I
ioannes_pius
Guest
That would be a very silly, shoddy, and disingenuous interpretation, to say the least.
- Status
R
ReaderT
Guest
As I replied to another person above, you wouldn’t make a statement like that unless you found it plausible. You wouldn’t say “astrology teaches a way to predict the future” if you don’t believe it can actually predict the future. If you disagree with this, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’m telling you in good faith that’s exactly the way I read it (and others above agreed).
I’m out.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
It can but it shouldn’t.porthos11:
I think it can be interpreted as affirming them:
- “Geometry teaches a way to measure shapes.”
- “Linguistics teaches a way to parse language.”
- “Buddhism teaches a way to perfect liberation.”
“Islam.teaches that Mohammed was a true prophet of God”
“Judaism teaches that the Messiah has not yet arrived”
“Arianism teaches that the Son is subordinate to.and lesser than the Father”
“Protestantism.teaches that the Pope holds no special religious authority”
A Catholic can legitimately make.all.these claims. But if they did, you wouldn’t assume.were suddenly agreeing with them!
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
All your statements have subordinate clauses (“that…”) - it’s a different grammatical construction than what’s in Nostra Aetate or my examples.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
Ok then …LilyM:
All your statements have subordinate clauses (“that…”) - it’s a different grammatical construction than what’s in Nostra Aetate or my examples.
Okay, last post here.
“Islam teaches Mohmmed is a true prophet of God”
“Judaism teaches the Messiah has not yet arrived”
“Arianism teaches the Son is subordinate to and lesser than the Father …”
Point is all of theae are still statements about “them”, the other, NOT us!
As such not auomatically to be assumed to be accepted or endorsed y us
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
Doesn’t address my point- it is all very much still “othered”, is it not? As is the statement about Buddhism.LilyM:
Those are still subordinate clauses.
Last edited:
C
c4csp
Guest
This is only achieved through Jesus Christ. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now, Jesus can save somone outside the Church, but nothing outside the Catholic Church will save. The Catholic Church(God’s Church is the ordinary means of salvation)This is why the Catholic Church is God’s Church is there is no equal. Where else is one to be forgiven of their sins? Receive the Eucharist? Jesus said to be saved, one must be baptized, one must eat His body and drink His blood. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If one truly believes in Christ, they will be in His church He founded; not in Protestant Churches or some other church based on relativism. You cannot have faith in Christ and reject His Church. If you reject His church, you reject Christ.
L
LilyM
Guest
Exactly. NA was not a single document written in a vacuum. Nor was it particularly addressed to pepple of any other faith than Catholic.harshcshah:
This is only achieved through Jesus Christ. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now, Jesus can save somone outside the Church, but nothing outside the Catholic Church will save. The Catholic Church(God’s Church is the ordinary means of salvation)This is why the Catholic Church is God’s Church is there is no equal. Where else is one to be forgiven of their sins? Receive the Eucharist? Jesus said to be saved, one must be baptized, one must eat His body and drink His blood. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If one truly believes in Christ, they will be in His church He founded; not in Protestant Churches or some other church based on relativism. You cannot have faith in Christ and reject His Church. If you reject His church, you reject Christ.
That being the case, there was probably a certain amount of assumed background knowledge.
I wonder if it is simply a case of how it was translated into English? Are there any Latinists around who.can tell us if a similar ambiguity exists in the Latin?
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
You appear not to be talking about Nostra Aetate itself, but about the English translation of the original Latin. I do not know enough Latin to say whether or not your point is valid, but currently it is not aimed at the original, merely a translation. A different translation would not change the original text.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
The biggest problem with the conciliar documents is that they were all written ambiguously. This has left things open to interpretation and many heterodox positions being taken and promoted as the teaching of the council which may or may not be the case. Much of Vatican II can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, albeit with some mental gymnastics when having to argue against the plain sense of what is written. A truly phenomenal and scholarly approach to Vatican II is Iota Unum by Romano Amerio. It is objectively written without bias and heavily sourced. It has no agenda and only reports what happened before during and after Vatican II, who did and said what, who taught what, and what the effect was. I am half way through and have learned so much I never knew before. I cannot recommend it enough.
O
otjm
Guest
To which I would add, the relationship between the Church officially, the Church unofficially (that is, on the more local level) and the Jews throughout a significant part of the history of the Church. Anti-Semitism was most certainly not an unknown issue; and Cardianal Bea gave a thorough report, including what might be the cause of causes of the issue, and a theological exposition on the death of Christ and the guilt, or lack of guilt, and/or the degree of guilt of the Jewish people then (and by implication, now), and the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem and the issue of deicide.
Coupled with that were interventions by by cardinals, bishop and patriarchs working in the East hwo were concerned that it be made very clear that the document not be perceived by others as political, but rather an exclusively religious one. Their interventions and the give and take concerning the document lead to the revisions of the document which was finally voted on. It passed 2,221 in favor and 88 opposed.
The revision gave us the document, starting with general observations, then a very short bit about Buddhism and Hinduism, then Islam to a greater extent, then the Jews at even greater length, because of their singular destiny in the plan of salvation.
If one reads the entire document, rather than drawing out several phrases, then one whould be able to see that the exceedingly brief mention of Buddhism and Hinduism is not a statement of approval of how they work, but a thumbnail sketch of briefest statement of how they approach religious thought. Taking those two statements out of context allows one top wander down a path of “Waht did the Church mean”?. Putting them back into context should answer that.
Keep in mind what was not treated even by mention: Brahmanism, Vedaism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism.
Understand also that originally, a section of the Jews was to be included in the document on ecumenism, which was eventually rejected; and from the issue on missions came the creation of the Secretariat For Non-Christian Religions,
From all of that, the exceedingly brief mention of how the two religions worked on the question of a moral life and the meaning of some form of deity (Hinduism) should resolve questions and doubts as to the meaning of the phrases.
O
otjm
Guest
Nope. You have it backwards. "It is true that Buddhism teaches a way to perfection. It is not true from that statement that what Buddhism teaches achieves perfection; it is just a simple statement, as Buddhism and Hinduism, or all the other main religions of the world, are two of the larger, followed by Islam, and Judaism.
Nothing in the document and nothing in the history of how the document came about, nor anything since then in Catholic teaching concerning Buddhism says that what they do is right, correct, theologically sound, or related to Christ or Christianity. It is just a passing reference to what Buddhists believe about their religion and practice.
The ambiguity is in the mind of the reader, not in the document.
O
otjm
Guest
To which I would add, the relationship between the Church officially, the Church unofficially (that is, on the more local level) and the Jews throughout a significant part of the history of the Church. Anti-Semitism was most certainly not an unknown issue; and Cardianal Bea gave a thorough report, including what might be the cause of causes of the issue, and a theological exposition on the death of Christ and the guilt, or lack of guilt, and/or the degree of guilt of the Jewish people then (and by implication, now), and the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem and the issue of decide.
Coupled with that were interventions by by cardinals, bishop and patriarchs working in the East who were concerned that it be made very clear that the document not be perceived by others as political, but rather an exclusively religious one. Their interventions and the give and take concerning the document lead to the revisions of the document which was finally voted on. It passed 2,221 in favor and 88 opposed.
The revision gave us the document, starting with general observations, then a very short bit about Buddhism and Hinduism, then Islam to a greater extent, then the Jews at even greater length, because of their singular destiny in the plan of salvation.
- Status