Author Topic: Fr. Cekadas version of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (Read 12703 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #105 on:** October 17, 2015, 05:45:48 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

See, now I'm just going back to my earlier bad will assessment. I notice you're playing around with the use and placement of the word error. You know there is error in the Vatican II docuмents. That is why you avoid the NO Mass and the V2 teachings (as you say, you keep the Faith)....as YOU SHOULD.

But you refuse to see the logical conclusion here. You are stating that error came from a supposed CATHOLIC ecuмenical council. One such council CAN NOT produce error. And rather than come to the logical conclusion, you say, "So what". You can't even agree that the Catholic teaching is that an ecuмenical council can not produce error.

It is not logical nor is it Catholic to conclude the pope is not the pope - that is speculation. It is not logical to conclude that 2600 bishops were not bishops - that is speculation.

If you would be honest, you would be forced to agree - but if you become honest, you would necessarily need to admit that sedevacantism's very foundation is built on speculation, on guesses that Cekadians pass off as Gospel to other Cekadians. Sadly, it is quite telling that you cannot admit this.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Like I've said numerous times before and in numerous places, anti-sedes like yourself can only come to one conclusion:

"Anything but sedevacantism".

And with that, I'm done bantering with the bad will anti-sedes.

Good, then I will get the last word.

You've said the same thing numerous times, yes, but you cannot accept that SVism is a guess. It is an unnecessary and even dangerous opinion. It has you and many so stuck in it's muck that apparently, nothing will get you to accept or admit the truth - that SVism is only a guess. That the foundation for your faith is a guess - it's a wonder there even are SVs with a foundation like that - if you weren't stuck in the Cekadian muck, you would immediately agree.

2Vermont · « **Reply #106 on:** October 17, 2015, 05:51:58 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont
Yes, he was. So were these:

http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012

Of course he was. You missed the whole point: TKGS brings the Vatican II Nostra Aetate's paragraph as an actual heresy, which textually is really nothing different from what Gregory VII said. As per sede logic, nothing prevents me from reading Gregory VII letter, concluding that it is manifest heresy and declaring that he is not a true pope.

Actually, no. This was a private letter, so even if it were heresy on the pope's part it was not manifest. Therefore he would have still been a true pope. Furthermore it was written decades before the Koran was first translated. At the time that Pope Gregory wrote this letter, Islam was considered a Christian heresy. Therefore, it would make sense for him to say what he said. As a result, it is not proper support for Nostra Aetate since in 1960 we knew Islam was not merely a Christian heresy.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #107 on:** October 17, 2015, 05:52:46 PM »

The thing is St. Gregory VII did not say that Catholics and Muslims confess the same God. I'm not sure what the aim of the letter was of St. Gregory VII to the Muslim King of Mauritania, but what he said has to be carefully taken in context. Otherwise, Benedict XIII would not have canonized him in 1728. Vatican II's take on things is different and contrary though. It does not intend to teach true Catholic doctrine with its false ecuмenical affirmations. I suppose in St. Gregory VII's case, he would have tried to practice a "true ecuмenism," that is invite and try to bring souls into the one household of the true Church of Christ, which IS the Catholic Church.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #108 on:** October 17, 2015, 06:05:14 PM »

Cantarella,

Your response is specious. It ignores the main point. The big problem in Nostra Aetate #3 is that it ESTEEMS Muslims corporately and the Islamic faith (fides Islamica) in view of their religious practices. Benedict XVI even repeatedly confirms that it's esteeming THE RELIGION OF ISLAM, as I quoted.

Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect FOR THE ISLAMIC RELIGION, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration NOSTRA AETATE #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right.”

Benedict XVI, Catechesis, August 24, 2005: “This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as ESTEEM for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.”

That is heretical. That is nothing like what Gregory VII said. Further, Gregory's statement was a letter to a king, not a doctrinal pronouncement on the Church's teaching on Islam. He wasn't setting down Catholic teaching in a formal way for all ages. That cannot be underestimated.

Second, the false teaching that Muslims worship God "along with us", mankind's judge on the last day, is in Lumen Gentium. It was also taught many times by John Paul II and Benedict XVI based on Vatican II.

The Catholic Church cannot promulgate a docuмent in virtue of a pope's apostolic authority at an ecuмenical council that says the Church looks upon Islam (a diabolical religion that rejects the Trinity) and Muslims corporately (non-Christian infidels) 'with esteem'. It's absurd. The man who promulgated such a heretical docuмent (Paul VI) was obviously not a true pope.

You also, again, ignored my point about the heresy in Vatican II on the Church of Christ.

---

There are numerous heresies in Vatican II. To name just one: the Church declares that whoever dissents from the Papacy or another dogma is ALIEN to the Body of Christ and separated from the Lord - i.e. the person is not in the Lord (Council of Florence; Leo XIII; etc.).

Vatican II teaches the opposite in the Decree on Ecuмenism: that baptized people who DISSENT from Catholic teaching, including on the Papacy or in matters of Church structure, etc. are in the Body of Christ and in the Lord. That is heresy. Vatican II even uses the word 'dissensions', indicating that it's referring specifically to people who DISSENT from Catholic teaching on the Papacy or something else. Even though such baptized people dissent from Catholic teaching on the Papacy or something else, they are, nevertheless, in the Body of Christ and in the Lord, according to Vatican II (simply because they were baptized). That is contrary to Catholic dogma. It is heresy. This video carefully examines Vatican II's text and shows that it is heretical:

Vatican II's Protestant Heresy

2Vermont · « **Reply #109 on:** October 17, 2015, 06:16:59 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

You also, again, ignored my point about the heresy in Vatican II on the Church of Christ.

They've also ignored the clear heresy in GS that the greatest commandment is love of God and neighbor, rather than just love of God.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #110 on:** October 17, 2015, 08:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Here it is:

Quote from: Pope St. Gregory VII, Letter 21
We [Muslims and Catholics] believe in and confess one God, although in a different way, Whom we praise and venerate daily as Creator of the ages and Ruler of the same world.

If I recall, Nostra Aetate footnotes this letter in the passage you cited.

cf. https://books.google.com/books?id=EgRbpkgRSZAC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20correspondence%20of%20Pope%20Gregory%20VII&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

To the Barons of France, Who Were Preparing an Expedition Against the Moors in Spain

Quote from: Pope St. Gregory

Therefore Count Evulus of Roucy, whose fame is, we believe, well known among you, wishes to enter into that country and rescue it from the hands of pagans [the Moors].

... and firmly resolving in their hearts that after the land is taken they will not commit the same offenses against St. Peter which those who now occupy it do in their ignorance of God.

cf. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp

Medieval Sourcebook: Gregory VII: Dictatus Papae 1090

Quote

The Dictates of the Pope
...

22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

It would be great if you could provide a link to the whole letter 21. I would like to read the context. I have a feeling that it will not be supportive of the idea that Pope St. Gregory believed that Catholics and Muslims worshipped the same God.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #111 on:** October 17, 2015, 08:40:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

From Letter XXI of Pope St. Gregory VII (†1085) to the (Muslim) King of Mauritania:

"[F]or Almighty God, Who desires that all men shall be saved and that none shall perish, approves nothing more highly in us than this: that a man love his fellow man next to his God and do nothing to him which he would not that others should do to himself.

"This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore Him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, 'He is our peace who hath made both one.'

"This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities.

[. . .]

"For God knows our true regard for you to his glory and how truly we desire your prosperity and honor, both in this life and in the life to come, and how earnestly we pray both with our lips and with our heart that God Himself, after the long journey of this life, may lead you into the bosom of the most holy patriarch Abraham.'

Well, what do I know?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #112 on:** October 17, 2015, 08:44:52 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Ladislaus, your translation of Gregory VII's letter is wrong. Gregory VII does not say that the Muslim king worships the same God (eundem Deum) as Catholics. Rather, he says that he and the king both confess one God (unum Deum). The two are quite different.

I better read the rest of the thread before I post again.

Cantarella · « **Reply #113 on:** October 17, 2015, 10:05:54 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: 2Vermont
Yes, he was. So were these:

http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012

Of course he was. You missed the whole point: TKGS brings the Vatican II Nostra Aetate's paragraph as an actual heresy, which textually is really nothing different from what Gregory VII said. As per sede logic, nothing prevents me from reading Gregory VII letter, concluding that it is manifest heresy and declaring that he is not a true pope.

Actually, no. This was a private letter, so even if it were heresy on the pope's part it was not manifest

Again, kind of a Suprema Haec Sacra so why not dismiss this one, Protocol 122/49?

Double standard.

Quote from: Catholictrue

Gregory VII taught that there is no salvation outside the Church

No doubt about it. Ironically though, the sedevacantists arguing in this thread actually disagree with Gregory VII on this one: they think there is possible salvation outside the Holy Roman Catholic Church (no matter how they re-phrase it). They believe that a Protestant, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, etc can be saved via last minute "Baptism of Desire" not IN the Church but THROUGH the Church. Just ask. How funny is that!

Cantarella · « **Reply #114 on:** October 17, 2015, 10:36:56 PM »

Quote from: Catholictrue

Cantarella,

Your response is specious. It ignores the main point. The big problem in Nostra Aetate #3 is that it ESTEEMS Muslims corporately and the Islamic faith (fides Islamica) in view of their religious practices. Benedict XVI even repeatedly confirms that it's esteeming THE RELIGION OF ISLAM, as I quoted.

Believe me, I understand the "main point" but I attribute the overwhelming false approach to the actual infiltration of "marranos" (those Jєωιѕн false converts who actually hate Christ in their hearts and long see His Church destroyed) and other Judaizers into the Holy Catholic Roman Church as Judaism with its nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr has raised to global power.

Is the Catholic Church Becoming a Branch of the ѕуηαgσgυє?

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a028htJPII_VisitToѕуηαgσgυє1986.htm

2Vermont · « **Reply #115 on:** October 18, 2015, 07:30:16 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: 2Vermont
Yes, he was. So were these:

http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012

Of course he was. You missed the whole point: TKGS brings the Vatican II Nostra Aetate's paragraph as an actual heresy, which textually is really nothing different from what Gregory VII said. As per sede logic, nothing prevents me from reading Gregory VII letter, concluding that it is manifest heresy and declaring that he is not a true pope.

Actually, no. This was a private letter, so even if it were heresy on the pope's part it was not manifest

Again, kind of a Suprema Haec Sacra so why not dismiss this one, Protocol 122/49?

Double standard.

Quote from: Catholictrue
Gregory VII taught that there is no salvation outside the Church

No doubt about it. Ironically though, the sedevacantists arguing in this thread actually disagree with Gregory VII on this one: they think there is possible salvation outside the Holy Roman Catholic Church (no matter how they re-phrase it). They believe that a Protestant, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, etc can be saved via last minute "Baptism of Desire" not IN the Church but THROUGH the Church. Just ask. How funny is that!

Unlike Vatican II's sole false support for its false teaching about Islam, there are numerous other true supports for the topic which belongs in a sub-forum specifically designated for it. As a result, I will not take the bait to discuss it here.

2Vermont · « **Reply #116 on:** October 18, 2015, 07:31:55 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Catholictrue
Ladislaus, your translation of Gregory VII's letter is wrong. Gregory VII does not say that the Muslim king worships the same God (eundem Deum) as Catholics. Rather, he says that he and the king both confess one God (unum Deum). The two are quite different.

I better read the rest of the thread before I post again.

Yes, specifically read my last post about the letter. At that time, Islam was believed to be a Christian heresy. Therefore, in that context, Pope Gregory's comments make total sense. Not so much in 1960.

Cantarella · « **Reply #117 on:** October 18, 2015, 10:53:14 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Catholictrue
Ladislaus, your translation of Gregory VII's letter is wrong. Gregory VII does not say that the Muslim king worships the same God (eundem Deum) as Catholics. Rather, he says that he and the king both confess one God (unum Deum). The two are quite different.

I better read the rest of the thread before I post again.

Yes, specifically read my last post about the letter. At that time, Islam was believed to be a Christian heresy. Therefore, in that context, Pope Gregory's comments make total sense. Not so much in 1960.

So, when does the Church officially stop regarding Mohammedanism (better know as Islam) as a Christian heresy?.

After all, we have the great Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc regarding Mohammedanism as a heresy and this is in the XIX Century.

Just to be clear, I regard Mohammedanism as a false religion, not a heresy; but if the reason for the dismissal of Gregory VII's letter is strictly over historical political context, then please give us the full account.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #118 on:** October 18, 2015, 12:03:39 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Catholictrue
Ladislaus, your translation of Gregory VII's letter is wrong. Gregory VII does not say that the Muslim king worships the same God (eundem Deum) as Catholics. Rather, he says that he and the king both confess one God (unum Deum). The two are quite different.

I better read the rest of the thread before I post again.

Yes, specifically read my last post about the letter. At that time, Islam was believed to be a Christian heresy. Therefore, in that context, Pope Gregory's comments make total sense. Not so much in 1960.

So you try to jump through hoops to justify the comments from Gregory VII but yet immediately cry heresy when the same sentiment appears in Vatican II.

Uhm, no, Islam was not considered to be "Christian"; those people weren't stupid. You just make that up to justify why it wasn't heresy from Pope Gregory VII but is heresy in Vatican II.

If that was the only thing in V2 that would be considered heresy, then really there would be nothing to see there at all.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #119 on:** October 18, 2015, 12:04:57 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Catholictrue
Ladislaus, your translation of Gregory VII's letter is wrong. Gregory VII does not say that the Muslim king worships the same God (eundem Deum) as Catholics. Rather, he says that he and the king both confess one God (unum Deum). The two are quite different.

I better read the rest of the thread before I post again.

Yes, specifically read my last post about the letter. At that time, Islam was believed to be a Christian heresy. Therefore, in that context, Pope Gregory's comments make total sense. Not so much in 1960.

So, when does the Church officially stop regarding Mohammedanism (better know as Islam) as a Christian heresy?.

After all, we have the great Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc regarding Mohammedanism as a heresy and this is in the XIX Century.

Just to be clear, I regard Mohammedanism as a false religion, not a heresy; but if the reason for the dismissal of Gregory VII's letter is strictly over historical political context, then please give us the full account.

She made that up out of convenience.