u/Ill-Working-2486

I have no problem with holding other religions with esteem to an extent, although the claim that they are Holy is, in my opinion, dubious. From the very beginning, I conceded as a theological view, that other religions may preach good doctrines and as an effect of these doctrines (And not by the religion itself) be good people. Now Nostra Aetate says:

>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. 

Now, I believed that the reason why separate religions preach doctrine that is true (very little of their doctrines are true, however- for example, in Islam, Jesus Christ is not god, BUT they believe in the true doctrine that "Killing is bad and is hated by god.") and indeed, why religions other than Catholicism develop are due to imprinted Natural Law and the desire imprinted upon us for, as Alcoholics Anonymous state, "A higher power."

Now Holy is defined as "dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred." (According to Oxford Languages, the dictionary that pops up whenever you search for the meaning of a word on google)

Now I don't know how a non-Abrahamic religion can be "holy," it may be "good" in that most of its doctrines are in agreement with Natural Law (excluding, of course, those pertaining to the debt we owe towards God, since that can only be properly afforded in Catholicism).

I also have another concern:

>The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

(EMPHASIS ADDED)

Now, I recognize that this is all well and good- although due to my exposure to Radical Traditionalism, I have heard that this statement, among others- kills the missionary spirit of Catholics. I ask for your help in disproving this claim, as it appears on a cursory reading that the Council encourages the church to have its members encourage belief in false religions- I suppose one could say that "By good things, the council means good doctrines" such as those I enumerated earlier, but that would more or less fall under "socio-cultural values," as the council says there is a difference between the two.

However, there can be no doubt that men of other religions should not be bullied or coerced into joining another religions.

St. Augustine states "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will." This belief is espoused by Leo XIII in his encyclical "Immortale Dei", who also says:

>The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. 

(EMPHASIS ADDED)

Now, in the words of the radical-traditionalists, the "Post-Conciliar" Church obviously denies the first part of Leo's statement here while affirming the second part. This is clear- not necessarily from the documents themselves, but nevertheless, the Pachamama scandal and Francis placing a statue of Luther in the Vatican, I think, vindicates this interpretation of Nostra Aetate. Therefore, I ask you all for help in determining whether or not Nostra Aetate is revolutionary or in any way unprecedented, and, considering the fact that Pastor Aeternus says that Papal Infallibility does not extend to doctrine that cannot be considered conformable within sacred tradition (i.e. NEW doctrine), Nostra Aetate's statements are null and void.

Hello. The following text is technically a re-post (with edits) of a post I made on r/CatholicApologetics*, but I'm sad to say that the subreddit is almost completely dead. My apologies.* I am not arguing against the Church here, I'm just really, really confused about this matter. And yes, I am well aware that Vatican II documents are to be read in a manner that is consistent with prior doctrine, but I can't see how that works in this scenario.

I've come to respect St. Thomas Aquinas and adopt the doctrine that, in fact, the various Christian Churches do possess some elements of the Church, and by all means, a person who is merely mistaken concerning a matter of doctrine (such as a five-year old or something) is not a heretic merely for making a mistake. That would be crazy.

However, I also came to adopt the position that the Non-Catholic Churches do not have valid sacraments and their sacraments do not confer grace, what with their schism and adoption of heretical beliefs and such, as well as their flagrant lack of proper Apostolic Succession from the Pontiff of Rome, even as a somewhat "Liberal" Catholic, if you can call me that.

HOWEVER, VATICAN II, in UNITATIS REDIGNATIO SAYS:

>The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

AND:

>These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

(This statement implies that Catholics may attend Eastern Orthodox Masses, as it discusses the Sacraments of these churches as being true- and then permits common worship, which obviously implies that a Catholic could go to a Divine Liturgy.)

(EMPHASIS ADDED)

Now the Summa Theologiae says, in direct contradiction to this (LINK)

> And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

Tertia Pars, Question 82., Article 7, Summa Theologiae.

Now, Aquinas says that even though Non-Catholics may do the sacraments (and not just Baptism, as I will demonstrate below) , they, in fact, do not retain grace (the fruit of the sacrament) and sin by doing so. For further confirmation by Aquinas, see Article 9 of the same question. Now, it seems by this logic, Vatican II is clearly contradictory to prior doctrine. And let's not fall into the classic Feeneyist (A.K.A Protestant) excuse of "Well, it's just the opinion of a saint, who cares?" as this opinion in particular SEEMS to have been shared by everyone in the Early Church. Here's proof:

> And Pope Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): "It is a matter of notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men." 

Tertia Pars, Question 64, Article 9, Summa Theologiae.

(OF COURSE, THIS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN AQUINAS' VIEW, WHICH HE EXPLAINS BELOW)

>Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: "Be well assured and have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from their Baptism." In this sense Pope Leo says that "the light of the sacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria"; viz. in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament itself.

Question 64, Article 9, Summa Theologiae.

So concerning the reality of the teaching that although Heretics have valid sacraments, they sin by administering these sacraments and no grace is given to them, it seems pretty definitive in the Early Church, and hence, still binding on us today, as Vatican I states that no new doctrine may be promulgated, but only developments of prior doctrine, and only developments that are shown to be at least somewhat consistent with prior teaching- but the doctrine of Unitatis Redignatio seems to completely and absolutely contradict the prior teaching. I do, however, have hope that you all, the fine people of this subreddit, may find some resolution to this issue, as we have somehow allowed evolution to be considered permissible when every patristic and every medieval theologian was some form or flavor of YEC and indeed took the Bible quite literally, excluding Augustine, but that's only really because Genesis had contradictions (Noah's Ark on Clean/Unclean animals, for instance), supposedly, and hence by the dictates of logic, it must be read as a Poetic rather than scientific or historical work not because of any external interpretation of the work by some theologian, but rather due to the ACTUAL TEXT.

Can anyone please help me on this matter?

EDIT:
Okay, Aquinas DOES allow provisions for the supposed "validity" of heretical sacraments, but this is only limited to those who are IGNORANT of the invalidity of the heretical sacraments, whereas Unitatis Redignatio allows people who are knowledgeable on the falsity of such heretical doctrines (i.e. Catholics) to participate in the invalid and mortally sinful sacraments of heretical sects, so it does NOT solve the problem.

>Reply to Objection 3. The power of administering the sacraments belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (III:63:3. Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.