Unpublished Nostra Aetate Documents???

[lettertotim]

Declaration on the relation of the Church to certain social organizations

In this age of ours, when men are are drawing more closely together and the bonds of friendship between different peoples are being strengthened, the Church examines with still greater care the relation which she has to certain social organizations, for she finds abundant proof that God’s grace “enlightens every man that comes into the world” (John 1:9) not only in areas of religion, but in every social area as well.

The National Organization for Women, an American organization, proposes that women be treated with greater dignity and that their freedom be respected. This is certainly to be applauded after so many years of misogyny, bigotry, suppression and other forms of injustice directed against women. The organization provides numerous services on behalf of women, especially in the area of health and politics. The quality of human life, its members tell us, ought to be enhanced through free and discreet choices, an ideal that certainly strikes a resonant chord deep within the human spirit.

The Church also has profound respect for the Ku Klux Klan, a uniquely American organization that is perhaps waning in its membership nowadays, but still contributing to the building up of the human family. Its members normally profess the Christian faith and, in fact, one of their most deeply cherished symbols is the cross of our Lord. The continued existence of this organization testifies to the relentless struggle of the human spirit to overcome the obstacles of life.

The Nazis, we recall, strove to better themselves and their way of life. They exhibited a striking resilience and passion at promoting their cause. Many of them professed the Christian faith. Others claimed to be atheists but still manifested a certain religious consciousness. The figurehead of their regime was reminiscent, in his own special way, to the Holy Pontiff, seeking as he did to lead his flock into further unity and always pointing his subjects toward a “greater good.”

The Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these organizations. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found within all secular institutions, also their social life and culture.

Concerning non-Christians cults

In this age of ours, when men are are drawing more closely together and the bonds of friendship between different peoples are being strengthened, the Church examines with still greater care the relation which she has to non-Christian religions, particularly the cults which are “not far from the kingdom” (Mk 12:34).

In the Jehovah’s Witness religion, Jesus is acknowledged to be the Son of God and worship is given to His heavenly Father. Baptism of converts is performed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is, moreover, embraced as a symbol, as is the Lord’s Supper. Absolution is sought through the confessing of ones sins to God and prayer is made for the sick. There are also ordained leaders who can take on something of the mantle of a living Magisterium. Special respect is given to their Watchtower Publications which are infused with much sacred Scripture. Great enthusiasm is also given to evangelization, in compliance with Jesus’ commission to “preach the gospel to every creature.”

The Church also has high regard for the Mormon religion. Jesus is acknowledged not only as the Son of God, but as Divine. Scripture is also piously venerated, along with other books which testify to the truth of God’s universal salvific will. Furthermore, this religion puts great emphasis on building families. Mormons seek celestial oneness.

In the Church of Scientology, man is said to have an immortal soul. Rigorous spiritual exercises are performed as devotees seek to obtain “clarity”, that is, liberation from the pains and hardships of this life, mental and physical alike. Social ethics is given special consideration. Communication skills are inculcated and learned with great advantage. Drugs and toxins are avoided.

The Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these 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.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** Baptism is, moreover, embraced as a symbol, as is the Lord’s Supper.**

**This is not true.

Among Jehovah’s False Witnesses, they have what they call a “Memorial” once a year.

They pass around bread and wine and nobody partakes, thus demonstrating that they have no life in themselves.**

 

[lettertotim]

Thanks for pointing that out, however, the post is meant to have more of an overall approach towards pointing out the damage of the Nostra Aetate. If only the Nostra Aetate had such dedicated editors to watch over what could possibly be misconstrued by the faithful.

 

[Thomas63116]

A creative satirical parody. . .

but could you help us out by explaining what portions of the actual document you consider most objectionable and/or subject to misunderstanding/misinterpretation?

It might lead to a more fruitful discussion.

 

[lettertotim]

Thanks for your reply.

Honestly, I think the whole document is what I object to, seeing how it was basically meant to teach that all religions lead to God, and ultimately salvation. I know it will always be defended by Catholics who are afraid of that being the true intention of the authors (though it shouldn’t matter since it wasn’t Ex Cathedra), but defenders-at-all-costs Catholics have to face the fact that the “evil men” (Jude 1:3-4) and the “wheat and tares” (Matt 24-30) the Bible speaks of, have to show up somewhere within the Body of Christ.

Since you asked, here are some especially troubling parts to me:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she 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.”

Jesus does not give the “fullness of religious life”, He gives salvation. The use of these words in juxtaposition with all the great things about other religions, most certainly
confuses the faithful. It’s saying “hey, you guys have so much going for you, but if you want the fullness in this life, come on over, otherwise you’re going to heaven anyway so it really doesn’t matter that much”. That’s how almost every Catholic I’ve ever known views other religions. Not having the “fullness” but their own path to God.

Also here:

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,
nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).

Serving God “in one voice shoulder to shoulder” (in heaven) is for those who will be saved through Christ, not those who have rejected Him. This paragraph basically says “Jews didn’t accept Christ as savior, it’s okay though since God holds them dear and He won’t turn them away, and one day we’ll all be one big happy family in heaven”.

Last but not least, my favorite from Lumen Gentium:

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

These words are the most damaging to come out of the II Vatican Council in my opinion.
Why even mention that the plan of salvation includes a particular group unless you mean for them to be seen as “saved” by God? If it isn’t meant to mean that, does not everyone fit into this category? Also, it says that together with the Muslims we adore the one merciful God. The Bible clearly and unmistakably says that one does not have the Father without the Son:

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (1 John 2:23)

Finally, the enormous liberty that is taken to say that one can attain salvation through other means other than explicitly accepting Christ, is just plain opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not give us an alternative path to salvation apart from Christ and therefore is a very serious indictment upon individuals who would make that kind of claim. How could anyone who truly understands what Christ has done on the cross, give this kind of loophole? Did the Twelve Disciples and countless Christians throughout the ages lose their lives for what very well might not have been as necessary as they thought it was? Invincible ignorance? Last time I checked the Church has always held the position that we are born guilty and therefore DESERVE eternal damnation without Christ as the propitiation for our sins.

Your thoughts?

 

[Badaliyyah]

Finally, the enormous liberty that is taken to say that one can attain salvation through other means other than explicitly accepting Christ, is just plain opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not give us an alternative path to salvation apart from Christ and therefore is a very serious indictment upon individuals who would make that kind of claim. How could anyone who truly understands what Christ has done on the cross, give this kind of loophole? Did the Twelve Disciples and countless Christians throughout the ages lose their lives for what very well might not have been as necessary as they thought it was? Invincible ignorance? Last time I checked the Church has always held the position that we are born guilty and therefore DESERVE eternal damnation without Christ as the propitiation for our sins.

Your thoughts?

The most obvious thought is simply that Nostra Aetate doesn’t say what you claim it says. It never says that there is any other means of salvation than Christ. In fact, the Council document Lumen Gentium explicitly says otherwise. And, if you notice, in the CCC, in which NA is quoted with regards to other religions, it places the treatment of other religions within the context of what is said about all salvation coming through Christ that is found in LG (which the CCC also quotes at great length on the topic).

salaam.

 

[lettertotim]

“It never says that there is any other means of salvation than Christ.”

You would have to totally reinvent what words mean to think this doesn’t say that.

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

What I think is very sad is that “defend-all” Catholics always think they need to defend these kinds of things instead of trying to move away from it. Do you think it’s a good idea to teach the faithful to speculate on how people can be saved outside of explicitly knowing Christ and His Church? What is there to gain? Does it make us even more desperate to reach everyone on earth with the Gospel? Just because liberal men were able to infiltrate The Church and spread false teachings does not mean The Church is somehow in error. Stop being afraid to allow MEN to be in error, and start speaking out against it instead.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Nostra Aetate merely condensed and wrote down what has been Catholic practice since Paul preached to the Athenians, that is, when Catholicism encounters a new culture/religion, it looks at it and incorporates whatever is good and holy in the religion and leaves what is not.

This, in my thinking, is the greatest strength of Catholicism (outside of the sacramental system).

The original post, while attempting (and failing) to be mildly amusing, does a great injustice to the wisdom contained in that short document.

 

[Badaliyyah]

You would have to totally reinvent what words mean to think this doesn’t say that.

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

What I think is very sad is that “defend-all” Catholics always think they need to defend these kinds of things instead of trying to move away from it. Do you think it’s a good idea to teach the faithful to speculate on how people can be saved outside of explicitly knowing Christ and His Church? What is there to gain? Does it make us even more desperate to reach everyone on earth with the Gospel? Just because liberal men were able to infiltrate The Church and spread false teachings does not mean The Church is somehow in error. Stop being afraid to allow MEN to be in error, and start speaking out against it instead.

No, you just have to read the whole document (LG and NA in this case) and know a little bit about the tradition and you see that it is pretty much the same things that Catholic have been saying for ages. NA is a very conservative document.

It would probably help if you read more of LG, for instance, than just the one little part you keep quoting. LG affirms that there is no way of salvation apart from Christ, and thus outside the Church, which is Christ’s body:

LG 14: “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

Now the passage you quote, from LG 16, which comes after LG 14 btw and should be read in light of that earlier passage, simply repeats a very long standing tradition that those who do not know the Gospel can be, nonetheless, attached to the Church in extradordinary ways. But they are still saved through the same manner as everyone else: by the power of Christ and thus within the Church (even though they do not explicitly know either).

As for the rest of LG 16, I thought this post by itsjustdave1988 gave a good explanation and placed in its historical context very well. Everything he said there seems right on target.

Once again! Vatican II never claims that there is another means of salvation other than Christ. This is true whether you are talking about LG or NA.

salaam.

 

[JMJ_coder]

That is NOT in Nostra Aetate! Not to mention historically inaccurate - NOW wasn’t started until a year after the close of the Council and the Nazi’s lost the war 17 years before the Council opened.

Don’t put words in the Church’s mouth!