Are you telling me that a Muslim person who, since their childhood, has only been exposed to Islam and has never been evangelized or catechized in anything Christian should be held liable for something that has not yet been revealed to them?Yes they were. They could not be held liable for something that hadn’t been revealed yet, however. Now they are because they, like the rest of humanity must obey the gospel of Christ.
It is my understanding that not all protestants adhere to the doctrine of the Real Presence. But to accuse them of denying Jesus Christ…is…well…triumphalistic and uncharitable.Is a person who beholds Our Lord in the Eucharist and says ‘this is common bread and wine’ not denying the Son?
I would say that this position would contradict Scripture.Are you telling me that a Muslim person who has only been exposed to Islam since their childhood and has never been evagelized or catechized in anything Christian should be held liable for something that has not yet been revealed to them?
Yes, the analogy holds because of this. The Church has considered the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian faith for 2000 years. If one rejects the source and summit of the Christian faith can they still be called Christians?But you do see the analogy, yes?
It’s like someone taking this analogy:
Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe :: earring
and saying: that analogy is false because a Christmas tree does not have flesh. Earlobes do.
That would be :whacky:, no?
Is this what Nostrate Aetate is saying? Is this encyclical only speaking to muslims or jews who somehow have never been exposed to Christianity in their lives?Are you telling me that a Muslim person who has only been exposed to Islam since their childhood and has never been evagelized or catechized in anything Christian should be held liable for something that has not yet been revealed to them?
So you are saying that protestants are not Christians?If one rejects the source and summit of the Christian faith can they still be called Christians?
Not really, no…for a couple of reasons. Chiefly because, as Mickey noted, many Protestants accept it. I’m sympathetic to it, at least in some sense.But you do see the analogy, yes?
It’s like someone taking this analogy:
Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe :: earring
and saying: that analogy is false because a Christmas tree does not have flesh. Earlobes do.
That would be :whacky:, no?
Steve, there’s not a single Muslim alive who does not know the Trinity or that Christians proclaim the divinity of Christ. The Quran explicitly mentions and denies it!Are you telling me that a Muslim person who, since their childhood, has only been exposed to Islam and has never been evangelized or catechized in anything Christian should be held liable for something that has not yet been revealed to them?
But no one is saying that. We are just saying that the same principle applies outside of Protestantism. You cannot say that Muslims and Jews worship a false God. They may very well have a false understanding of God, just as a Protestant might have a false understanding of the Eucharist, but we still call them Christian.It is my understanding that not all protestants adhere to the doctrine of the Real Presence. But to accuse them of denying Jesus Christ…is…well…triumphalistic and uncharitable.
They deny their understanding of him. There may be some who do actually grasp the Christian understanding and still reject him. To those I would say better get your asbestos suit ready. As Catholics, we do believe in the principle of invincible ignorance. We know that God desires that all be saved and that, in his mercy, if there is any way to save someone they will be saved. Only God knows the person’s heart and what they would have done had they heard the Gospel.The muslims and jews outright deny Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that to your face.
Then what you are saying is if they don’t understand God as you understand God, then they do not worship the same God? So the Catholics have a different God from the Baptist who have a different God from Jehovah Witness, who have a different God from the Jews, who have a different God from the Muslims?Is this what Nostrate Aetate is saying? Is this encyclical only speaking to muslims or jews who somehow have never been exposed to Christianity in their lives?
Sorry - I thought you were Latin Rite.I do not submit to the Pope and I am not bound by the Pope’s infallible statements. By the way…is Nostrae Aetate considered to be an infallible encyclical?
Of course not, that’s the whole point. See Post #40.So you are saying that protestants are not Christians?
Yes, and some Protestants will outright deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They will tell you that to your face as well.It is my understanding that not all protestants adhere to the doctrine of the Real Presence. But to accuse them of denying Jesus Christ…is…well…triumphalistic and uncharitable.
The muslims and jews outright deny Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that to your face.
Yes I can. They deny that Jesus Christ is God the Son.You cannot say that Muslims and Jews worship a false God.
Is that what you are saying? It is invincible ignorance? Is that what Nostrae Aetate is saying? It is invincible ignorance?As Catholics, we do believe in the principle of invincible ignorance.
No. This is what I am confirming…I will post it again.Then what you are saying is if they don’t understand God as you understand God, then they do not worship the same God?
But if it is not a papal infallible statement…you should not have to submit to it. I know many Catholic who do not.Nostrae Aetate is Church teaching, and though not declared infallible we still have to submit to it, because it is based on the Tradition of the Church .
If one follows the paradigm that is being presented by some on this thread, then to be consistent the answer would be a resounding NO!If one rejects the source and summit of the Christian faith can they still be called Christians?
No, Protestants who deny the real presence do NOT have a different understanding of God. Do ANY of the creeds of the faith mention the eucharist as being essential to the nature of God and Who He is? The Nicene? Chalcedonian? Athanasian? Do you believe the Athanasian when it says those who deny its articles cannot be saved?But no one is saying that. We are just saying that the same principle applies outside of Protestantism. You cannot say that Muslims and Jews worship a false God. They may very well have a false understanding of God, just as a Protestant might have a false understanding of the Eucharist, but we still call them Christian.
Again Steve, they are not ignorant. They specifically reject that God became incarnate in Christ. Every last one of them.They deny their understanding of him. There may be some who do actually grasp the Christian understanding and still reject him. To those I would say better get your asbestos suit ready. As Catholics, we do believe in the principle of invincible ignorance. We know that God desires that all be saved and that, in his mercy, if there is any way to save someone they will be saved. Only God knows the person’s heart and what they would have done had they heard the Gospel.
This is an incorrect explication of Catholic teaching.But if it is not a papal infallible statement…you should not have to submit to it. I know many Catholic who do not.