Replies

As you may know, Nostra Aetate was perhaps the most controversial document of V2, a single page with only 5 paragraphs, originally intended as a statement that neither today's Jews, nor all the Jews of Jesus' day, can be held responsible for the killing of Christ.

The sections on Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, tacked on late and rather hastily, were only a couple of sentences each. The whole thing was not seen as a full theological treatment, just a plea for mutual respect as leading to cooperation and peace amongst communities.

Some were saying that since it arguably broke with previous magisterial teachings, it could not be magisterial, for logical as well as theological reasons: A cannot equal non-A.

Others said it was not ever intended as a dogmatic statement but rather as a pastoral strategy: first establish and esteem the similarities and commonalities between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible, no matter who said it. Later focus on the differences/deficiencies of the non-Christian faiths. In other words: first connect; then correct.

It finally passed the bishops' vote on the rationale that it was not a change in doctrine, but a change in demeanor.

After it passed, it was swiftly trumpeted by its partisans as, yup, a wonderful overturning of nineteen centuries of doctrine.

A microcosm of the council, alas, and it remains controversial. And bait-and-switch may still be the modus operandi of Tio_Hagan_ Lio to this day.

That's why so many of us think he's a disaster.

I haven't really revisited this issue since I was a teenager. The most recent thing I read on it was http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/nostra-aetate-love-muslims-how-do-i-do-that

Some were saying that since it arguably broke with previous magisterial teachings, it could not be magisterial, for logical as well as theological reasons: A cannot equal non-A.

"Some" - those of the traditionalist sects - and likewise EENS and a host of other V2-class teachings.

Others said it was not ever intended as a dogmatic statement but rather as a pastoral strategy:

"Others" those who engage in the hapless damage control task of trying to reconcile conflicting aspects of modern teaching with historical teaching.

All of which illustrates that while Caths broadly attack Bible Christians for making Scripture subject to interpretation rather than submitting to their church, what their own church teaches - by word or deed - can be substantially subject to variant interpretations.

It finally passed the bishops' vote on the rationale that it was not a change in doctrine, but a change in demeanor.

The same (if not fully sane) bishops who elected your chief interpreter which has only furthered the divisiveness.

And the American bishops really affirm Islam, as shown you.

After it passed, it was swiftly trumpeted by its partisans as, yup, a wonderful overturning of nineteen centuries of doctrine.

Which seems to be the majority, and which unholy amalgam you all would have us conservative evangelicals be brethren with, as you are, whether you assent to it or not. Rome manifestly does.

That's why so many of us think he's a disaster.

He's your pope, not ours.

I haven't really revisited this issue since I was a teenager. The most recent thing I read on it was http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/nostra-aetate-love-muslims-how-do-i-do-that

I take to myself the services which you have done to him. For no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not; and it is I who reward him.

What desperate spin. To keep an oath in service to a demon is itself vile, and while this can include doing objectively good things in that service (being faithful to a wife, etc.), it is not being done to the glory of God, and in virtuous service to him.

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

Even when Israel serves false gods then they did some objectively good things, yet they were still worshiping false gods. (Acts 7:42) And which is the issue here. Just admit V2 erred by letting the liberals win and stop engaging in damage control.