J
joshhackerspmdo
Guest
it is my understanding for something to fall under the charism of infallibility it must be defining something relating to faith or morals (not necessarily practise)
- Status
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
So how am I to interpret this from* Nostra Aetate*:? Please use your source. These religons have always been considered pagan religions yet here they are praised for some reason.
Hindus worship animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. Hindus believe in the these divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. So how can they have a “flight to God”? How exactly do they “contemplate the divine mystery”?
If I were a Hindu and I read this, I would have no reason to convert to the Catholic faith since I already have a flight to God.
Buddhism teaches nothing about God; all beings are essentially equal. They believe in the rebirth of the soul at death into the body of either a human or an animal form — reincarnation, until he acquires perfection in nirvana.
What is true and holy in these pagan religions? Holiness comes from God yet these religions reject God.
If I am a Buddhist, why convert to the true Faith when I can acquire the state of “perfect liberation” and “supreme illumination”?
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
First I don’t wish to be baited into ongoing personal debate and attacks against my level of Catholicism, or my intelligence. But I will try and answer what you posted about the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions or if you prefer Latin, Nostra Aetate. I’ll be using the same document without personal commentary. I’ll leave that up to you and other posters to figure out what it means.
"All men form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth (cf. Acts 17:26), and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all men ( cf. Wis 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom 2:6-7; I Tim 2:4
“Throughout history even to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father.”
"Thus, in Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trails of the present by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse to God in confidence and love. Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world. It proposes a way of life by which men can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help.So, too, other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in their own ways to calm the hearts of men by outlining a program of life covering doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which,although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself,(2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life.”
“The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture”
"We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than brotherly fashion, for all men are created in God’s image. Man’s relation to God the Father and man’s relation to his fellow man are so dependent on each other that the Scripture says “he who does not love,does not know God” (1 Jn 4:8
"All men form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth (cf. Acts 17:26), and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all men ( cf. Wis 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom 2:6-7; I Tim 2:4
“Throughout history even to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father.”
"Thus, in Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trails of the present by ascetical practices, profound meditation and recourse to God in confidence and love. Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world. It proposes a way of life by which men can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help.So, too, other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in their own ways to calm the hearts of men by outlining a program of life covering doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which,although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself,(2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life.”
“The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture”
"We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than brotherly fashion, for all men are created in God’s image. Man’s relation to God the Father and man’s relation to his fellow man are so dependent on each other that the Scripture says “he who does not love,does not know God” (1 Jn 4:8
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t mean this as an offense to those who participated in previous councils, so please don’t take it that way. It’s really meant to be taken at face value.
The other day I saw a post on another thread where the poster accusses Benedict XVI of being a modernist who should be condemned because he stands for everything that is against the teachings of Pius X and so forth.
After reading the citation from Benedict and the citation from Pius X I realized that maybe the problem is not that the there is a juxtaposition between older documents and newer ones, be they from popes or councils.
I believe that there are facts that we have to take into account.
Just listening to him speak today or reading his writing, one has to do a great deal of systematic estrapolation to get to the meat of the matter. This is a skill that many people have never been taught in school.
Educators talk about front-shifting, systematic search, systematic extrapolation and analysis of literary structure as tools necessary to read these kinds of writings. But how many lay people have those tools? How many were taught those tools in school?
We can’t blame it all on the documents. We also have to factor in the level of education of the speakers, the editors and even the popes themselves in cmparison to the average lay person and to their predecessors.
Just my two cents.
JR
The other day I saw a post on another thread where the poster accusses Benedict XVI of being a modernist who should be condemned because he stands for everything that is against the teachings of Pius X and so forth.
After reading the citation from Benedict and the citation from Pius X I realized that maybe the problem is not that the there is a juxtaposition between older documents and newer ones, be they from popes or councils.
I believe that there are facts that we have to take into account.
- Previous popes, bishops and theologians spoke more directly than those of today, becaue it was a way of speaking a the time. Today people tend to speak in larger pictures rather than in great details. The assumption (right or wrong) is that we live in a more educated world where people should know how to read and extrapolate the meaning of what they read.
- The Vatican II Council Fathers were a much better educated breed of theologians and bishops. By that time the Church had already imposed the law that all bishops and theologians must be doctors. As I stopped to consider this I laughed to myself. There are times when I leave my doctor’s office wondering what he was talking about. I have a very good education, just not in medicine. When he starts with the medical jargon he loses me. There is a lot of philosophical and theological jargon in the documents of Vatican II and assummptions that the reader is on the same wavelength as the editor.
- Editor takes me to my third point. The documents are edited. There were thousands of discussions and meetings. Someone has to collect all those conversations and trasncribe them. Then they had to be edited. The editors were usually scholars. What they find clear as water, may sound as murky as mud to the non theological scholar. A good example of this is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s very theological and very scholastic. It’s almost not user friendly. The council documents are really not user friendly either. When I went to grad school we had to study them. I found a commentary was always a handy thing to have.
- Finally, as popes and bishops become more highly educated not only in theology and philosophy, but also in other disciplines such as science, math, social science etc, they are often going to speak in a language that is actually truthful, but that the common man does not speak. In part we owe this to good old American Education. We are not great readers in the USA. Many of us don’t even undersand our own Constitution without the assistance of a lawyer or a social studies teacher.
Just listening to him speak today or reading his writing, one has to do a great deal of systematic estrapolation to get to the meat of the matter. This is a skill that many people have never been taught in school.
Educators talk about front-shifting, systematic search, systematic extrapolation and analysis of literary structure as tools necessary to read these kinds of writings. But how many lay people have those tools? How many were taught those tools in school?
We can’t blame it all on the documents. We also have to factor in the level of education of the speakers, the editors and even the popes themselves in cmparison to the average lay person and to their predecessors.
Just my two cents.
JR
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Very true.I don’t mean this as an offense to those who participated in previous councils, so please don’t take it that way. It’s really meant to be taken at face value.
The other day I saw a post on another thread where the poster accusses Benedict XVI of being a modernist who should be condemned because he stands for everything that is against the teachings of Pius X and so forth.
After reading the citation from Benedict and the citation from Pius X I realized that maybe the problem is not that the there is a juxtaposition between older documents and newer ones, be they from popes or councils.
I believe that there are facts that we have to take into account.
Let us keep in mind that popes and bishops of ages ago did not have the level of education and the mastery of rhetoric and philosophy that a Joeseph Ratzinger had when he served as a theological consultant at Vatican II.
- Previous popes, bishops and theologians spoke more directly than those of today, becaue it was a way of speaking a the time. Today people tend to speak in larger pictures rather than in great details. The assumption (right or wrong) is that we live in a more educated world where people should know how to read and extrapolate the meaning of what they read.
- The Vatican II Council Fathers were a much better educated breed of theologians and bishops. By that time the Church had already imposed the law that all bishops and theologians must be doctors. As I stopped to consider this I laughed to myself. There are times when I leave my doctor’s office wondering what he was talking about. I have a very good education, just not in medicine. When he starts with the medical jargon he loses me. There is a lot of philosophical and theological jargon in the documents of Vatican II and assummptions that the reader is on the same wavelength as the editor.
- Editor takes me to my third point. The documents are edited. There were thousands of discussions and meetings. Someone has to collect all those conversations and trasncribe them. Then they had to be edited. The editors were usually scholars. What they find clear as water, may sound as murky as mud to the non theological scholar. A good example of this is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s very theological and very scholastic. It’s almost not user friendly. The council documents are really not user friendly either. When I went to grad school we had to study them. I found a commentary was always a handy thing to have.
- Finally, as popes and bishops become more highly educated not only in theology and philosophy, but also in other disciplines such as science, math, social science etc, they are often going to speak in a language that is actually truthful, but that the common man does not speak. In part we owe this to good old American Education. We are not great readers in the USA. Many of us don’t even undersand our own Constitution without the assistance of a lawyer or a social studies teacher.
Just listening to him speak today or reading his writing, one has to do a great deal of systematic estrapolation to get to the meat of the matter. This is a skill that many people have never been taught in school.
Educators talk about front-shifting, systematic search, systematic extrapolation and analysis of literary structure as tools necessary to read these kinds of writings. But how many lay people have those tools? How many were taught those tools in school?
We can’t blame it all on the documents. We also have to factor in the level of education of the speakers, the editors and even the popes themselves in cmparison to the average lay person and to their predecessors.
Just my two cents.
JR
I end up lost trying to understand it!
J
JReducation
Guest
Refuge, your question is very good, because it does confuse many people. What is happening in documents like Nostra Aetate and Ut Unum Sint is a recognition of what is truth and holy in other faiths. It’s not an endorsement of the particular faith.
The Church has a moral duty to be fair or just. It would be a grave injustice not to recognize any good that can be found in another faith or belief system.
What these documents do is identify those redeeming qualities found in other faiths. The idea is to lead both Catholics and non Catholics to persevere in those qualities, because they are worthy of being acknowledged.
For example, in speaking about Evangelical Protestantism the Holy Father praises their love for scripture and their faith in scripture. He does not say that their interpretation of scripture is always correct, because it’s not.
But the fact that they love the scriptures and that they refer to them as guide for their daily lives is a good thing, that must be complimented and should be immitated by all people.
Another example is when speaking about the Orthodox liturgy. The Catholic popes praise the sense of mystery and wonder with which Orthodox Christians approach liturgy. They also acknowledge that the sacraments of the Orthodox Church are valid. It would be unfair for the Catholic Church not to acknowledge this truth.
The Church must be like Christ. It must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
There is a tendency in all human beings to ignore the good that is found in others who are not one of us. That’s a weakness, not a sign of holiness.
Does this make more sense?
JR
C
Cranch
Guest
You have side-stepped Our Refuge’s point. Your examples concern our separated Christian brethren. Our Refuge is speaking about “pagan religions” and cites Hinduism and Buddhism. We should be working to convert these people and bring them to salvation, not look for supposed common ground.
J
JReducation
Guest
Reread my post again. I gave examples using other Christians, but the point was the same.
I was saying that the Church has a moral obligation to be honest and just. If there is a truth or vitue present in another faith, the Church acknowledges it. It is not an endorsement of a pagan faith. It is an endorsement of the virtue or truth that is found there.
Another way of saying it, it’s an isolated endorsement. What Pope Benedict often does is to isolate something good that he finds in other faiths or belief systems and points to them for the good of those people and of Catholics too. Virtues are good for everyone, regardless of where one finds them.
It would be unfair on the part of the Church not to acknowledge a virtue when it is present, because the religious belief is faulty.
To acknowledge the virtue or the truth found in a faulty belief system is not the same as an endorsement of the whole system.
I don’t mean this to be offensive, but just as a statement of fact. Pope Benedict is a fairly new pope. What, he’s in his third year of his pontificate, right? We’re not used to having a scholar for a Pope.
I’ve noticed that he tends to think and speak very much like a scholar. Scholars are going to identify the parts and separate them from the whole. This is what they do best. They analyze. Benedict has been a theological analyst all of his life.
When he looks at pagan religions he analyzes them. He looks at all the pieces, not only the whole thing. When he does this, he finds good things that deserve recognition and immitation by all people.
When he says that pagans work very hard to develop a contemplative life, he is looking and finding something that is good and that we should all do. We should all work hard to develop a contemplative life. He’s not endorsing paganism. He’s endorsing contemplation.
JR
JR
C
Cranch
Guest
Please provide a reference for Pope Benedict noting a particular aspect of pagan religion and announcing it worthy of “imitation by all people.”
The first thing to note is that Buddhist awareness is neither contemplation nor prayer. They say so themselves. Yet there are sincere people who wonder whether all types of contemplation, whether occidental or oriental, are not after all pretty much the same.
…A Buddhist awareness produced by human techniques and methods is radically different from our theistic contemplation. …We can hope that the individual Buddhist of good will responds to the grace of the living God, but he does not hear about this real God from his cultural milieu.
…our infused contemplation can in no way be produced by methods and techniques. It is the Lord who feeds the hungry with good things (Lk 1:53), he and no other. As St. Teresa of Avila observed, we cannot by our efforts produce the least spark of contemplative prayer. For the Buddhist the attainment of his enlightenment is entirely the result of human efforts.
…in my study of Buddhism I do not recall even once reading the word “love” used in connection with their inner awareness. On the other hand, our contemplation is a love matter before all else, a loving with our whole heart, mind, and strength, a love poured out by the Holy Spirit himself (Rom 5:5).
…the final aim of the Buddhist enterprise is the cessation of desires and suffering, a negative result or outcome, surely a dreary prospect at best. Our Christ-centered destiny, on the other hand, is to be “filled with the utter fullness of God himself”, and thus crowned with a delight that cannot be put into words (Eph 3:19; 1 Pet 1:8).
—Thomas Dubay, S.M., Prayer Primer, pp. 153–154
Given what I consider to be the truth of the foregoing, I will look to Catholic teachers—both present-day and past saints—for examples of “truth and virtue.”
Given what I consider to be the truth of the foregoing, I will look to Catholic teachers—both present-day and past saints—for examples of “truth and virtue.”
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Let me see if got this straight, now the focus has changed a little bit to pagans.
The cross that Jesus died on was pagan in origin. So does that make Jesus a pagan? Or by his death he consecrated it to Christian useage? (Christian-followers of Christ. Yes we Catholics are too)
We celebrate Easter, Christmas, All Souls Day, and other holidays which have a lot of pagan influences. Does that make us pagans?
Before we became Catholic either by infant baptism or conversion we were all pagan at one point.
Whenever, a Catholic blessing is made over a pagan object especially does it not loses it’s pagan hold and becomes consecrated and okayed to be used as a Catholic sacramental?
Jesus makes all things new!
All things were made for Jesus use.
The cross that Jesus died on was pagan in origin. So does that make Jesus a pagan? Or by his death he consecrated it to Christian useage? (Christian-followers of Christ. Yes we Catholics are too)
We celebrate Easter, Christmas, All Souls Day, and other holidays which have a lot of pagan influences. Does that make us pagans?
Before we became Catholic either by infant baptism or conversion we were all pagan at one point.
Whenever, a Catholic blessing is made over a pagan object especially does it not loses it’s pagan hold and becomes consecrated and okayed to be used as a Catholic sacramental?
Jesus makes all things new!
All things were made for Jesus use.
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
A Church document should never "confuse " anyone. Nostra Aetate clearly states that Hinduism and Buddism contain holliness. How is this possible? Holliness comes ONLY from the One True God. Please show me something “holy” in these religions that DENY the One True God.
The Church aslo has the moral duty and Divine mandate to "teach all nations and baptize them’ Nostra Aetate makes no effort to do that, In fact it praises these false religions.
.
To “persevere”? Why not abandon those false beliefs?
The Church should proclaim boldly that Evangicals DO NOT interpret scripture correctly and in fact they **have no authority **to even try to interpret scripture.
They should acknowledge the truth.
And to God what is God’s
Again the Divine mandate from Christ was to “teach all nations and to baptize them”. Nostra Aetate does just the opposite. It praises false religions and makes no effort to speak the mandate from Christ. Nostra Aetate is a perfect example of why Vatican II was a pastoral council and not infallible.
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Hi OurRefuge,
Have you read my posts #23 and #30? Just wondering that’s all.
Have you read my posts #23 and #30? Just wondering that’s all.
J
JReducation
Guest
If you look at this quote from Nostra Aetate
"Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination
…… The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. "
Even though Buddhism does not claim that this is infused contemplation, the Church looks at it and says, whether they know it or not, this is exactly what it is.
The point is not what they call it, but what the Church calls it.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Nostra Aetate was not written for non Catholics. It was written for Catholics. Therefore, the is no reason to call Catholics to conversion to Catholicism.
The document was written to help Catholics understand how God makes himself present in other faiths and communities. It is a teaching document for Catholics to help Catholics deal appropriately and charitably with other faiths.
That’s why it does not call for the conversion of non Catholics. They were not the target audience. Non Catholics are the subject of the document, the target audience is the Catholic lay man and woman who does not know that God is present in other faiths, even when these other faiths fail to recognize him. God is greater than man and nothing is impossible for him.
Whether a pagan religion recognizes him or not, this cannot stop him from making himself present and influencing them. This is the message of Nostra Aetate, for Catholics.
JR
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Hello JREducation,
Just as a point of information. On my post #23 I typed out parts of Nostra Aetate. There is reference to telling people of non-Catholic faiths about Jesus. Anyway if you find it useful, good! If not that’s okay. You have your own resources.
Just as a point of information. On my post #23 I typed out parts of Nostra Aetate. There is reference to telling people of non-Catholic faiths about Jesus. Anyway if you find it useful, good! If not that’s okay. You have your own resources.
C
Cranch
Guest
With the characteristic vagueness of Vatican II documents pointed out by the O.P., it is unclear in the text whether this is what the Church believes about Buddhism or if this is what the Church believes Buddhism teaches about itself. Confusion arises because both interpretations seem incongruous given that if the first case is meant, St. Theresa teaches contemplative prayer cannot be achieved through our own efforts, and if the second case, Buddhism does not recognize a “higher help.” I believe your conclusion regarding infused contemplation in Buddhism is speculation which goes beyond any linkage made or even implied in the text.
Influencing them to what end? Is not God Truth? Did Jesus not say “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”? If God is influencing a Hindu or Buddhist, it is with the Truth and therefore it is in a manner outside the experience of their religion (or non-religion as the case may be).
Nostra Aetate says “Indeed, she [the Catholic Church] proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.” Once upon a time, the Church saw the conversion of those outside itself as an urgent duty, with the salvation of souls hanging in the balance. Now, with everything else Nostra Aetate says, the Church seems content with some politically correct respect for the mere reflection of “a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” found in other “ways of conduct and of life.”
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
Yes. I don’t see the connection between Nostra Aetate and post # 30
The following is from post # 23. I guess this is the authors conclusion on Nostra Aetate.
Scripture also says " I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have false gods before me"
"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)
First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist"
Which is true? Nostra Aetate which praises Hinduism or Pope Leo XIII?
Pope Leo XIII AD Extremas #1
“ Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundred of thousands of Hindus **from the myths and vile superstitions **of the Brahmans to the true religion…many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstitution”
J
japhy
Guest
The Church is merely stating that Buddhism claims to teach a way to liberation or illumination, not that Buddhism is correct in its claim.
J
JReducation
Guest
Look at the last line in Nostra Aetate. "The Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.
The point that people are missing is that this document was written for Catholics.
It’s intention is to teach Catholics that there are rays of Divine truths in other faiths or philosophies, whether or not those people recognize it as such, it is irrelevant to what the Church is trying to say.
The point the Church is trying to make here is that God is present everywhere and to all men. It is not trying to peddle other faiths or be politically correct. It is trying to be theologically correct.
God is present and therefore there is hope.
The other point is that we, Catholics, must deal with other faiths as brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the same Father who loves them as much as he loves us. God does not love us more because we are Catholic.
Also very present in Nostra Aetate and Ut Unum Sint is God’s mercy. God uses every means possible to try to infuse his grace. Again, this is not a promotion of other faiths, it is a recognition of God’s mercy which we as Catholics we must be the first to acknowledge.
The purpose of Nostra Aetate and Ut Unum Sint was to teach Catholics that God loves all men and that some ray of his presence can be found in many situations. The reason the Church wants us to know this is because it wants us, Catholics, to approach people of other faith as brothers and sisters, not as antagonists or with preconceived notions against them.
If the documents had been written for people of other faiths the wording would be different. Remember when Pope Benedict spoke to non Catholics in Washington and NY. His wording was very different. He said that he had come to announce that Jesus is our Hope.
These documents are written to teach us about God and other faiths, not with the purpose of converting other faiths. That’s a separate subject in the area of ecclesiology.
It seems that we are looking for the Church to tell other faiths that they are wrong and must convert to Catholicism. But we do not like it when the Church speaks to us about how we must view other faiths and how we must treat people of other faiths and how we must see Christ’s saving work in other faiths. This upsets us.
Does it take anything away from us? I don’t think so. I think it humbles us. It teaches us not to be so cocky and to realize that God loves all men and does whatever is possible to save as many as possible.
It is good for the Church to humble us once in a while.
JR
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
Isn’t it fair to say that this statement is ambigious? The way that it is worded it is easy to read that the church accepts this teaching.
What if it said that " Mormonism teaches a way in which we can become gods in the next life. The Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in this religion"
That statement does not imply a rejection of the teaching.It implies an acceptance.
Why not say in Nostra Aetate “ In Buddhism…a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach….the supreme illumination, which the Catholic Church rejects as it is only through Jesus Christ that one may attain perfection."
I understand the need for dialogue with these religions but the mandate from Christ to teach all nations and baptize them seems to be pushed to the side when one goes out of the way to praise false beliefs.
- Status