Buddhism - Nostra Aetate

  • Thread starter Thread starter harshcshah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

harshcshah

Guest
Please offer some orthodox interpretations (hermeneutic of continuity) of the following in Nostra Aetate:
…Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
How can Buddhists acquire liberation or “supreme liberation” “by their own efforts”? That seems to sound Pelagian. Also, how do Hindu’s “contemplate the divine mystery” without knowing the Good Lord?

I would very much appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Please be civil in your comments.
 
I have studied VII extensively. I have nothing to say about this. It makes me shake my head.
 
I believe it was Cardinal Brandmuller who said not all VII documents are of the same authority.
 
Buddhists want “liberation”. So, they’re a lot like us Catholics. We have liberation from sin by the Divine Power of God, who alone forgives and brings salvation - lacking that, there is no liberation.
Buddhists want “liberation” from suffering so they use mental exercises to get away from it. Jesus gave us suffering as the highest example of the gift of love - a greater love nobody has than to suffer in this way for others.
Buddhism says that is wrong, and we should eliminate suffering through discipline.
Heresy of Pelagianism, yes.
The issue for me is that Nosta Aetate could be interpreted by some to be advocating for a Pelagian perspective (I am not among these, I just want an adequate orthodox interpretation) when it says that Buddhists have a way by which they can achieve liberation “by their own efforts”. I know it cannot be Pelagian but I also don’t know any adequate explanation of that particular section of the document.
 
How can Buddhists acquire liberation or “supreme liberation” “by their own efforts”? That seems to sound Pelagian.
How can Benedictines, by their practice of prayer and labor, acquire perfection? That sounds Pelagian.

Buddhists also practice monasticism in order to attain “supreme liberation.” They attain their goal “by their own efforts or through higher help.” It is parallel to Christian monasticism in many ways, with a similar emphasis on asceticism, from the Greek for exercise.

God created everything and everyone, and every person can come to know God through Creation. Hindus can acknowledge and contemplate God as discovered naturally.
 
Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.
It is just saying “it teaches this”.
It’s just describing what Buddhism says. It does not endorse this idea.
 
Please offer some orthodox interpretations (hermeneutic of continuity) of the following in Nostra Aetate:
Basically, this document is an ecumenical olive branch to other non-Catholic religions. There is nothing in this document that even suggests these religions are in and of themselves, salvific.

It’s a polite way of saying they acknowledge that these other religions are sincere in their beliefs and there are certain aspects of their religion that are good and “truthful”. However, this statement is so broad and ambiguous, the so called “truthfulness” of their religion can mean anything.

What it doesn’t say, is that these religions are different paths to Heaven. There is no path to Heaven apart from Jesus Christ and the Church.

It doesn’t matter what goodness or truths these religions profess to believe, if they deny Jesus and the Church, they will not save you.
 
Last edited:
How can Buddhists acquire liberation or “supreme liberation” “by their own efforts”?
A Buddhist here.

In this context, “supreme liberation” is nirvana, it is not one of the heavens. How do we know that we can attain it by our own efforts? Because the Buddha did it, his principal disciples did it and others have been doing it ever since. You don’t even have to be Buddhist to do it (though that helps).

Nirvana is not a heaven. The Buddha attained nirvana age 35; he died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the ordinary world (samsara) while simultaneously enlightened in nirvana:
Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20
Buddhists also practice monasticism in order to attain “supreme liberation.”
The Buddha started his training as a Hindu monk, learning yoga. After his enlightenment he founded the order of Buddhist monks. Buddhism has had monasticism for a long time.

On the idea of ecumenism, it is worth looking at Saints Barlaam and Josaphat:
The story is a Christianized version of one of the legends of Buddha, as even the name Josaphat would seem to show. This is said to be a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is again corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva).
A very ecumenical gesture by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. 😃
 
Message of it is: - you are more welcome than you were in past. Church doesn’t exclude your salvation, you are God’s child. Church cares for you and loves you. God loves you and wants your salvation.

There is no salvation outside of Catholic Church for those who met Truth - Jesus and left Him. For those who didn’t meet Him (but not by their fault) and live following their conscience - God’s voice in every human - they can be saved because it’s not their fault of not knowing Jesus and Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:

I would very much appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Please be civil in your comments.
Christianity teaches that a human has one life and one resurrection of the body, therefore cannot teach a cycle of rebirth as in some Indian religions. However, there are rules of proper behavior and thought.

Without saying what is true in other religions, the Catholic Church :
  • “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”
  • “proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”
 
Last edited:
It is just saying “it teaches this”.
It’s just describing what Buddhism says. It does not endorse this idea.
This is how I read it also. It’s describing what Buddhists think/ believe, not what Catholics believe.

Likewise, Hindus trying to contemplate the divine through their many gods is what they do. That is their intent. Their concept of the divine is not the Catholic concept. The paragraph is describing Hindu behavior.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Inbonum:
Message of it is: - you are more welcome than you were in past. Church doesn’t exclude your salvation,
That’s pretty confusing. What do you mean the Church doesn’t exclude your salvation?
I mean that Church doesn’t exclude possibility of someone’s salvation outside Chuch.
NA speaks about those who aren’t Catholics, relation between Church and Non Christian religions before II. Vatican and after.
 
40.png
Inbonum:
Message of it is: - you are more welcome than you were in past.
While true, message of entire document doesn’t erase sentences in it. Which is why this document is very, very problematic.
To be honest, I was studying NA at uni for one year (subject was called “Science about religions”). At first I didn’t get impression it was problematic until some later time (maybe it was because of professor who is very open to syncretism). I myself too cannot completely understand some things written there and I am open to hear something new that I already didn’t at uni.
I find it positive in one aspect but I also have impression that it is like non finished, it is ambiguous and many times cited in wrong context.
Also, how do Hindu’s “contemplate the divine mystery” without knowing the Good Lord?
I’ve been taught that even if they don’t know our Lord they contemplate God on their (Hindu) way - yoga etc. (I know it is like apples and oranges)
And if they don’t ever meet God as we know Him in this life they did it in way they could, in their own ways of “salvation”. It is not their fault of not knowing Him but God has mysterious ways in which He works. They can be saved even living as Hindu and living in accordance with their conscience.
I am not sure am I clear in explaining, that is what I got from my professor. I don’t remember that I heard anything else as explanation.
 
Likewise, Hindus trying to contemplate the divine through their many gods is what they do. That is their intent. Their concept of the divine is not the Catholic concept. The paragraph is describing Hindu
I don’t think that’s abundantly clear. Christ is The Way. Not Hindu ‘contemplation’ (which I put in quotes because it is an essentially different contemplation than what I, as a Catholic, call contemplation.) If God chooses to save Hindus or anyone else apart from Christ, that’s up to Him. But I fail to see how NA sees it as the Church’s business to try to figure out when or how God determines to work outside the sacraments. God has given us instructions on how to be saved. Baptism and the Eucharist are key. Again, if God saves outside the Church (and I expect he does) that’s His prerogative. My business as a Catholic is to live & spread the God News of salvation through the Church. NA feels clear as mud in this regard.
 
I agree it is not as clear as it could be, as shown by the different reactions in this thread.

I am just saying that’s how I read it.
 
They can be saved even living as Hindu and living in accordance with their conscience.
And yet we can’t PRESUME upon God to save them right? Otherwise why should we evangelize anyone?? Let’s just leave them in blissful ignorance enjoying their chosen spiritual practices after which God will save them in His mercy. In fact evangelization which would require them to give up their familiar way of life - being unNECESSARY for their salvation - would be a burden.

See the problem??
 
@Jen7
Where I wrote that I don’t see a problem?
Please, read whole post again without putting one sentence out of context. I just wrote what I’ve been taught and what is written in NA.

Second thing, I didn’t write that we don’t need to evangelise and I don’t know where you read that in my post. You can presume that not all Non-Christians will be evangelised. You wouldn’t believe how many people never heard for Jesus even after 2000 years. IF they never meet Him (not by their fault) and IF they never reject Him YES they can be saved IF they live in acordance with their conscience. God knows how and why something happens, even these things. I don’t see problem in that way of God’s plan of salvation even though I don’t understand it completely.
 
Last edited:
I did not mean to grab that quote. I’m sorry. I thought I was replying to a different post.
 
It’s how I was taught to read it as well. I just have more trouble with it than I used to after the pachamama thing last year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top