S
StudentMI
Guest
Actually, interesting story, Schillebeeckx I believe admitted there were phrases inserted which the progressives planned to exploit later on.
Last edited:
- Status
S
StudentMI
Guest
Careful you don’t anthropomorphize a quote from a St Francis poem.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
This sequence makes no sense. In the first two, to is part of the infinitive verbform, to measure, to parse.
In the third, it is a preposition, to a goal. Unless you think “to perfect liberation” means to make liberation better.
And again, perfect liberation is not the same as salvation.
D
Dovekin
Guest
St Francis already did the anthropomorphizing. If you do not like that, talk to him. I am only saying the anthropomorphizing is already part of our Tradition.Dovekin:
Careful you don’t anthropomorphize a quote from a St Francis poem.
F
fhansen
Guest
It says that Buddhism teaches a way. It doesn’t comment on whether or not anyone actually achieves it. The main point is that these other religions are looking for something higher and better, acknowledging that it must exist.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
It’s symbolic as the rest of the poem illustrates.
R
ReaderT
Guest
I don’t see why that makes a difference, but if it did, we could still change “liberation” to the verb “liberate (oneself from sorrow)” and have the same result.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
What everyone is objecting to is the Pelagian character of the quote. They see it as a statement that human effort can achieve a goal. If you remove the goal, the accusation is incorrect, so no, you cannot just substitute “to liberate.”
The other problem is that Pelagianism reaches you cannot achieve salvation by human effort. It is not Pelagian to say people can get from Rome to London by human effort. It is not Pelagian to liberate oneself by human effort, unless you think salvation and liberation are the same. Substituting to liberate would help make the point that they are not.
The other problem is that Pelagianism reaches you cannot achieve salvation by human effort. It is not Pelagian to say people can get from Rome to London by human effort. It is not Pelagian to liberate oneself by human effort, unless you think salvation and liberation are the same. Substituting to liberate would help make the point that they are not.
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
The qualifier “it teaches” solves this difficulty.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Nostra Aetate is just listing descriptions of different religions and usually some common values or goals with Catholics or how these religions try to answer common human questions. Understanding this can help with evangelization (and efforts toward the common good in the public sphere.) Pius XII commended the same thing:
Summi Pontificatus 46:
Summi Pontificatus 46:
Last edited:
Still don’t see the problem.
All three statements are true. That is just fact.
It is a fallacy to then draw the conclusion that because Buddhism teaches something we then claim the teaching itself is true.
Islam teaches that God is not Father. That is a true statement. It does not mean what they teach is true. They may teach it but the teaching is absolutely false.
All three statements are true. That is just fact.
It is a fallacy to then draw the conclusion that because Buddhism teaches something we then claim the teaching itself is true.
Islam teaches that God is not Father. That is a true statement. It does not mean what they teach is true. They may teach it but the teaching is absolutely false.
R
ReaderT
Guest
Perhaps others are talking about Pelagianism but I haven’t mentioned that word; I’ve been talking about the claim the statement makes - here’s the quote: “[Buddhism] teaches a way by which men … attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.”
Apologies to Buddhist posters, but obviously we (Christians) don’t believe Buddhism is a viable path that ends at “supreme illumination”. The statement is false.
If I say to you, “Alcoholics Anonymous teaches a way to be free from addiction”, it’s understood that I believe it’s correct (i.e. that their way works).
Substitute “Buddhism” for “AA” and “delusion” for “addiction” and you’ve got the statement in Nostra Aetate.
Last edited:
I
Inbonum
Guest
No, that means you just mentioned the facts they believe. They believe this true. In case I believe I would have to explicitly mention that I agree. If I do not mention then it cannot be concluded as agreement.
It would be strange, however, to insert in NA the sentence “you are completely wrong and know nothing about God” when it is a document that tries to reduce the division between Catholic Church and Non-Christian religions that exists from the past.
P
Peaceable
Guest
But it also says in the rest of the document (Nostra Aetate) to reject nothing that is true. It doesn’t say to adopt something that is false!
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
I disagree. I think at the very least it cuts both ways. You wouldn’t say they “teach a way to overcome addiction” if you didn’t believe it was actually effective:
“Have you heard about Dr. Heimlich? He teaches a way to help people who are choking.”
We don’t have to be unkind to anyone, I agree.
Last edited:
J
Jen7
Guest
But don’t you think that’s precisely WHY the pachamamas were allow into the church??
R
ReaderT
Guest
Well that’s the very problem. As I wrote above, the document can be interpreted to say “Buddhism is a way to attain supreme illumination” - which of course is untrue, only Christianity leads to spiritual enlightenment.
I
Inbonum
Guest
I see your point and understand it but I wouldn’t apply it on Church’s document in this case and I understand why they didn’t write it like that.
I don’t say that I agree and I would like if NA was written in clearer way but that wouldn’t be building bridges. Here it seems like you cannot have both - clear truth and friendship which cannot stand that truth.
I don’t say that I agree and I would like if NA was written in clearer way but that wouldn’t be building bridges. Here it seems like you cannot have both - clear truth and friendship which cannot stand that truth.
R
ReaderT
Guest
I think one of the Catholic saints said: “Accept nothing that claims to be love if it does not have truth, and accept nothing that claims to be truth if it does not have love. One without the other is a lie” (Edith Stein) - meaning that “loving and truthful” seems to be the right approach
That is fair, we can amicably agree to disagree
Last edited:
No, absolutely not. Whatever my feelings about AA and regardless of whether that method works, that statement is true. AA does teach that. But I would be wrong to draw the conclusion that you accept what AA teaches based solely on what you said. All you have told me is that AA teaches something. To conclude that you agree with it is an assumption.
Those reading Catholic agreement with Buddhism in NA are reading something it is not actually saying.
- Status