If I said this would you think I violated the 1st commandment?

[RosaryCrusader]

Sirach,

It’s actually a very simple concept. I’ll pose a series of questions on some of the larger non-Christian faiths out there, starting w/ Hindus: Please answer truthfully.

1. Do Catholics worship Shiva?
2. Do Shiva-worshipping hindus worship the Blessed Trinity?
3. Do Catholics and hindus worship the same God(s)?

 

[Sirach2]

RosaryCrusader:

Sirach, you have not stated anything even remotely saying we all worship the same God.

And you are God who knows how anyone whomsoever worships Him? Nostra Aetate is a Council document, voted upon, and ratified by the Pope, and you are picking it to pieces with your private interpretation of what it means. I don’t remember seeing your name on the roster for having deliberated in the wording of this teaching of the Church. Therefore, I ask myself, should I believe YOU, or my Church?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Catholic and Modernist notions of dogma compared
The tradition of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, considers dogmas as in part supernatural and mysterious, proposed to our faith by a Divinely instituted authority on the ground that they are part of the general revelation which the Apostles preached in the name of Jesus Christ. This faith is an act of the intellect made under the sway of the will. By it we hold firmly what God has revealed and what the Church proposes to us to believe.

Comparing these notions, the Catholic and the modernist, we shall see that modernism alters the source, the manner of promulgation, the object, the stability, and the truth of dogma. For the modernist, the only and the necessary source is the private consciousness.

It appears to me that the description of modernist, one whose source is private consciousness, applies rather well to your dismissal of Church interpretation of her documents.

From Mirari Vos that you cited, and from which you have done “selective reading” to make it say what you want it to say. Did you notice this wording?
**The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights are trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new, monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. **
You have publicly waged war on this forum against the USCCB, determined to discredit them, without so much as an effort to learn why the prayer was composed, or the rationale behind it. This surely wears the color of disobedience and disrespect to me, not to mention detraction, without privately investigating beforehand. I have had enough of this spectacle and am leaving the thread. I learned long ago that you are anti Vatican II and abhor the concept of ecumenism. To quote you, *Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. *
7. instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church.”

 

[Timothysis]

How does the Church “embrace” invincible ignorance? And what do you mean by “embrace?” The Church’s mission is to spread the Gospel and proclaim the Truth - not “embrace” invincible ignorance.

Perhaps I should have said “accepts?” In any event, it is only an excuse for you to be obtuse and argumentative over a matter that you have been shown to be mistaken and will not concede to.

*How are prayers of the faithful at a Catholic Mass saying everyone on the face of the planet is worshipping the same God converting anyone at all?
*

I have never read that the Church regards everyone on the face of the planet as worshipping the same God. The Church recognizes and acknowledges those elements of any religion that are contained in the Truth of the Catholic faith. As far as that goes, the Church also “accepts” the notion that some are invincibly ignorant of the Truth because of matters that may be societal or intellectual. Even Pope St. Pius X recognized this fact. Conversion is of two dimensions, of the heart and the intellect. You cannot convert someone as simply as teaching them that 2+2=4. So I will ask you; how do we go about converting the billions of people on planet Earth who are ignorant of the Truth of the Catholic Faith?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

And you are God who knows how anyone whomsoever worships Him? Nostra Aetate is a Council document, voted upon, and ratified by the Pope, and you are picking it to pieces with your private interpretation of what it means.

You’re the one who keeps quoting from NA at length and telling everyone here that it says Catholics and all non-Christians worship the same God. All I’ve asked is for you to show where it says that. So far what you’ve quoted says nothing other than there may be elements of truth in other religions - so what? Where does it say we worship the same God? It doesn’t. And as hard as you’d like to try you’ll never find anything even remotely saying such in any Church document.

[/INDENT]You have publicly waged war on this forum against the USCCB, determined to discredit them, without so much as an effort to learn why the prayer was composed, or the rationale behind it. This surely wears the color of disobedience and disrespect to me, not to mention detraction, without privately investigating beforehand.

As I stated earlier I have waged war only with error and I don’t care where that comes from. If my Bishop burns incense to a golden hamster - I’m going to tell him he’s wrong. That’s charity - not disobedience. I don’t need to know why the prayers of the faithful were written (it’s actually written on the document if you haven’t read it) - that’s irrelevant. The fact is it’s heretical at worse and scandalous at best.

Now, please, answer the following questions for the sake of publicly clarifying your position. Any honest Catholic should have no problems answering these.

1. Do Catholics worship Shiva?
2. Do Shiva-worshipping hindus worship the Blessed Trinity?
3. Do Catholics and hindus worship the same God(s)?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Perhaps I should have said “accepts?” In any event, it is only an excuse for you to be obtuse and argumentative over a matter that you have been shown to be mistaken and will not concede to.

You need to read what the Church actually teaches about invincible ignorance & the remission of sins. Invincible ignorance neither condemns nor saves. Nor is their remission of sins outside of the Catholic Church.

I have never read that the Church regards everyone on the face of the planet as worshipping the same God.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

You cannot convert someone as simply as teaching them that 2+2=4. So I will ask you; how do we go about converting the billions of people on planet Earth who are ignorant of the Truth of the Catholic Faith?

This thread wasn’t about how to convert people. It’s about the prayers of the faithful at a Catholic Mass expressing religious indifference. But just for the sake of giving you an answer I’ll say that faith comes through hearing. People have to hear the Gospel in order to receive it. So in a sense teaching them 2+2=4 (to use your example) does have value. Of course living the Gospel and providing good example is another way people are exposed to the Gospel - although it’s not technically ‘hearing’ the Good News - it may plant that seed which will later bloom into Faith upon hearing.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I’m reposting this message from page one only worded w/o the ending incendiary remark found in the original:

The quotes in the first post were actually reworded but from the USCCB’s suggested prayers of the faithful for the anniversary of the September 11 attacks as reported on another forum.

usccb.org/seia/document_2.pdf
*
For our brothers and sisters of different faiths, Christian and non Christian, that we demonstrate respect and love for one another since we believe in the same God who made us all and placed us together on earth, We pray to the Lord.

For those who believe differently about God than we do, that we respect their beliefs and practices as we would want them to respect ours, We pray to the Lord.

For all who follow Christ and use the name Christian, that we show repect for the beliefs, practices and writings of those of different faiths as we should want them to have respect for ours, We pray to the Lord.*

There’s a few points to make:

1. We don’t believe in the same ‘god’ as non-Christians. We don’t believe in false deities which the Bible calls devils. Nor do non-Christians believe in Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Trinity.
2. We don’t esteem or respect false religions. We respect other human beings who may belong to these false religions but we do not esteem the religion itself; it’s beliefs, practices or writings.

 

[Sirach2]

Although I had withdrawn from this thread, Michele Arnold had a timely, and I believe providential reply in AAA yesterday, but I did not see it until today. She offered a link to V-2’s document Dignitatis Humanae. What a beautiful document! I believe it will help us better understand the rationale behind the Bishops’ prayer, that we “respect” the beliefs of others.

1. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously.

It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons [as did the USCCB] in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow.

At the same time, however, they [apostles] showed respect for those of weaker stuff, even though they were in error, and thus they made it plain that “each one of us is to render to God an account of himself” (Romans 14:12) and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience.

They followed the example of the gentleness and respectfulness of Christ and they preached the word of God in the full confidence that there was resident in this word itself a divine power able to destroy all the forces arrayed against God and bring men to faith in Christ and to His service.
[This is not *religious indifferentism

, but reliance on the Holy Spirit and divine power to evangelize those of other beliefs.]

In spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. [notably the Hindus, following Mother Teresa‘s holy example toward these people] Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one’s right and a violation of the right of others.

But Jesus Himself, noting that the cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Sirach,

Your quote has nothing at all to do with respecting other religions. It says we respect people of other faiths among other things. Look at your underlined portions with my comments in red.

1. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. What is the “it” referring to? The right of man to religious freedom (according to V2) - it’s not referring to respecting false religions.

It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showedsee below toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessonsBoth references here are still talking about the alleged “right of man to religious freedom” - not respecting the beliefs, practices and writings of non-Christian religions. [as did the USCCB] in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow.

At the same time, however, they [apostles] showed respect for those of weaker stuff, **This is the closest one you have - unfortunately the keyword here is “THOSE” which is a pronoun (referring to people) - not the false religion itself. Myself and others have said this multiple times now. We do respect PEOPLE of false religions - but not their false religion. Kind of like hating the sin but loving the sinner.**even though they were in error, and thus they made it plain that “each one of us is to render to God an account of himself” (Romans 14:12) and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience.

They followed the example of the gentleness and respectfulness of Christ**Well, at least you’re good at finding instances of the word “respect” - I give you credit for that. But again, there is no reference here to respecting false religions. ** and they preached the word of God in the full confidence that there was resident in this word itself a divine power able to destroy all the forces arrayed against God and bring men to faith in Christ and to His service.
[This is not religious indifferentism, but reliance on the Holy Spirit and divine power to evangelize those of other beliefs.]

In spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people Not sure why you underlined this part?. [notably the Hindus, following Mother Teresa‘s holy example toward these people] Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one’s right and a violation of the right of others.

But Jesus Himself, noting that the cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.This last one had me stumped. By underlining this were you implying that since the wheat and the cockle are allowed to grow together that somehow that proves we should respect false religions or that somehow everyone worships the same God they just don’t know it? The cockle are the wicked; the reprobate. The Cockle are those who, at the end of time, will be cast into the fires of hell. We don’t want the cockle to remain such - we want wheat, like Christ does.

As far as respecting the people of false religions as opposed to respecting their beliefs, practices, and writings it is exactly like the saying: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

We hate the false religion, but love the person who practices it.

Now, please, answer the following questions for the sake of publicly clarifying your position. Any Catholic should have no problems answering these. Your continuing to avoid answering them leaves a very bad impression.

1. Do Catholics worship Shiva?
2. Do Shiva-worshipping hindus worship the Blessed Trinity?
3. Do Catholics and hindus worship the same God(s)?

 

[At_Trent]

And you are God who knows how anyone whomsoever worships Him?

You are sidestepping Sirach, ever inching towards denial. Why won’t you answer simple questions with yes or no ?

 

[Genesis315]

1. Do Catholics worship Shiva?
2. Do Shiva-worshipping hindus worship the Blessed Trinity?
3. Do Catholics and hindus worship the same God(s)?

I’m not sure what the essence of the being the Hindus call Shiva is.

If it has a contingent essence, then the answer is no for all three questions.

If it is the one being with a non-contingent essence (actuality without potentiality), existing necessarily (ie aesity: it’s essence is existence), on which all other being has its source and necessarily depends, then the answer is yes to number 1; yes, but only through appropriation and not direct knowledge of the Persons for number 2; and only in respect to what they call “Shiva” for number 3.

Again though, I’m not sure if the former or the latter is the case.

 

[At_Trent]

Good point, Timothy. ** Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis Christi that man must be free to embrace the faith. It is timely for us to remember and reflect on his words.**

Total agreement with H.H. One must recognize what the Church has always taught though. EENS is what it is, and is not subject to re-interpretation in the haphazard manner in which it has been.

Unfortunately, some are all too willing to air their dissidence on the internet and spread further diivision such as this thread has witnessed, rather than quietly take the matter to prayer for evangelization with a view toward unity.

What caused the division you speak of ? RC isn’t dissident. Far from it.

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

• Pope St. Felix III

You can disagree if you like, but RC hasn’t presented one iota of false interpretation concerning EENS and ecumenism. False ecumenism is what it is. Souls are at stake.

Will God deny one eternal life because he fails to listen to RC ? No, I would not think so, because I don’t think He would hold the flock responsible for what they are fed from the pulpit. The danger, imo, is when one refutes the truth and defends the errors. Those are the ones who would be better off retreating in prayer.

Don’t forget, there are clergy in the Church who see eye to eye with RC on this matter. Forget me and other laity. Doctrine and Dogma are what they are.

 

[Sirach2]

Dignitatis Humanae:

At the same time, however, they [apostles] showed respect for those of weaker stuff, even though they were in error, and thus they made it plain that “each one of us is to render to God an account of himself” (Romans 14:12) and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience.

RosaryCrusader:

This is the closest one you have - unfortunately the keyword here is “THOSE” which is a pronoun (referring to people) - not the false religion itself.

Note the blue highlight above.

Apparently you did not read the Council Document, the entirety of which teaches respect for the beliefs, practices, religions, faiths of others, and their God-given freedom to practice it. Rather than red-line the Church’s doccument as you have done, it would benefit you, as I suggested, to contact the USCCB, who are exceedingly more knowledgable in interpreting the Church’s documents than you.

The Bishops could easily have worded the petition differently, but they embodied the teaching of the Church. Therefore, I do not owe you any explanation, for it is the Church Herself that you have issues with.
For those who believe differently about God than we do, that we respect their beliefs and practices as we would want them to respect ours, We pray to the Lord.

“Those” would include all of humanity, including “those” who are in false religions. We have no carte blanche to exclude anyone, for outside of Catholicism, ALL religions or faiths could be considered false in some aspect or another.

This is my final comment. I am leaving the thread.

 

[At_Trent]

This is my final comment. I am leaving the thread.

Probably best because your arguments are full of holes.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Note the blue highlight above.

Apparently you did not read the Council Document

I’ve read it.

, the entirety of which teaches respect for the beliefs, practices, religions, faiths of others, and their God-given freedom to practice it.

It doesn’t say we respect false religions. It acknowledges that elements of truth may be found in false religions and the Church does not reject truth. That’s a far cry from saying we believe in the same God and respect the false religion itself. I’ve asked repeatedly where the council states Catholics and all non-Christians believe in and worship the same God and that we should respect the beliefs, practices and writings of false religions. You haven’t provided a single quote. One does not exist. You are at odds with what the Church actually teaches and have tried to twist Church documents to promote your own beliefs.

Rather than red-line the Church’s doccument as you have done

I didn’t red line a Church document. I red lined the parts of a Church document which you emphasized (by underlining) to promote your erroneous belief.

it would benefit you, as I suggested, to contact the USCCB, who are exceedingly more knowledgable in interpreting the Church’s documents than you.

You missed the point of my earlier post in questioning the need to write the USCCB to clarify anything. When someone says the sky is red - there is no need to ask them “is the sky red?” It’s obvious. It’s what they wrote. They didn’t provide any qualifications to their statement. As it is there is no need for me to write and ask the USCCB if Catholics and non-Catholics believe in the same God(s) because that is what they wrote verbatim. It’s a redundant (not to mention asinine) question to ask someone ‘did you say what you just said?’ especially when the matter is in print and there is no need to inquire if they really said what they just wrote. You can read it multiple times and rub your eyes - the USCCB published what they published. And as I said earlier: At best it’s scandalous - at worse it’s heretical. They didn’t give any qualifications or distinctions to their statement.

The Bishops could easily have worded the petition differently, but they embodied the teaching of the Church. Therefore, I do not owe you any explanation, for it is the Church Herself that you have issues with.

I do not have issues with the spotless Bride of Christ - Holy Mother Church. I do have issues with people such as yourself trying to impose their beliefs upon everyone else and erroneously trying to interpret Church documents as to further their own personal viewpoints. I also have issues with those who think the USSCB is blessed with the charism of infallibility.

For those who believe differently about God than we do, that we respect their beliefs and practices as we would want them to respect ours, We pray to the Lord.

“Those” would include all of humanity, including “those” who are in false religions. We have no carte blanche to exclude anyone, for outside of Catholicism, ALL religions or faiths could be considered false in some aspect or another.

I’m sorry you esteem satanism, pagan idols, and wiccan rituals. I’m sorry you esteem the Satanic Bible, wiccan spell books, and other books of superstition. I don’t esteem them at all. I HATE them - as does God. They’re abominable to Him. I do love the people who practice false religions since God does as well and wants them to repent and come to knowlege of the Truth and be saved. I draw the necessary distinction between loving the person who practices the false religion and loving the false religion itself. The former; yes, The latter; no. You’ve chosen both which is despicable. It’s completely wicked to love false religions - to love that which is opposed to Christ - to love both falsehood and truth.

"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. II Cor. 6: 14-18.

This is my final comment. I am leaving the thread.

Thank you. Hopefully this time you mean it.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I’m not sure what the essence of the being the Hindus call Shiva is.

If it has a contingent essence, then the answer is no for all three questions.

If it is the one being with a non-contingent essence (actuality without potentiality), existing necessarily (ie aesity: it’s essence is existence), on which all other being has its source and necessarily depends, then the answer is yes to number 1; yes, but only through appropriation and not direct knowledge of the Persons for number 2; and only in respect to what they call “Shiva” for number 3.

Again though, I’m not sure if the former or the latter is the case.

Fill in SHIVA or HINDU with the false religion or deity of your choice.