Author Topic: Fr. Cekadas version of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (Read 12712 times)

Matto · « **Reply #90 on:** October 17, 2015, 12:44:52 PM »

Everyone keeps arguing about the UOM. My question is where is the UOM today?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #91 on:** October 17, 2015, 01:03:54 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: TKGS
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.

Name one.

The docuмent Nostra aetate, paragraph 3: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God..."

There's a quote from a previous Pope (long before V2) which says the exact same thing. Cantarella may have cited it. As for adoring "the" one God, Latin doesn't have the word "the", so it could actually translate as "They adore one God" (i.e. they're monotheists). As for the Church regarding with "esteem", who knows what that even means. Again, we'd have to look at the Latin. Does it say that the Church respects the fact that they're monotheists? Who actually knows? As with most of Vatican II, the distinction is between the subjective intent and the objective reality. This, however, is perfectly consistent with Cushingite "Suprema Haec" ecclesiology.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god

Ladislaus · « **Reply #92 on:** October 17, 2015, 01:11:31 PM »

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.

2Vermont · « **Reply #93 on:** October 17, 2015, 01:14:56 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Stubborn said,

I would first like you to understand that what you told me to do is akin to cursing me into losing the faith. Catholics do not say things like that to other Catholics, Catholics do not wish that on anyone, fyi. I understand you are merely trying to make a point so no harm taken, yet you believe so strongly in your speculation that you stoop to ignoring what is absolutely necessary (keeping the faith) which you certainly understand, in favor of what is opinion, aka the UOM did it so I must follow them, even when that means to follow them right into the pit.

We know that the Church held a Council and per de fide teaching, the Holy Ghost was supposed to protect whatever came out of that Council from the possibility of error. But instead, during and more especially after the Council, error flowed like water flows down Niagara Falls. So what happened?

The truth of the matter is - we do not know what happened with the UOM or with V2. That is the truth. That is simply being honest. It is my opinion that God does not want us to know with certainty how V2 was able to do what it did - otherwise we would all know exactly what happened. But we don't.

Again, a non-answer. You are stating that the UOM gave us error and that the Holy Ghost did not do its job. It doesn't matter whether you can come up with an explanation for your comment. What you said is heretical. The UOM can NOT give us error. No Catholic should state such a thing. Catholic teaching is that it is not possible just as Catholic teaching is that it is not possible for an ecuмenical council to give us error.

For you to assert such a heretical stance and then tell me I am "stooping" to ignore what is absolutely necessary to keep the faith in order to make YOUR point against Fr Cekada and other sedevacantists is the height of hypocrisy.
You sit in judgment of Fr Cekada's (and other sedevacantist) explanation...meanwhile you judge, what you consider, the UOM in error.

This is how it is when you are stuck in the muck - it's a terrible thing. I am not wholly concerned with "the pope problem", rather, I concentrate on keeping the faith I know is true and avoiding the false faith of the NO.

I did not say that the UOM gave us error, I specifically said I do not know what happened. I also said it does not matter what happened, our job is to persevere in the faith, not speculate about what happened, then promote speculations as fact.

If Fr. Cekada were honest, he would admit he does not know what happened, then make it clear that he has personal opinions about what happened, and leave it at that. If he chose to elaborate on his opinions, he should make sure he repeatedly clarifies they are ONLY his opinions, lest he bring scandal to his sheep who take what he says as Gospel.

If YOU were honest you would admit that there was error. You speak from two sides of your mouth. One minute you say to avoid all things NO and V2 despite the fact that you believe that the infallible UOM gave it to us and the next you say you don't know that there was error. :rolleyes:

You're a very confused man ... at best.

In your zeal to defend Cekadian teachings, you grasp at straws - I said error flowed out of the Council like water from Niagara Falls - look in the quotes above, I made it big enough so I don't think you can miss it this time.

And what I said in bold above still stands.

Why, yes, you said that error flowed during the Council...a supposed Catholic ecuмenical council. Thank you for pointing that quote out.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #94 on:** October 17, 2015, 01:15:17 PM »

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.'

2Vermont · « **Reply #95 on:** October 17, 2015, 01:20:25 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.'

I always thought it odd that the only "support" for this was an obscure, political letter. Meanwhile there are numerous papal and saintly quotes about the diabolical nature of Islam and the faithless Muslims.

Cantarella · « **Reply #96 on:** October 17, 2015, 02:06:26 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

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.'

I always thought it odd that the only "support" for this was an obscure, political letter.

Kind of a Suprema Haec Sacra, right?

Stubborn · « **Reply #97 on:** October 17, 2015, 02:31:26 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn

If Fr. Cekada were honest, he would admit he does not know what happened, then make it clear that he has personal opinions about what happened, and leave it at that. If he chose to elaborate on his opinions, he should make sure he repeatedly clarifies they are ONLY his opinions, lest he bring scandal to his sheep who take what he says as Gospel.

If YOU were honest you would admit that there was error. You speak from two sides of your mouth. One minute you say to avoid all things NO and V2 despite the fact that you believe that the infallible UOM gave it to us and the next you say you don't know that there was error. :rolleyes:

You're a very confused man ... at best.

In your zeal to defend Cekadian teachings, you grasp at straws - I said error flowed out of the Council like water from Niagara Falls - look in the quotes above, I made it big enough so I don't think you can miss it this time.

And what I said in bold above still stands.

Why, yes, you said that error flowed during the Council...a supposed Catholic ecuмenical council. Thank you for pointing that quote out.

In 1964, I was only 4 years old and did not know what a Council was, but priests were already starting to leave the Church, seminaries were already teaching error, the mass was being said in the vernacular, Communion in the hand and female Eucharistic ministers were already being introduced.

So yes, error was already flowing before the Council ended.

Again, so what. Chaos and confusion were to the point that no one knew what was going on or why it was happening - the good priests and my parents kept saying whatever happens, do not go along with it, stay with the faith you know.

See, there is zero need to invent then pass off speculations in order to keep the faith. It is counterproductive and leads to a different religion.

Catholictrue · « **Reply #98 on:** October 17, 2015, 03:35:51 PM »

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.

In an attempt to be friendly to a king who had helped Christians, he said that we confess one God. It is true that Muslims confess, or claim to believe, one God. It was also a non-dogmatic letter to a king who was a potential convert, not a formal statement of doctrine for the entire Church about Islam. Gregory VII taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Vatican II's statement is quite different and heretical. In addition to teaching that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics (which is blasphemous and false), Vatican II esteemed Islam itself (and the Muslims collectively) in view of their religious practices. That is heresy. You can actually hear a debate on this text of Vatican II, in which it is proven that Benedict XVI himself admitted that Vatican II esteemed the RELIGION of Islam itself.

In other words, the heretical nature of Vatican II's teaching on Islam in Nostra Aetate is proven by those who enforced Vatican II itself:

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.”

Notice that Benedict XVI admitted that Nostra Aetate taught esteem for the false religion of Islam itself. Esteeming (and hence approving) a religion the Church officially considers to be abominable and diabolical is heresy.

You also apparently ignored my previous post which focused on a different heresy in Vatican II.

---

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 #99 on:** October 17, 2015, 04:09:07 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Stubborn

If Fr. Cekada were honest, he would admit he does not know what happened, then make it clear that he has personal opinions about what happened, and leave it at that. If he chose to elaborate on his opinions, he should make sure he repeatedly clarifies they are ONLY his opinions, lest he bring scandal to his sheep who take what he says as Gospel.

If YOU were honest you would admit that there was error. You speak from two sides of your mouth. One minute you say to avoid all things NO and V2 despite the fact that you believe that the infallible UOM gave it to us and the next you say you don't know that there was error. :rolleyes:

You're a very confused man ... at best.

In your zeal to defend Cekadian teachings, you grasp at straws - I said error flowed out of the Council like water from Niagara Falls - look in the quotes above, I made it big enough so I don't think you can miss it this time.

And what I said in bold above still stands.

Why, yes, you said that error flowed during the Council...a supposed Catholic ecuмenical council. Thank you for pointing that quote out.

In 1964, I was only 4 years old and did not know what a Council was, but priests were already starting to leave the Church, seminaries were already teaching error, the mass was being said in the vernacular, Communion in the hand and female Eucharistic ministers were already being introduced.

So yes, error was already flowing before the Council ended.

Again, so what. Chaos and confusion were to the point that no one knew what was going on or why it was happening - the good priests and my parents kept saying whatever happens, do not go along with it, stay with the faith you know.

See, there is zero need to invent then pass off speculations in order to keep the faith. It is counterproductive and leads to a different religion.

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.

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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #100 on:** October 17, 2015, 04:11:30 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.

For all there is, that is what Nostra Aetate says as well. They adore the "one" God, not the "same" God.

Quote from: Nostra Aetate

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men

In Latin:

Quote from: Nostra Aetate

3. Ecclesia cuм aestimatione quoque Muslimos respicit qui unicuм Deum adorant, viventem et subsistentem, misericordem et omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae (5), homines allocutum

No mention of "eundem Deum" here.

2Vermont · « **Reply #101 on:** October 17, 2015, 04:19:29 PM »

And then Lumen Gentium adds,

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #102 on:** October 17, 2015, 04:28:13 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

And then Lumen Gentium adds,

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, 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.

What difference is there from what Gregory VII said?. It says "the one and merciful God". It does not even say the "same" God, as per Catholictrue was arguing.

Quote from: Gregory VII

"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.'

In Latin,

Quote from: Gregory VII

Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam caeteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem saeculorum et gubernatorem hujus mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur. Nam sicut Apostolus dicit: Ipse

Was Gregory VII a true Pope, 2Vermont?

2Vermont · « **Reply #103 on:** October 17, 2015, 04:46:53 PM »

Yes, he was. So were these:

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

Cantarella · « **Reply #104 on:** October 17, 2015, 05:38:10 PM »

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.