least two ways. One is that the salvation accorded to non-Christians through Christ Jesus, known only to G-d Himself, is based on the following of their own conscience in accord with the rays of light and truths contained in their own religions. The other interpretation is that the behavior non-Christians exhibit as followers of their own moral and religious precepts signals the preparation of their accepting Christ as their Savior. The modernists will no doubt emphasize the former, while not denying the possibility of the latter eventuality as well. The traditionalists will focus on the latter and state that the former serves only as the building block, albeit necessary, of acceptance of Jesus as L-rd, without which salvation is impossible.
 
Firstly, I was Orthodox for a time, Old Calendarist and New Calendarist. I know these arguments.

Now, the issue is this- Photios argues in his mystagogy that everything in the Trinity is either one or three.

That which is three is what distinguishes the persons (Unbegottenness, Begottennes, Passive spiration). That which is one is the unity of the divine nature.

If that is the case, it is argued, then is the ability to spirate (active spiration) a NATURAL characteristic or a personal characteristic? If it is natural then it is proper to all the persons who would all spirate other members of the Godhead and so you would end up with, if not polytheism, then a Godhead of infinite persons.

BUT if active spiration is a personal attribute, it only belongs to a single person, and that would be the father, for the father alone is cause. To make the son a co-cause with him would be to fall into the error of confusing the persons. Semi-modalism.

Cont’d
 
Last edited:
Now, here it seems the Orthodox have the Latins trumped!

But actually there is a third option they don’t consider.
  1. Photios assumptions are correct, everything in the Trinity is either one or three. BUT there is an option he does not consider.
What makes the Father FATHER per se? Generation of the Son. What makes the Son, Son per se? Being generated. Now, spiration is not particular to fatherhood here. The Father is not father because he breathes forth the spirit, but because of his relationship to the Son. So the ability to breathe forth the spirit is not a quality particular to the fathers person, because it has no relation to fatherhood.

Moreover, the Son is like the father in all things except being generated. Now he has this ability to spirate from the father, but in him it is a true personal property because it is a derivative spiration.

So we could say the Father is the cause of the whole Trinity via Generation and underived active spiration, the Son also has the personal property of derived active spiration, and the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds from both in a single act from all eternity. This is why St. John of Damascus also calls him the image of the Son, for a person who is the image of another is in some sense derived from him, as the son is the image of the father and derived from him.

Moreover, we must speak carefully. The procession of persons in the Godhead does not come about via the WILL of the father, as St. Athanasius argues, or the Son would be created, because the father at some point in time began to will his existence. Rather, the generation of the son from the hypostasis of the father is NATURAL. The being of the Logos is derived from the being of the father not because of the fathers will, but as a consequence of who the Father IS- naturally and substantially.

The same is therefore true of the Holy Spirit. The father does not BEGIN TO WILL the spirits procession, but this procession occurs naturally and substantially from the father on account of the nature of his person. He could not BUT generate and spirate, because it isn’t a choice in him. BUT if the Son is the image of the father in all things except being generated, then he has this same Hypostatic quality as well, but in a derivative, not principle fashion.

Therefore there is no confusion of persons and-

The Spirit proceeds from the father and the son in a single spiration as from a single source, and not symmetrically, but principally from the father as cause via the mediation of the hypostasis of the Son from all eternity.
 
Exactly. One is consistent with modernist thought, the other consistent with the fathers and Theologians.
 
The bible includes “tradition”, or there’d be nothing to write about.
 
Well remember, the Church’s “living teaching” is not sequential. It isn’t like its only as good as the Pope who is alive. It was all once living wasn’t it?

Rather, the teaching of the Church is cumulative. It is the sum total of everything taught since Pentecost, and simultaneously is nothing more than what was taught on Pentecost.

The only difference is the depth of explanation.
 
Drac jumped ship days ago from this thread. I learned elsewhere he’s a charismatic Protestant.
 
Jumped ship - jumped overboard - left the thread. He hasn’t posted in it since the start.

He had been reluctant to reveal his religion. I found it when it was mentioned elsewhere, so I posted it.
 
I don’t know. Once a person is Catholic, I can’t see how another religion is acceptable, even though you can learn something from each faith.
 
StAugustine said:
The Spirit proceeds from the father and the son in a single spiration as from a single source, and not symmetrically, but principally from the father as cause via the mediation of the hypostasis of the Son from all eternity.
Click to expand...
To sum up, you do say the creed with the filioque ? Yes? OK, this is an essential change from what it was asserted and declared at an infallible ecumenical Council without the filioque. So you accept the essential change in teaching here. If you accept this change in teaching, then it seems only consistent and logical to accept those teachings which appear to have been changed since Vatican II.
Further, and secondly, you hold to the doctrine of limbo for unbaptized infants. Since you were Orthodox and since you are very well educated in theology, you know that the Orthodox do not accept limbo and further they say that limbo was a novelty introduced by St. Augustine (or at least because of his teaching on original sin) (and BTW, many Orthodox do not consider him to be a saint because of his supposed heresies on limbo, original sin, etc.) So for four hundred years, there was no teaching on limbo, as the Orthodox contend. And they say that this teaching should not be changed. Why do you accept the novelty and change in teaching on limbo ? if you are opposed to any changes in teaching, shouldn’t you go along with the unchanged teaching of the Orthodox church on this issue?
It appears that you believe in some changes, but do not believe in other more recent changes in teaching. But if the Pope is the head of the Church and if St. Peter has given him the keys to loose and to bind, then it is not up to you personally to decide what changes are to be binding on Catholics, it is up to the Holy Father to determine this? Is it not so?
 
Last edited:
Well firstly-
  1. Does not Orthodoxy hold to the unanimous consent of the fathers? It is in their consensus, not their divergence that truth is to be found. So refer to all the Latin Fathers in regard to the filioque, both before and after St. Augustine. Also try reading the Epigraphae of John Bekkos. I would also say that St. Gregory of Nyssa very clearly teaches the essence of the filioque here-
“For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches(and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?”
Against Macedonians,6(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:317

Now, please note that in the kindling of the torches he is not treating of energetic procession, which would be an activity within creation, nor is he treating of a temporal mission but of eternal origin. The first flame lights the second which lights the third. Meaning what? That the first and second flame taken together constitute the origin of the third flame, which is analogous to how the father and son taken together are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, the Father Principally and the Son derivatively, because he had this from the father.

Moreover, the history is being distorted regarding Constantinople I.

Constantinople I was a purely regional synod at the time of its being convened under St. Meletius of Antioch, was it not? Nor was the number of bishops in attendance extraordinary- 150 wasn’t it, and all from the east?

And what did they do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top