And therefore, since this Buddhist is nice, you are saying that she is right?
Even among a certain religion the members aren’t united on one front so that’s why.
Maybe it is. What the hell do I know. :man_shrugging:t3:
No. It is not true.
Just as Catholics were rightfully intolerant of non-Catholics attacking the holiness of Mother Theresa around the time of her passing, so too any urge to attack the holiness of one that is highly revered within another religion, should be resisted. It’s not slightly out of bounds, it’s way out of bounds. If you don’t appreciate the press’s unsympathetic treatment of Mother Theresa or JP2 at the time of their deaths, and you would demand a certain amount of respect from folks writing about them, the same goes for the Dalai Lama. We achieve nothing attacking the holiness of other religious leaders. In fact, it makes us look small.
Uh-huh, and we regularly commune and talk to people who are dead. From our perspective, saints and angels are alive in heaven and we have a whole system built up around it and a theology that we call the “communion of saints.” And it’s wonderful and makes a lot of sense to those of us who are Catholic. But to non-Catholics, it’s borderline kooky and bizarre—they think that we believe we can talk to dead people and these people can actually hear us and assist us. Makes sense to us! Makes zero sense to those outside. Again, let’s be mindful of proper boundaries and perspective, please.
Thanks for jumping in, but my OP explicitly mentioned only religions that have exhibited staying-power (the biggies), I was curious whether the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions need to stand together in the face of rising secularism and anti-religious sentiment.
Hi Michael, I kind of have two answers to that question. First, strength in numbers and theologies against the rising threat of atheism/secularism. I want to hear Muslim arguments against atheism just like I want to hear Buddhists advise the world against anti-spiritual sentiment. I see no good reason why Christians should carry this apologetical burden alone.
Haha, well tell me how you really feel!!
I agree that there are some beneficial aspects to how others may practice their faith or perhaps how other religions teach or instruct their faithful. For example, one can freely acknowledge that other religions may place a strong emphasis on being kind and helping others and as Catholics we would do well to emulate this in our daily lives.
I don’t think I find it as a credible way to infer that simply because Jesus didn’t openly refute these religions by name, that it somehow gives them a claim of legitimacy.
That is absolutely incorrect. Simply living a “holy life” doesn’t mean that one can enter the Kingdom of God. And unfortunately this poorly written/grossly misunderstood verse of Lumen Gentium, is one of the reasons for it.
Fair enough. I probably agree with you here, but I was responding your comment when you said, “The other religions are not salvific and their ultimate effectiveness in terms of leading souls to heaven is zero, according to Jesus.” Your statement here isn’t clearly true, as far as I can tell. Since we can both agree that Jesus was silent on the Eastern religions that predated his Incarnation, I don’t think you can quite say “according to Jesus.”
Ok, well I would simply invite you to read the entire section 16 of LG. It’s not a verse, it’s a lengthy paragraph where the church concedes the possible salvation of those outside its confines—even goes so far as to say that following one’s conscience alone can do the trick! That’s inclusive language, if I’ve ever heard it!
I think we need to prayerfully examine the problems that arise when we often share a common lexicon of words but use them with distinct theological implications. In particular, holiness often has a very specific theological meaning that is particular to the religious community by whom it is used.
I think there’s room for thoughtful and legitimate theological discussion (whether it arises in agreement or disagreement), but I do agree that there’s little to be gained from vociferous and mean-spirited denunciation of figures who are revered or holy to another religious community.
I think this is a particular strength of Catholicism: the ability to be a tangible sacramental-like and Trinitarian display of holiness without intellectually brute-forcing one’s detractors into agreement.
After nearly 13 years on CAF, I have to say that some Catholics can be more than a little forceful, perhaps not brutally-so but forceful, nevertheless!
This is true, but I do not think it means what you say. The important statement from LG 16 is “Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part…” In context, this refers to the various elements described in 15 & 16, like Sacred Scripture for other Christians, etc. Scripture is a help given to the Catholic church, but someone outside may come to salvation by devotion to it. If someone would be more likely to further his salvation by remaining Lutheran and continuing their devotion to Scripture, their attachment to the Church’s “helps” may be more important than their enrollment in the Catholic church.
You think? Maybe… In context above, I was merely making the point that even non-Catholics can recognize the holiness of, say, a Mother Teresa, just as one could assess the Dalai Lama as holy. Holy is not even a concept confined to religious folks, I wouldn’t say. A broad, universal definition would, I think, include elements of consistent equanimity and compassion spread over the course of a lifetime. Perhaps I’m too humanist in my approach, but I think even a Plato an Aristotle or a Kant could use the word holy in a commonly accepted way. A way that I wouldn’t object to.
Ok, now I’m having feelings of jealousy. Not very holy of me. I want to attend a Bible study like that!
