Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Stubborn on October 14, 2015, 07:55:33 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_7V64ozJXM&feature=youtu.be
At about 7:25, Fr. Cekada says;
"Now, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, what does that mean? [he answers] That is the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, whether in council or whether dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals.........now this teaching too is infallible, this teaching too, is free from error."
At about 10:10 he goes on;
"The Universal Extraordinary and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium both [are] infallible. The Extraordinary Magisterium, these rare solemn pronouncements, are somehow not more infallible than the ordinary magisterium, nor does it somehow trump the teaching of the UOM because the idea is that the truth is one.............both are part of the same magisterium, both teach the same thing, both must be believed."
A little further on he says; "it is the UOM that proves the falsehood of Vatican 2 and proves the loss of authority on the part of the post conciliar popes, so called. That the dealing of V2 on matters such as religious liberty, contradicts the previous teaching of the UOM, and therefore, cannot be accepted, must be rejected as something that is heretical because it contradicts what the Church has taught before.
20:47
Catholics are obliged then to give the ascent of faith, not only to doctrines that are expressly defined in the rare solemn pronouncements of popes and ecuмenical councils, but also to those teachings that are propose by the UOM.
The UOM once again is this - the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, throughout the world, whether in council or dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals. Now this teaching too as Catholics, we are obliged to believe, it is always free from error, and it is that very teaching that puts the lie to the notion that the post V2 church represents the true Church of Christ.
I watched this video and can hardly believe how blatantly Fr. confuses and contradicts his own definition of the infallibility of the UOM. Anyone else see this?
Per Fr. Cekada:
The UOM is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in Council.
The UOM is infallible.
The UOM is always free from error.
The UOM must be believed.
Yet, the Novus Ordo, because it is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in the Second Vatican Council, is, by his own definition, a teaching of the UOM - this much is indisputable. As such, V2 is therefore infallible and must be believed. But per Fr. Cekada, the UOM must be believed, just not in this case? :scratchchin:
Is Fr. Cekada an accurate representative of SV theology here? Because what he teaches in that video is not representative of Catholic theology and decidedly misrepresents Catholic teaching on infallibility.
-
Indeed that is the SV conundrum. They resolve this by saying that the UOM is only in play if the bishops are united in teaching something in union with the pope, but the popes in question were not legitimate. Either that or some radical SVs slide into this notion that the entire hierarchy had defected.
Catholics are obliged then to give the assent ... also to those teachings that are proposed by the UOM.
They leave out an important part of the Vatican I definition. We are obliged to give assent to those teachings that are proposed as divinely revealed by the UOM.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
I don't know that anyone taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings - but Fr. Cekada certainly does reject it, even though he teaches the UOM is infallible, always free from error and must be believed - because he rejects V2 and the Novus Ordo, which is certainly teachings of the UOM.
All Fr. Cekada actually accomplished in that video, was to prove that his idea about the infallibility of the UOM is certainly wrong.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
Yes, and additionally, it's not only that is he wrong (and blatantly so) about the UOM and infallibility as V2 indisputably demonstrates, the repercussions are that in large part, it's on account of him and his fraudulent teaching about this subject, that nearly the entire trad world believes the same error about the UOM as he does.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
IF this is the case, then the Catholic Church has always been a fraud. Vatican 2 taught doctrines that directly contradict doctrines the Church had always taught prior. I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):
1. The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.
2. The Church is wrong now.
In either case, the Church is wrong and is NOT INFALLIBLE in matters of Faith and Morals. In either case, the Church is a fraud.
On the other hand, IF Montini was not the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when he signed the docuмents of Vatican 2, then the doctrines of the Church, including the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, remain intact. The doctrine that a pope loses his office when he is manifestly and pertinaciously a heretic also remains intact.
As per usual, Ladislaus and Stubborn and assorted others speak out of both sides of their mouths, believe irreconcilable truths, and are utterly unable to see the contradiction. They are Modernists in the most precise understanding of the term.
-
I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):
1. The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.
2. The Church is wrong now.
Or you're missing some distinction that would make them reconcilable. And THIS is the problem I have with SVism. You act as if it's certain with the certainty of faith that these two are in contradiction, but in point of fact you're using your private judgment to determine this.
Yes, it sure looks like it to me too, that these are in contradiction. But I also realize that my private judgment cannot resolve this matter with the requisite certainty. In fact, there's ZERO contradiction between these if you hold the same ecclesiology as most Traditional Catholics.
That's why I'm on the fence. If someone could convince me that my own ecclesiology is wrong and that of the Cushingites is right, then I immediately drop all opposition to Vatican II.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.
Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.
-
I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):
1. The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.
2. The Church is wrong now.
Or you're missing some distinction that would make them reconcilable. And THIS is the problem I have with SVism. You act as if it's certain with the certainty of faith that these two are in contradiction, but in point of fact you're using your private judgment to determine this.
Yes, it sure looks like it to me too, that these are in contradiction. But I also realize that my private judgment cannot resolve this matter with the requisite certainty. In fact, there's ZERO contradiction between these if you hold the same ecclesiology as most Traditional Catholics.
That's why I'm on the fence. If someone could convince me that my own ecclesiology is wrong and that of the Cushingites is right, then I immediately drop all opposition to Vatican II.
I agree with your point that the main errors of Vatican II are in regard to ecclesiology and soteriology and that many Traditionalists unfortunately hold them too, nevertheless I think that the "Cushingite" ecclesiology is not the only problem of Vatican II and even adopting it is not enough to "drop all opposition to Vatican II". There are still scandalous statements in Nostra Aetate regarding false religions - Traditionalists, and even many Novus Ordites who believe in salvation through invincible ignorance insist that the infidels are saved "in their religion", but not "through their religion" (as Archbishop Lefebvre unfortunately taught), while Vatican II teaches that false religions themselves have positive qualities and bring their adherents closer to God. This gave rise to heresies expressed by V2 Popes and members of the Conciliar Church that the Old Covenant is still valid and Jews can be saved by it, that Muslims can be saved through observing Islam, that God manifests himself to people through false religions (explicitly taught by John Paul II in Redemptoris Misso) etc. On the other hand, Traditionalists who unfortunately hold to salvation through invincible ignorance nevertheless believe that false religions are an abomination for God and people are not saved through them. So the error of Vatican II is much deeper than that of "Cushingite" Traditionalists.
In short:
1. Vatican II and Conciliar Church: people are saved in non-Catholic Churches/non-Christian religions and these Churches/religions are positive means of their salvation.
2. "Cushingite" Traditionalists: false religions are an abomination and the non-Catholic Churches are heretical, but people in them can be saved in spite of that.
Even though both positions are erroneous, the difference is crucial - Vatican II position taken to its logical conclusion leads to the endorsement of false religions (for which the V2 Popes are indeed notorious) and the ecuмenical apostasy we see right now, while "Cushingite" Traditionalists' position does not.
Then we have Vatican II's admiration of man expressed especially in Gaudium et Spes, which gave rise to humanism and anthropocentrism we are observing currently in the Conciliar Church.
Finally, the problem with Vatican II is not only its explicit teachings, but also employed modernist hermeneutics which became rampant after the Council and which notoriously mark the later Papal docuмents and actions of the Conciliar hierarchy.
-
Sedes and non-sedes always point out the problems with each of these theories. The debates are endless. I believe the best solution to the crisis is that Siri was elected true Pope in 1958 and was threatened into stepping down, but that since he was threatened and did not act freely he remained Pope, and that before he died he made sure that there would be a successor by secretly appointing Cardinals and that this hierarchy is at present in hiding from the Jews and freemasons who rule us. I think it makes the most sense of all the positions, but I have not seen proof of it so I cannot say that I believe it, only that I hope it is true.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.
Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.
Where has anyone said that the UOM produced the NO? The UOM didn't produce the NO.
Since you are attributing the UOM to the NO, I would still like to see how you think that is possible since the NO contradicts the UOM.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
IF this is the case, then the Catholic Church has always been a fraud. Vatican 2 taught doctrines that directly contradict doctrines the Church had always taught prior. I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):
1. The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.
2. The Church is wrong now.
In either case, the Church is wrong and is NOT INFALLIBLE in matters of Faith and Morals. In either case, the Church is a fraud.
On the other hand, IF Montini was not the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when he signed the docuмents of Vatican 2, then the doctrines of the Church, including the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, remain intact. The doctrine that a pope loses his office when he is manifestly and pertinaciously a heretic also remains intact.
There is no such doctrine of the pope losing his office and both #1 and #2 are absolutely impossible.
As per usual, Ladislaus and Stubborn and assorted others speak out of both sides of their mouths, believe irreconcilable truths, and are utterly unable to see the contradiction. They are Modernists in the most precise understanding of the term.
Funny thing is that Fr. Cekada clearly demonstrates blatant contradictions just like Modernists, yet you claim we speak out of both sides of our mouths and are unable to see the contradiction. That really would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
The truth is, as long as people adhere to Fr. Cekada's mangled version of infallibility and UOM, they will never see the forest due to all the trees being right dab smack in the way.
The reason that Fr. Cekada's version of infallibility is wrong, is because he preaches a version that has no foundation. His idea of "universal" is an ambiguous number of the Fathers or Theologians or saints or whatever.
His version has no foundation because his version of the infallibility of the UOM conveniently has no pope (go figure), hence no dogmatic decrees or supreme authority, so consequently, no infallibility. If there was ever proof that his version is wrong, then V2 is all anyone ever needs to stop his version dead in it's tracks.
In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.
Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.
Where has anyone said that the UOM produced the NO? The UOM didn't produce the NO.
Since you are attributing the UOM to the NO, I would still like to see how you think that is possible since the NO contradicts the UOM.
What do you call 2000 bishops and a pope in a council if not the UOM?
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.
Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.
Where has anyone said that the UOM produced the NO? The UOM didn't produce the NO.
Since you are attributing the UOM to the NO, I would still like to see how you think that is possible since the NO contradicts the UOM.
What do you call 2000 bishops and a pope in a council if not the UOM?
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
-
Or you're missing some distinction that would make them reconcilable. And THIS is the problem I have with SVism. You act as if it's certain with the certainty of faith that these two are in contradiction, but in point of fact you're using your private judgment to determine this.
Yes, it sure looks like it to me too, that these are in contradiction. But I also realize that my private judgment cannot resolve this matter with the requisite certainty. In fact, there's ZERO contradiction between these if you hold the same ecclesiology as most Traditional Catholics.
That's why I'm on the fence. If someone could convince me that my own ecclesiology is wrong and that of the Cushingites is right, then I immediately drop all opposition to Vatican II.
Actually, what you are saying above is that no one can really know what the Church teaches. Since no one really knows or even can know what the Church teaches, why bother?
There is no such doctrine of the pope losing his office and both #1 and #2 are absolutely impossible.
Actually, the first part of your comment is utterly preposterous. It has been taught by popes and theologians for centuries. The teachings have been referenced on CathInfo often and is easily available to anyone who wants to actually know the truth.
Also, I agree with the second part of your statement. The problem is that you (and others on the forum) say that you believe both #1 and #2 are impossible while everything else you write say that you believe that both statements are, in fact, true. Those of us who are not Modernists and cannot believe contrary propositions simultaneously.
-
Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?
You're missing the point, as per usual. Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.
IF this is the case, then the Catholic Church has always been a fraud. Vatican 2 taught doctrines that directly contradict doctrines the Church had always taught prior. I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):
1. The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.
2. The Church is wrong now.
In either case, the Church is wrong and is NOT INFALLIBLE in matters of Faith and Morals. In either case, the Church is a fraud.
On the other hand, IF Montini was not the pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when he signed the docuмents of Vatican 2, then the doctrines of the Church, including the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, remain intact. The doctrine that a pope loses his office when he is manifestly and pertinaciously a heretic also remains intact.
There is no such doctrine of the pope losing his office and both #1 and #2 are absolutely impossible.
As per usual, Ladislaus and Stubborn and assorted others speak out of both sides of their mouths, believe irreconcilable truths, and are utterly unable to see the contradiction. They are Modernists in the most precise understanding of the term.
Funny thing is that Fr. Cekada clearly demonstrates blatant contradictions just like Modernists, yet you claim we speak out of both sides of our mouths and are unable to see the contradiction. That really would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
The truth is, as long as people adhere to Fr. Cekada's mangled version of infallibility and UOM, they will never see the forest due to all the trees being right dab smack in the way.
The reason that Fr. Cekada's version of infallibility is wrong, is because he preaches a version that has no foundation. His idea of "universal" is an ambiguous number of the Fathers or Theologians or saints or whatever.
His version has no foundation because his version of the infallibility of the UOM conveniently has no pope (go figure), hence no dogmatic decrees or supreme authority, so consequently, no infallibility. If there was ever proof that his version is wrong, then V2 is all anyone ever needs to stop his version dead in it's tracks.
In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.
Meanwhile you believe V2 was the UOM and yet refuse to submit to its infallible teaching? Why?
Somebody's version of infallibility is mangled .... but it's not Fr Cekada's. It's the R&R/SSPX position that is mangled.
-
Meanwhile you believe V2 was the UOM and yet refuse to submit to its infallible teaching? Why?
Obviously it was not infallible. I gotta believe we will all agree that V2 was not infallible.
Somebody's version of infallibility is mangled .... but it's not Fr Cekada's. It's the R&R/SSPX position that is mangled.
Well now, think it out for a second. Don't just pop out with your opinion without examining the fraud that Fr. Cekada teaches.
Fr. Cekada preaches the UOM are always infallible and that whatever the UOM teach is always without error - those are his words, not mine. Direct your thoughts to the title of this thread.
Per Fr. Cekada, the UOM, which is always without error, which is always infallible, perpetrated upon us the Novus Ordo. With this in mind, simply explain how his version of UOM/Infallibility is *not* mangled?
Like I said, whatever your idea of UOM/infallibility might be, one thing you know for positive is that Fr. Cekada's version is obviously wrong. Either that or the NO is error free.
-
I have come to the conclusion that Stubborn is willfully blind. There is no way he can continue posting in this vein without seeing his own contradictions.
If the UOM is infallible, Stubborn, and you believe that V2 was the UOM, then V2 has to be infallible. You believe that the UOM's teachings were fallible at V2!
Fr Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible. He is absolutely consistent. You are not.
-
I have come to the conclusion that Stubborn is willfully blind. There is no way he can continue posting in this vein without seeing his own contradictions.
If the UOM is infallible, Stubborn, and you believe that V2 was the UOM, then V2 has to be infallible. You believe that the UOM's teachings were fallible at V2!
Fr Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible. He is absolutely consistent. You are not.
Oh, so Fr. Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible and for you, this belief makes him absolutely consistent and me willfully blind. That earns you a big face palm.
Did you ever consider that if he believed what the Church teaches instead of what he teaches, he would not be in such a position to choose to believe the UOM was not the UOM in order to justify his own novel teaching on the subject - and you would not have a fraudulent understanding of the UOM/infallibility?
-
lol..and you keep calling the UOM fallible at V2 as do all the R&R folk.
-
In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.
Not sure about Fr Cekada, but +Sanborn in is clear in his writings that according to him the Conciliar hierarchy is not Catholic hierarchy in any way, shape or form. Thus, according to this version of the sedevacantist position it is really simple - V2 was heretical, thus pope and 2000 bishops who taught and promulgated its teachings ceased to be Catholics, so V2 is not part of UOM, but a non-Catholic council with no authority. So according to +Sanborn's position (as I understand it) V2 did not come from "a pope and 2000 bishops", it did not come from the Church, but from the apostates.
Obviously, there are numerous theological problems with that (Church losing at least one of its marks, defection of the whole hierarchy etc.), but at least you can't say that it is inconsistent.
-
lol..and you keep calling the UOM fallible at V2 as do all the R&R folk.
You are a victim of Fr. Cekada, which is why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious contradiction in his teaching and invent silly excuses out of desperation to be right.
Your lame excuse comes right out of a comic book when you said:
Fr Cekada doesn't believe that V2 represented the UOM; therefore he can believe that the V2 teachings were not infallible. He is absolutely consistent.
Remember Fr. Cekada's own definition of the UOM which I quoted in the OP:
The UOM once again is this - the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, throughout the world, whether in council or dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals. Now this teaching too as Catholics, we are obliged to believe, it is always free from error, and it is that very teaching that puts the lie to the notion that the post V2 church represents the true Church of Christ.
As a rule, all Cekadians have an false idea about infallibility, what it is and how it works. This adulterated idea not only enforces and encourages contradictions, but Cekadians us it as an escape mechanism to justify these contradictions within themselves even if they must stoop to the lamest of lame excuses to do it, and no amount of indisputable reasoning seems to impact them in the slightest.
-
In his version, a pope and 2000 bishops are the UOM and therefore, cannot teach error, but historical proof demonstrates that's exactly what happened at V2, so whatever your idea of infallibility and the UOM is, you can cross off his version as an epic fail.
Not sure about Fr Cekada, but +Sanborn in is clear in his writings that according to him the Conciliar hierarchy is not Catholic hierarchy in any way, shape or form and the Conciliar Church is not and has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Thus, according to this version of the sedevacantist position it is really simple - V2 was heretical, thus pope and 2000 bishops who taught and promulgated its teachings ceased to be Catholics, so V2 is not part of UOM, but a non-Catholic council with no authority. So according to +Sanborn's position (as I understand it) V2 did not come from "a pope and 2000 bishops", it did not come from the Church, but from the apostates.
Obviously, there are numerous theological problems with that (Church losing at least one of its marks, defection of the whole hierarchy etc.), but at least you can't say that it is inconsistent.
Yes, I am very familiar with +Sanborn. I watched him convince himself to go from a wonderfully devout and strong young priest, into a sedevacantist.
Disgust is what drove him to it, not doctrine. Disgust at PPVI's actions.
Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.
Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.
-
Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.
Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBO1YWQgSg here +Sanborn explicitly says that according to him the Conciliar Church has just the same authority as the Lutheran Church of America and it is a completely false Church. So, according to him, V2 came from the false Church, not from UOM as defined by Fr Cekada. This is unlike other sedevacantists such as John Lane, who (as far as I remember) argued that Novus Ordo bishops can still be valid hierarchy because an anti-Pope can appoint valid bishops through supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church.
-
Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.
Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).
Right. And I think I outlined this in my first post here. V2 doesn't meet the definition of the UOM due to missing the "in union with the pope" part. On the other hand, the V1 definition of UOM also states that something must be taught as divinely revealed by the UOM in order to be infallible. But I also believe, contrary to R&R, that something like an Ecuмenical Council MUST be at least infallibly safe with regard to any substantial teaching it would make, that it can't be radically wrong. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. My issue with SVism has always been fact that PRIVATE JUDGMENT is being applied in order to discern the alleged contradiction; so THIS is the weakest link in the entire logic chain.
-
Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.
Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).
Right. And I think I outlined this in my first post here. V2 doesn't meet the definition of the UOM due to missing the "in union with the pope" part. On the other hand, the V1 definition of UOM also states that something must be taught as divinely revealed by the UOM in order to be infallible. But I also believe, contrary to R&R, that something like an Ecuмenical Council MUST be at least infallibly safe with regard to any substantial teaching it would make, that it can't be radically wrong. Otherwise, the Magisterium would have defected. My issue with SVism has always been fact that PRIVATE JUDGMENT is being applied in order to discern the alleged contradiction; so THIS is the weakest link in the entire logic chain.
Either V2 was an ecuмenical council or it was not. If it was and it meets the criteria, then what it taught would be infallible. It still ends up the same issue. If it's a true council of the Catholic Church then it is infallible. But R&R folk continue to say that it was fallible. In other words, the Magisterium defected.
-
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
Two issues here.
1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.
2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.
-
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
Two issues here.
1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.
2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.
So based on #2, we can make the logical conclusion in #1.
-
[Traditionalists, and even many Novus Ordites who believe in salvation through invincible ignorance insist that the infidels are saved "in their religion", but not "through their religion" (as Archbishop Lefebvre unfortunately taught), while Vatican II teaches that false religions themselves have positive qualities and bring their adherents closer to God.
But this "in" vs. "by" distinction is completely made up and has no foundation in the Catholic Magisterium. In fact, the dogma is no salvation EXCEPT WITHIN the Church, not no salvation EXCEPT BY MEANS OF the Church.
Let's assume for a minute that a Jew can be saved by virtue of his belief in the Rewarder God. Where did this Jew come to believe in the Rewarder God? Through his religion. So one could argue that the religion can save MATERIALLY even though it's the underlying FORMAL faith that is salvific. So their false religion can in fact materially and instrumentally be a means of salvation ... though not formally the means of salvation. Let's say that an infant was baptized by the Orthodox and dies before reaching the age of reason. Again, materially, this person was saved by means of the Orthodox religion, though formally by the Catholic religion.
So a simple application of the formal/material distinction can salvage this apparent contradiction.
-
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
Two issues here.
1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.
2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.
So based on #2, we can make the logical conclusion in #1.
I don't understand. If there's no contradiction then #2 isn't even an issue.
-
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
Two issues here.
1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.
You ask a good question.
Do YOU actually know any doctrine of the Catholic Church? How do you know it is a doctrine?
-
I agree with your point that the main errors of Vatican II are in regard to ecclesiology and soteriology and that many Traditionalists unfortunately hold them too, nevertheless I think that the "Cushingite" ecclesiology is not the only problem of Vatican II and even adopting it is not enough to "drop all opposition to Vatican II". There are still scandalous statements in Nostra Aetate regarding false religions - Traditionalists, and even many Novus Ordites who believe in salvation through invincible ignorance insist that the infidels are saved "in their religion", but not "through their religion" (as Archbishop Lefebvre unfortunately taught), while Vatican II teaches that false religions themselves have positive qualities and bring their adherents closer to God. This gave rise to heresies expressed by V2 Popes and members of the Conciliar Church that the Old Covenant is still valid and Jews can be saved by it, that Muslims can be saved through observing Islam, that God manifests himself to people through false religions (explicitly taught by John Paul II in Redemptoris Misso) etc. On the other hand, Traditionalists who unfortunately hold to salvation through invincible ignorance nevertheless believe that false religions are an abomination for God and people are not saved through them. So the error of Vatican II is much deeper than that of "Cushingite" Traditionalists.
In short:
1. Vatican II and Conciliar Church: people are saved in non-Catholic Churches/non-Christian religions and these Churches/religions are positive means of their salvation.
2. "Cushingite" Traditionalists: false religions are an abomination and the non-Catholic Churches are heretical, but people in them can be saved in spite of that.
Even though both positions are erroneous, the difference is crucial - Vatican II position taken to its logical conclusion leads to the endorsement of false religions (for which the V2 Popes are indeed notorious) and the ecuмenical apostasy we see right now, while "Cushingite" Traditionalists' position does not.
Then we have Vatican II's admiration of man expressed especially in Gaudium et Spes, which gave rise to humanism and anthropocentrism we are observing currently in the Conciliar Church.
Finally, the problem with Vatican II is not only its explicit teachings, but also employed modernist hermeneutics which became rampant after the Council and which notoriously mark the later Papal docuмents and actions of the Conciliar hierarchy.
None of this begins overnight in Vatican II Council but actually precedes it. The apostasy has been relentlessly gradual and has as root the new ecclesiology coming from "Salvation Outside the Church" (no matter how the Judaizers want to call it: invincible ignorance, salvation by implicit desire, salvation by grace alone, etc etc...at the end, it is simply salvation without the catholic Sacraments). See Fr. Bourmaud's book "100 years of Modernism".
One Hundred Years of Modernism: A Genealogy of the Principles of the Second Vatican Council
by Dominic Bourmaud
http://www.amazon.com/One-Hundred-Years-Modernism-Principles/dp/1892331438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444878892&sr=8-1&keywords=100+years+of+modernism
It is the Salvific Implicit Faith theory (a degradation of the original Baptism of Desire theory proper, this is, strictly for catechumens) which precisely gives way to the Rahnerian's theory of Universal Salvation and ends up in the Prayer at Assisi. One thing leads to the other because to compromise even in one point of doctrine is to fall into a hellish slippery slope which the enemies of the Church are more than ready to take advantage of.
The Cushingite" Traditionalists' fail to make this simple connection between denial of EENS and the novelties of Religious Liberty, False Ecuмenism, and other Modernists ills. If a person in a false religion can be said to be in the state of Sanctifying Grace and be the temple of the Holy Ghost why refuse to pray with them or/and impose the Catholic religion upon them if there is a slight chance for them to get to Heaven?
This article applies to most 'traditionalists' on why they cannot effectively defend Tradition:
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
-
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
Two issues here.
1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.
2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.
So based on #2, we can make the logical conclusion in #1.
I don't understand. If there's no contradiction then #2 isn't even an issue.
Every true Trad believes there are contradictions. If a person doesn't know for sure that there are contradictions then that person shouldn't even call themselves a Trad, start attending the NO and follow Vatican II and its hierarchy.
-
Him and Fr. Cekada and all the SVs together can believe the UOM is not the UOM - even after defining it as well as he did in his own video. Their disbelief does not change the fact that the UOM Fr. Cekada defines gave us the NO.
Not sure what religion they preach who define the UOM then say the UOM is not the UOM in order to justify their own opinion, but we know that's not what Catholics do.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).
Actually, it is the pope along with the bishops at an ecuмenical council that make it infallible. It is the pope that finalizes the deal so to speak.
-
I'm not sure I understand your objection. According to +Sanborn's position V2 did not come from the UOM as defined by Fr Cekada because Paul VI was not a Pope and the bishops at the Council were not Catholic hierarchy. This, although I don't endorse this position, seems perfectly consistent to me (erroneus - very likely, but not inconsistent).
My objection lies in the lengths +Sanborn, Fr. Cekada and apparently all Cekadians will go to in order to justify their opinion in their attempt to be consistent. It amounts to one fallacy leading to another and to another, even to the point of denying contradiction where it obviously exists, and only for the purpose of justifying their opinion about, as Fr. Cekada states it, "the pope problem". That is what it's all about, it all revolves around and points directly back too, "the pope problem".
Here in the picture below, according to Fr. Cekada, is the UOM, that is, the pope and all the bishops together in Council, albeit at V2.
(http://www.cbcew.org.uk/var/storage/images/cbcew/cbcew-media-library/cbcew-images/vatican/vatican-ii-inside-st-peter-s-c-david-lees/275307-1-eng-GB/Vatican-II-Inside-St-Peter-s-C-David-Lees_medium.jpg)
If the V2 popes, were not popes, and the bishops were not bishops, hence the V2 UOM was not the UOM, then all 2500+ of them were not the UOM *before* entering the Council in 1962. They all defected or otherwise lost their offices on account of their heresies sometime before October 11, 1962, which was when V2 convened.
1) When exactly and 2) what heresies exactly did they *all* profess which no one knew about that caused them ipso facto to lose their offices before 1962? It had to happen before the Council because per Fr. Cekada, once they are in Council, "they are always free from error". And by now, 53 years later, certainly there is some kind of evidence, however weak or strong it may be, to substantiate such an obviously absurd claim.
-
Why yes, it would be the UOM if their teachings didn't contradict the UOM. But they did. Those teachings should have been infallible. They weren't. Why?
Two issues here.
1) "But they did..." Says who? Looks that way to me too. But who am I? Nobody.
2) V1 stated that UOM is infallible when proposing something as "divinely revealed". So I don't believe that everything or even anything in Vatican II necessarily met the notes of infallibility in the strict sense. I do believe, however, as I said above, that V2 should have been protected in the broader sense (as explained by Msgr. Fenton) from being substantially or radically erroneous so that one must reject it in order to preserve one's faith. To posit that, as R&R does, would be tantamount to positing the defection of the Magisterium. Not to mention the defection of the Universal Discipline of the Church vis-a-vis the NOM.
So based on #2, we can make the logical conclusion in #1.
I don't understand. If there's no contradiction then #2 isn't even an issue.
Every true Trad believes there are contradictions. If a person doesn't know for sure that there are contradictions then that person shouldn't even call themselves a Trad, start attending the NO and follow Vatican II and its hierarchy.
We have determined, based upon our own private judgment, that there are irreconcilable contradictions. Unfortunately that is not enough to "depose" popes. It suffices to have doubts and for us to suspend our judgment regarding these matters until the Church intervenes. So, for instance, I do not believe in religious liberty due to the teaching of the Magisterium. I cannot therefore at the same time believe in religious liberty due to Vatican II. Consequently, I suspend my intellectual assent towards the teaching of Vatican II until such a time as the Church would either clarify the distinctions that would allow me to assent at the same time to both the pre Vatican II Magisterium AND the Vatican II Magisterium or else the Church declares Vatican II null and void. I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. But that's AS FAR AS our private judgment can take us.
-
If the V2 popes, were not popes, and the bishops were not bishops, hence the V2 UOM was not the UOM, then all 2500+ of them were not the UOM *before* entering the Council in 1962. They all defected or otherwise lost their offices on account of their heresies sometime before October 11, 1962, which was when V2 convened.
Yes, this is a problem. Of course, it would suffice for JUST the Pope to not be legitimate for the V2 UOM not to be protected by the Holy Spirit. But there's still a problem. Did all the V2 bishops magically defect at some specific point in time?
-
If the V2 popes, were not popes, and the bishops were not bishops, hence the V2 UOM was not the UOM, then all 2500+ of them were not the UOM *before* entering the Council in 1962. They all defected or otherwise lost their offices on account of their heresies sometime before October 11, 1962, which was when V2 convened.
Yes, this is a problem. Of course, it would suffice for JUST the Pope to not be legitimate for the V2 UOM not to be protected by the Holy Spirit. But there's still a problem. Did all the V2 bishops magically defect at some specific point in time?
True, but not only that, it *could* also just as easily mean just one bishop not being a legitimate bishop - it can all depend on what each person's private interpretation of "universal" is. +Sanborn just shot the whole bunch of 'em at the same time, enabling him to wash his hands of the whole mess entirely in one fell swoop.
A strict interpretation of "Universal" means 100% of the pope and all bishops and hierarchy, but it could also mean 99.9%, or 50.000001%, then again it could mean whatever you want it to mean to justify your position. For example, Fr. Cekada has an article with 23 unknown theologians and two popular ones - he claims these represent the UOM which guarantee that a BOD is an infallible teaching of the UOM.
The whole concept as Fr. Cekada presents it has no absolutes, and by design is open ended so as to be specifically ambiguous, which of course allows it to mean whatever you want it to mean - but only just as long as it jives with common opinion as established by himself. In the case of V2, it means the UOM was not the UOM. That is how he gift wraps his contradictions, and the people who follow the Cekadian way, accept it
-
We have determined, based upon our own private judgment, that there are irreconcilable contradictions. Unfortunately that is not enough to "depose" popes. It suffices to have doubts and for us to suspend our judgment regarding these matters until the Church intervenes. So, for instance, I do not believe in religious liberty due to the teaching of the Magisterium. I cannot therefore at the same time believe in religious liberty due to Vatican II. Consequently, I suspend my intellectual assent towards the teaching of Vatican II until such a time as the Church would either clarify the distinctions that would allow me to assent at the same time to both the pre Vatican II Magisterium AND the Vatican II Magisterium or else the Church declares Vatican II null and void. I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. But that's AS FAR AS our private judgment can take us.
Though you have already absolutely condemned me in various posts as either mentally incompetent or of bad will, I truly want to understand your position on these matters. I have not been able to understand what I perceive as a contradiction in your own thinking. But it seems to me that some light is shining on your thinking based upon your comments here.
Please explain why you accept the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught prior to Vatican 2 but not the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught after Vatican 2. Is this choice of which Magisterial teaching you believe simply a matter of preference or do you have a principle by which you make that choice.
And, since you suspend your intellectual assent to the post Vatican 2 Magisterium on the matter, does that necessarily mean that those who have fully accepted the post Vatican 2 Magisterial teachings on religious liberty (and all the ecuмenical activities that flow from that teaching) are fully, 100% Catholic while they actively participate in Jєωιѕн, Islamic, and Pagan religious ceremonies?
While you probably doubt me, I am asking these questions truly in good faith.
-
TKGS, when I say that I have suspended my assent, this means that I withhold my assent to the V2 teaching. Why? Simpy because I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions. I do in fact perceive the V2 teaching to contradict previous Magisterium. So until such a time as I could come to understand V2 religious liberty in such a way and with such distinctions as would make it no longer contradict the previous Magisterium, then I cannot assent to it.
But I recognize that my judgment regarding the existence of said contradiction is rooted in my own private judgment, and therefore is liable to be mistaken. Is there some distinction that I'm missing? Also, if I were to accept the Cushingite ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, the reconciliation in my mind is very very simple. So that explains why the EENS issues is of paramount importance to me. From the standpoint of my own "Feeneyite" ecclesiology (aka "Thomistic" ecclesiology, since BoD is not absolutely critical to this), V2 is absolutely riddled with error. From the standpoint of Cushingite ecclesiology, V2 is easily reconcilable with prior Magisterium.
-
Please explain why you accept the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught prior to Vatican 2 but not the doctrines concerning religious liberty taught after Vatican 2. Is this choice of which Magisterial teaching you believe simply a matter of preference or do you have a principle by which you make that choice.
Because I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. Yet, all the while, I recognize that my conclusion that they are contradictory comes from my own private judgment. But am I missing something? Most Traditional Catholics see only: Pre-Vatican II -- no religious liberty, Post-Vatican II -- religious liberty. But are we missing some crucial distinction? I cannot rule this out because I am not infallible.
And, since you suspend your intellectual assent to the post Vatican 2 Magisterium on the matter, does that necessarily mean that those who have fully accepted the post Vatican 2 Magisterial teachings on religious liberty (and all the ecuмenical activities that flow from that teaching) are fully, 100% Catholic while they actively participate in Jєωιѕн, Islamic, and Pagan religious ceremonies?
No, I don't think that this follows. Clearly their understanding of religious liberty as evidenced by their praxis certainly contradicts the pre-Vatican II Magisterium regarding such matters. But then lots of people have read lots of things into Vatican II. I'm interested in what the actual teaching of V2 is rather than in how various types might or might not interpret it. I'm not sure that the ecuмenical activity is an example of religious liberty. Depending on who it is, it could be perceived differently. More than anything, it implies a rejection of EENS and puts into practice the V2 ecclesiology. But I'd rather not digress into that.
While you probably doubt me, I am asking these questions truly in good faith.
No, I take your word for it. I have no reason to doubt you. It's easy to get irritated with one another and get entrenched in the different positions. I try to keep an open mind and listen to all arguments on all sides. At the end of the day, I only wish to do and to believe what God wants. Otherwise, we run the risk of going off the rails by following whatever opinion tickles our fancy.
-
I'm interested in what the actual teaching of V2 is rather than in how various types might or might not interpret it.
But aren't the Conciliar bishops along with the Conciliar pope who are ruling dioceses all over the world today the authentic interpreters of what Vatican 2 actually teaches? Should we not all just take their general teachings, their catechisms, and their actions at face value as the authentic interpretation of the Council since they seem, at least on the doctrines of religious liberty and ecuмenism, to be virtually 100% united?
Is there even one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who holds a See of a diocese that publicly rejects religious liberty or ecuмenical activities? I would think that if there was, it would be big news on "The Vortex" as well as in both the conservative Catholic press and even the secular press (though one would praise and other denounce).
I really don't understand why you don't know what the Conciliar Magisterium teaches about these subjects.
-
Some observations:
First of all, the problem is not unique to "SVism" but faced by all Catholics: For nearly 2,000 years the Church has authoritatively and infallibly and irrevocably taught certain things to be true, and rejected others as false. And then come Vatican II which throws all of that out the window. Just trying to discover what it takes to save our own soul is quite enough, to say nothing of figuring out how it happened or what it would take to restore things and prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.
Getting back to Fr. Cekada's talk (great sermon, Fr.!) the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is infallible, pure and simple, per the Church's own teaching, Pope Pius XII:Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"; (Lk. 10:16) and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis, Paragraph 20).
Even more to the point, Msgr. G. Van Noort writes in Volume 2 page 330:PROPOSITION. The college of bishops, whether gathered in an ecuмenical council, or dispersed throughout the world but morally united to the supreme pontiff, in its teaching on matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
This proposition is of faith.
So the real question is "What about Vatican II?" If it were to have belonged to the UOM then it too would have to be infallible and God has contradicted Himself. Clearly (though he does not mention it in the sermon) Fr. does not count Vatican II as part of that UOM or else he really would be as self-contradictory as some here have accused him of being. Now, the participants of Vatican II do seem to have been "morally united to Paul VI." If, in being united to Paul VI were they therefore united to the supreme pontiff? If so then that is a very big problem which can never be solved. If not then that is Fr.'s solution (SVism).
But the problem does run deeper in that the Church cannot have defected. Who, therefore, was "the Church" while all these prelates were tricked into signing things they should never have signed and (for the most part) would not have signed had they truly understood their content, import, and necessary ramifications?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_7V64ozJXM&feature=youtu.be
At about 7:25, Fr. Cekada says;
"Now, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, what does that mean? [he answers] That is the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, whether in council or whether dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals.........now this teaching too is infallible, this teaching too, is free from error."
At about 10:10 he goes on;
"The Universal Extraordinary and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium both [are] infallible. The Extraordinary Magisterium, these rare solemn pronouncements, are somehow not more infallible than the ordinary magisterium, nor does it somehow trump the teaching of the UOM because the idea is that the truth is one.............both are part of the same magisterium, both teach the same thing, both must be believed."
A little further on he says; "it is the UOM that proves the falsehood of Vatican 2 and proves the loss of authority on the part of the post conciliar popes, so called. That the dealing of V2 on matters such as religious liberty, contradicts the previous teaching of the UOM, and therefore, cannot be accepted, must be rejected as something that is heretical because it contradicts what the Church has taught before.
20:47
Catholics are obliged then to give the ascent of faith, not only to doctrines that are expressly defined in the rare solemn pronouncements of popes and ecuмenical councils, but also to those teachings that are propose by the UOM.
The UOM once again is this - the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, throughout the world, whether in council or dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals. Now this teaching too as Catholics, we are obliged to believe, it is always free from error, and it is that very teaching that puts the lie to the notion that the post V2 church represents the true Church of Christ.
I watched this video and can hardly believe how blatantly Fr. confuses and contradicts his own definition of the infallibility of the UOM. Anyone else see this?
Per Fr. Cekada:
The UOM is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in Council.
The UOM is infallible.
The UOM is always free from error.
The UOM must be believed.
Yet, the Novus Ordo, because it is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in the Second Vatican Council, is, by his own definition, a teaching of the UOM - this much is indisputable. As such, V2 is therefore infallible and must be believed. But per Fr. Cekada, the UOM must be believed, just not in this case? :scratchchin:
Is Fr. Cekada an accurate representative of SV theology here? Because what he teaches in that video is not representative of Catholic theology and decidedly misrepresents Catholic teaching on infallibility.
Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point? Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B. VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them) corollary, these clowns are usurpers.
Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly. Surely creates a mystery, but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.
-
We have determined, based upon our own private judgment, that there are irreconcilable contradictions. Unfortunately that is not enough to "depose" popes. It suffices to have doubts and for us to suspend our judgment regarding these matters until the Church intervenes. So, for instance, I do not believe in religious liberty due to the teaching of the Magisterium. I cannot therefore at the same time believe in religious liberty due to Vatican II. Consequently, I suspend my intellectual assent towards the teaching of Vatican II until such a time as the Church would either clarify the distinctions that would allow me to assent at the same time to both the pre Vatican II Magisterium AND the Vatican II Magisterium or else the Church declares Vatican II null and void. I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions at the same time. But that's AS FAR AS our private judgment can take us.
But as you said up-thread, who are you? If you can't judge a pope a false pope, then who are you to question or doubt or suspend assent to a true pope's teaching, liturgy and canon law? Who are you to decide how far private judgment can take us? I would argue that it takes some mighty large hubris for someone to sit in judgment of a true pope wrt all of these things.
-
So, Stubborn, since you have made it quite clear that you believe that V2 was the infallible UOM, why don't you agree with the teachings of V2?
-
Why it is so hard to believe that the Church and Her hierarchy have been infiltrated (once again) by "Marranos"? As global Judaism has taken over the world, the Church has not been immune to such influence and it has been polluted by Jews who while pretending to be Christians, actually remain at heart dedicated enemies of Christ.
Historically, this is not the first time that it has happened. An example occurred in Spain, in the early XV century, thousands of Jews became "Marranos" and in the guise of Catholics, they crowded into every single realm of Spaniard life until they finally came to dominate even the royal court itself. They extended such ill influence even in the clergy and bishops as well. These converted Jews in Vatican II are not converted at all, but they still hate the Catholic Church and long see her devastated. As said before, this is not the first time that happens, but we can add to this litany of evils the fact that all means of massive and instant information are monopolized and dominated by the Jєωιѕн Left so at the end, the Catholic in the pew is at the mercy of what is manipulated and communicated to them by the very Enemies of the Papacy and the Church.
-
Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point? Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B. VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them) corollary, these clowns are usurpers.
Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly. Surely creates a mystery, but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.
You have it correct, he defines the UOM as infallible when in council with the pope, then he says V2, which was comprised of the UOM as he defines it, was not the UOM at all. He presumably does this to attempt to defend the doctrine of infallibility? Or is it to attempt to prove the UOM and pope are fakes, or they all or some percentage of them lost their offices sometime prior to 1962? - which is why he does not listen to them.
To that, all anyone need to say is - "no way", and he has nothing but conjecture to argue his unsubstantiated and impossible to prove, wild opinions.
For 2Vermont.....
Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error, and that because the NO is full of error, it is not infallible, it is not binding and it is to be avoided or fought against. Who ever does not know this will certainly discover it with the grace of God, if they sincerely seek the truth.
This is what we know, this is *all* we actually know - everything else regarding the V2 UOM is 100% pure speculation - period, but people, particularly Cekadians, actually believe what he preaches is a teaching of the Church - some even believe it doctrine - even though much of it certainly ridiculous, most of it is not Catholic at all.
-
I'm not sure that the ecuмenical activity is an example of religious liberty. Depending on who it is, it could be perceived differently.
And then we have Bergoglio's recent comments on religious liberty:
“With countless other people of good will, they are likewise concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to religious liberty. That freedom remains one of America’s most precious possessions. And, as my brothers, the United States Bishops, have reminded us, all are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.”
Given Bergoglio is the personification of Vatican II, s this merely his personal opinion on religious liberty or is it the correct interpretation of Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty?
-
Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point? Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B. VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them) corollary, these clowns are usurpers.
Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly. Surely creates a mystery, but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.
You have it correct, he defines the UOM as infallible when in council with the pope, then he says V2, which was comprised of the UOM as he defines it, was not the UOM at all. He presumably does this to attempt to defend the doctrine of infallibility? Or is it to attempt to prove the UOM and pope are fakes, or they all or some percentage of them lost their offices sometime prior to 1962? - which is why he does not listen to them.
To that, all anyone need to say is - "no way", and he has nothing but conjecture to argue his unsubstantiated and impossible to prove, wild opinions.
For 2Vermont.....
Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error, and that because the NO is full of error, it is not infallible, it is not binding and it is to be avoided or fought against. Who ever does not know this will certainly discover it with the grace of God, if they sincerely seek the truth.
This is what we know, this is *all* we actually know - everything else regarding the V2 UOM is 100% pure speculation - period, but people, particularly Cekadians, actually believe what he preaches is a teaching of the Church - some even believe it doctrine - even though much of it certainly ridiculous, most of it is not Catholic at all.
No, it is not speculation to you because you have insisted since the beginning of this thread that V2 represented the UOM. According to you then the UOM has brought about diabolical error.
-
Aren't you not seeing that which is the whole point? Is he not saying that because A. the UOM is infallible and must be accepted, and B. VII is clearly in error, ergo C. it is NOT the UOM (by their fruits you shall KNOW them) corollary, these clowns are usurpers.
Correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly. Surely creates a mystery, but not as difficult as reconciling a clearly heretical council and a bunch of goofs into something it's not, Catholic.
You have it correct, he defines the UOM as infallible when in council with the pope, then he says V2, which was comprised of the UOM as he defines it, was not the UOM at all. He presumably does this to attempt to defend the doctrine of infallibility? Or is it to attempt to prove the UOM and pope are fakes, or they all or some percentage of them lost their offices sometime prior to 1962? - which is why he does not listen to them.
To that, all anyone need to say is - "no way", and he has nothing but conjecture to argue his unsubstantiated and impossible to prove, wild opinions.
For 2Vermont.....
Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error, and that because the NO is full of error, it is not infallible, it is not binding and it is to be avoided or fought against. Who ever does not know this will certainly discover it with the grace of God, if they sincerely seek the truth.
This is what we know, this is *all* we actually know - everything else regarding the V2 UOM is 100% pure speculation - period, but people, particularly Cekadians, actually believe what he preaches is a teaching of the Church - some even believe it doctrine - even though much of it certainly ridiculous, most of it is not Catholic at all.
No, it is not speculation to you because you have insisted since the beginning of this thread that V2 represented the UOM. According to you then the UOM has brought about diabolical error.
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
Speculation is when you start theorizing that the UOM was 'somehow' not the UOM. It's that word "somehow" that makes it all speculation - yet that word MUST be used because you can never prove such a crazy thing as that, so all it can ever be is conjecture, opinion, speculation - call it whatever.
Those who've been sucked into the mindset of Fr. Cekada et al, and who make such ridiculous speculations, end up embracing the speculation as if it is a defined truth of the faith. But the real truth is that it only demonstrate a blatant and decided lack of faith in the doctrine of infallibility. That is ALL they demonstrate for all to see, but it seems that most are taken in by wild speculations - the wilder the better - and next thing you know, they are trapped in speculations, don't even realize it, and need yet more speculations to be consistent.
-
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
This is where you are factually wrong. It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope. Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.
His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council. Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different. In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.
-
Define Magisterium. Unity through obedience, Show their Universal agreement in "Matters of FAITH and MORALS.
The New Order, Vatican II and on all fail this test! The Deposit of Faith is most definitely in the TRUE MASS. So, all of the New Order FAIL. Who are they obedient too? Satan!
This is a public, universal Show of how they agree, as Marxist.
Anyone who does this, is excommunicated by their own actions. No come to Jesus meeting is necessary. Anyone who aligns themselves with the excommunicated, are also in the same boat.
There is no need to call the name "sede". We just don't want to anti up to the excommunicated and we Pray as we wait for Chapter 12 of Daniel.
Fr. Cekada and others who use the word Magisterium best make sure they know what they are talking about.
-
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
This is where you are factually wrong. It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope. Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.
His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council. Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different. In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.
All speculation.
It is an historical fact that the authentic UOM were at V2. How can we say this with absolute certainty?
Because no one has ever proven, nor will anyone ever prove that the UOM were not the authentic, legitimate, legal and official UOM no matter WHAT Fr. Cekada chooses to speculate, believe and preach - in that order.
His point that the UOM defected before V2 is pure speculation. 100% pure speculation and nothing more. That speculation's value is worth nothing, is not Catholic and is certainly worth much less than my telling you an unadulterated historical fact and where your faith belongs - that no matter what the popes and UOM said or did, no matter what they will ever say or do, the doctrine of infallibility will remain true. Put your faith in that, not the speculative preachings of the Fr. Cekadas of the world.
But see, you allowed yourself to be trapped in the whole Cekadian speculative faith trap. You place your faith in speculation, which is a very, very dangerous place for it, and you do so at the cost of placing your faith and trusting in the true faith of the doctrine of infallibility.
Put your faith in and trust that the doctrine will never fail no matter what. That doctrine is what is certain. The rest is speculation which leads to more speculation which ultimately leads to more speculation - then before you know it, it leads you into a faith that is not Catholic.
-
Let's say that an infant was baptized by the Orthodox and dies before reaching the age of reason. Again, materially, this person was saved by means of the Orthodox religion, though formally by the Catholic religion.
I don't think that is a good example because if I'm not mistaken theologians have taught that there are only Catholic sacraments. So baptism is still valid even when performed by a schismatic. It's as if the sacrament has been stolen by the schismatic. So the infant is saved because it was baptised into the Catholic Church even though the intention was to teach the child to reject the doctrine of the Church. Basically, you can't say that the child was saved by means of the Orthodox religion. Not even materially.
-
TKGS, when I say that I have suspended my assent, this means that I withhold my assent to the V2 teaching. Why? Simpy because I cannot assent to two contradictory propositions. I do in fact perceive the V2 teaching to contradict previous Magisterium. So until such a time as I could come to understand V2 religious liberty in such a way and with such distinctions as would make it no longer contradict the previous Magisterium, then I cannot assent to it.
But I recognize that my judgment regarding the existence of said contradiction is rooted in my own private judgment, and therefore is liable to be mistaken. Is there some distinction that I'm missing? Also, if I were to accept the Cushingite ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, the reconciliation in my mind is very very simple. So that explains why the EENS issues is of paramount importance to me. From the standpoint of my own "Feeneyite" ecclesiology (aka "Thomistic" ecclesiology, since BoD is not absolutely critical to this), V2 is absolutely riddled with error. From the standpoint of Cushingite ecclesiology, V2 is easily reconcilable with prior Magisterium.
Why do you refuse to assent to the V2 teaching but not the pre-V2 teaching? Why are you confident that you understand the pre-V2 teaching enough to assent to it? But you then perceive contradictions but rather than refuse assent to both pre-V2 and V2 teaching you only refuse V2 teaching. That seems to indicate something more than a doubt or a fear of being mistaken.
-
Stubborn says,
Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error
and
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
OK, so you have confirmed that the UOM has given us "diabolical error".
:scratchchin:
Please provide Catholic teaching that supports that the infallible UOM can teach "diabolical error".
-
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
This is where you are factually wrong. It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope. Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.
His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council. Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different. In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.
Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error. 'Nuff said.
-
Put your faith in and trust that the doctrine will never fail no matter what. That doctrine is what is certain. The rest is speculation which leads to more speculation which ultimately leads to more speculation - then before you know it, it leads you into a faith that is not Catholic.
I find it curious that this advice you're proposing for Catholics today is equally applicable to the Council in 1962 -- advice which the Council did not follow:
The Council in 1962 did not put its faith and trust in the doctrine of the Church, such that it would not fail.
The speculation in which the Council consequently engaged put the faith in danger during the Council, and led to a false faith, that is, one that is not Catholic.
It was not a question of whether the participants at Vat.II were legitimate. Rather, the problem at Vat.II was that from the start, it was not headed in the right direction, but it was off track and headed into the wilderness of error, from the beginning.
Any ship that embarks on a voyage heading in the wrong direction is going to miss its destination, but it is still a ship.
The road to the truth is the narrow way, and the gate to that way is also narrow, and few there are who pass through.
The road to perdition is wide and easy and many there are who go there.
.
-
Stubborn says,
Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error
and
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
OK, so you have confirmed that the UOM has given us "diabolical error".
:scratchchin:
Please provide Catholic teaching that supports that the infallible UOM can teach "diabolical error".
No, that is not what I am saying, re-read what I wrote.
While you're at it, please provide a Catholic teaching that the iinfallible UOM defects before or during a Council.
-
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
This is where you are factually wrong. It is an historical fact that people who claimed to have the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium were at Vatican 2, not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was, in truth, present.
The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, as defined by Fr. Cekada (as well as the Church) requires the confirmation of the pope. Fr. Cekada formally rejects the claim of Montini to the papacy, thus, he denies that Vatican 2 was governed under the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium.
His point is not that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium defected; rather, the defection is the best evidence that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium was not at the Council. Had there been a pope at the Council, the docuмents would have been very different. In fact, they would have pronounced Catholic doctrine even if they had not formally declared any dogma.
Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error. 'Nuff said.
No, that is not what I believe. Re-read what I wrote and use the reading comprehension skills that I know you possess this time.
-
Put your faith in and trust that the doctrine will never fail no matter what. That doctrine is what is certain. The rest is speculation which leads to more speculation which ultimately leads to more speculation - then before you know it, it leads you into a faith that is not Catholic.
I find it curious that this advice you're proposing for Catholics today is equally applicable to the Council in 1962 -- advice which the Council did not follow:
The Council in 1962 did not put its faith and trust in the doctrine of the Church, such that it would not fail.
The speculation in which the Council consequently engaged put the faith in danger during the Council, and led to a false faith, that is, one that is not Catholic.
It was not a question of whether the participants at Vat.II were legitimate. Rather, the problem at Vat.II was that from the start, it was not headed in the right direction, but it was off track and headed into the wilderness of error, from the beginning.
Yes, I agree. But per Fr. Cekada, what you just posted is an impossibility.
The problem is the Cekadians striving to justify their SV position, wildly speculate that the UOM as defined by Fr. Cekada, was not the UOM of V2, rather it was some defected version of the UOM. How this was possible is where they face their conundrum, which is explained away with more speculations in order to justify their first speculation that the popes were not popes, or as Fr. Cekada said in his video, "the pope problem".
Whether all the wild speculations about the pope and UOM are in fact true or not, are impossible to prove - and for us, *how* it happened really does not matter anyway. (This fact is something that SVs must cringe at.)
That we know the NO is evil does matter. This matters because since we know it's evil, we know we must remain with the true faith and condemn the new faith in spite of and no matter *how* it happened. That is where our responsibility lies. We do not need to attempt to solve the many theological questions of V2, certainly we should never even attempt to do so with speculations passed off as Church teaching.
-
Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error. 'Nuff said.
No, that is not what I believe. Re-read what I wrote and use the reading comprehension skills that I know you possess this time.
Ok. What I've read is not that he believes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium can give us diabolical error, but that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium isn't infallible. Or, perhaps, he believes that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium simply wasn't present at Vatican 2. Frankly, the problem is that he is simply arguing against Fr. Cekada who is simply restating Catholic doctrine of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and explaining how this doctrine is a piece of evidence that Vatican 2 cannot be of the Catholic Church.
What Stubborn, Ladislaus, et. al., have given us is a fallible Church. A Church whose teachings cannot be known at any given time because those teachings can conflict, or, as Ladislaus contends, appear to conflict but it is impossible for ordinary Catholics (or indeed, bishops and popes as well) to really know what the teaching of the Church is at any given moment in time.
They choose to believe the teachings clearly taught prior to Vatican 2, but that seems to be merely a matter of preference. They say that they see a conflict but that they are simply unable to make any judgment, but in doing so, they are judging. Though I believe they make the right judgment on many of these doctrinal issues, they have articulated no principle by which someone who makes the opposite judgment are not just as right as they. Ultimately, what we have is a dogma-less and doctrine-less Church.
Of course, there is a possible explanation: the papal claimants defected from the faith and lost the papacy, if, indeed, they ever held the papacy. Thus, there has been no exercise of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium since Vatican 2 as there has been no pope to confirm the teachings we have seen since around 1960.
-
Is every single line in anything that falls under the umbrella of the UOM strictly infallible? No. According to Vatican I, the UOM must be proposing something as divinely revealed in order to meet the criteria for infallibility. In addition, the other applicable notes of infallibility must also be present. In other words, the UOM must be teaching, for instance, a matter of faith and morals, as something to be held by all the faithful as divinely revealed.
Now, that's infallibility in the strict sense. And I think that the SVs go too far in extending (what should have been) infallibility to the entire body of Vatican II. So to this extent I agree with R&R.
HOWEVER ...
There's a BROADER notion of infallibility which derives from the indefectibility of the Church herself.
I cite Msgr. Fenton. Msgr. Fenton is speaking about the authority of papal encyclicals. But if the R&Rers would reduce V2 to an act of the UOM (which it is not by the way), then the following would apply to V2 just as it would to a papal encyclical.
In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
R&R posits the defection of the Magisterium on a grand scale, and not a slightly-off statement in some obiter dictum in the V2 docuмents. If an Ecuмenical Council can teach something "radically or completely erroneous", this would be "utterly incompatible" with any sense of the Church's indefectibility.
In my opinion, R&R is implicitly heretical.
-
Now, due to this heretical implications of R&Rism, many SVs have gone too far in the other direction, as a reaction against the implicit heresy of R&R, to unduly extending infallibility "in the strict sense" well beyond the boundaries that were defined by Vatican I. Consequently they do a disservice to their own position. They would be better served by instead emphasizing the general indefectibility of the Magisterium. If we are in a position where we MUST reject the Magisterium in order to preserve our faith, then the Magisterium has defected. Period. No need to quibble with the R&Rers about the technicalities of infallibility in the strict sense. That's a losing battle.
-
Stubborn believes the UOM can give us diabolical error. 'Nuff said.
No, that is not what I believe. Re-read what I wrote and use the reading comprehension skills that I know you possess this time.
Ok. What I've read is not that he believes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium can give us diabolical error, but that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium isn't infallible. Or, perhaps, he believes that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium simply wasn't present at Vatican 2. Frankly, the problem is that he is simply arguing against Fr. Cekada who is simply restating Catholic doctrine of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and explaining how this doctrine is a piece of evidence that Vatican 2 cannot be of the Catholic Church.
What Stubborn, Ladislaus, et. al., have given us is a fallible Church. A Church whose teachings cannot be known at any given time because those teachings can conflict, or, as Ladislaus contends, appear to conflict but it is impossible for ordinary Catholics (or indeed, bishops and popes as well) to really know what the teaching of the Church is at any given moment in time.
They choose to believe the teachings clearly taught prior to Vatican 2, but that seems to be merely a matter of preference. They say that they see a conflict but that they are simply unable to make any judgment, but in doing so, they are judging. Though I believe they make the right judgment on many of these doctrinal issues, they have articulated no principle by which someone who makes the opposite judgment are not just as right as they. Ultimately, what we have is a dogma-less and doctrine-less Church.
Of course, there is a possible explanation: the papal claimants defected from the faith and lost the papacy, if, indeed, they ever held the papacy. Thus, there has been no exercise of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium since Vatican 2 as there has been no pope to confirm the teachings we have seen since around 1960.
Sorry TKGS, but you are missing the point entirely. Try this......
1) Forget about what we do not know for certain, this includes forgetting about *all* things speculative about V2.
2) Concentrate *only* on what we know for certain.
If you are able to do this, you will have everything you need for you and your family to persevere in the true faith.
-
Sorry TKGS, but you are missing the point entirely. Try this......
1) Forget about what we do not know for certain, this includes forgetting about *all* things speculative about V2.
2) Concentrate *only* on what we know for certain.
If you are able to do this, you will have everything you need for you and your family to persevere in the true faith.
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.
I am certain the Conciliar popes and the bishops, in general, teach heresy.
I am not speculating about what the secular church teaches. They tell us just about every day, and it's not Catholicism.
-
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.
Name one.
-
Anyone thinking that an Ecuмenical Council whose decrees have been approved by the Holy Father, (no matter how ambiguous and poorly phrased), is actually heretical, and that a rite (N.O.M), promulgated by the Church, can be intrinsically evil and actually invalid (despite its ugliness and obvious inferiority) cannot do good Catholic theology. Furthermore, if he, following his personal conclusions, has stopped altogether taking the Sacraments dispensed by the Church, (only vehicles of Supernatural Grace and needed for salvation), he has indeed cut himself off from the necessary Grace, so he is on the outside looking in.
Surprisingly, most "Trads" are quick ready to believe that an entire Ecuмenical Council of the Church can be throughout heretical and yet, these same people simply cannot accept the fact that the Magisterium made an objective mistake in a single fallible docuмent, the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949, which precedes Vatican II, that teaches that a soul can be saved outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, contrary to the infallible dogmas taught for centuries before.
-
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.
Name one.
Would you still object if he said I am certain Vatican 2 teaches error?
-
Stubborn says,
Through it all, the only thing we really know with absolute certainty of faith, is that V2 and the Novus Ordo are full of diabolical error
and
Yes, I said the UOM, as defined by Fr. Cekada, were participants at V2, because they were. It is an historical fact. Being an historical fact it is not speculation by any stretch of the imagination, rather, it is fact.
OK, so you have confirmed that the UOM has given us "diabolical error".
:scratchchin:
Please provide Catholic teaching that supports that the infallible UOM can teach "diabolical error".
No, that is not what I am saying, re-read what I wrote.
While you're at it, please provide a Catholic teaching that the iinfallible UOM defects before or during a Council.
OK, so do me a favor and be REAL CLEAR (as in saying exactly what you believe about the UOM and how it relates to V2...without the Fr Cekada references).
As for the infallible UOM defecting? I don't believe that it can. I also don't believe that it can contradict previous OUM teachings or give us error. Likewise, an ecuмenical council can not teach error in faith and morals.
-
Put your faith in and trust that the doctrine will never fail no matter what. That doctrine is what is certain. The rest is speculation which leads to more speculation which ultimately leads to more speculation - then before you know it, it leads you into a faith that is not Catholic.
I find it curious that this advice you're proposing for Catholics today is equally applicable to the Council in 1962 -- advice which the Council did not follow:
The Council in 1962 did not put its faith and trust in the doctrine of the Church, such that it would not fail.
The speculation in which the Council consequently engaged put the faith in danger during the Council, and led to a false faith, that is, one that is not Catholic.
It was not a question of whether the participants at Vat.II were legitimate. Rather, the problem at Vat.II was that from the start, it was not headed in the right direction, but it was off track and headed into the wilderness of error, from the beginning.
Yes, I agree. But per Fr. Cekada, what you just posted is an impossibility.
The problem is the Cekadians striving to justify their SV position, wildly speculate that the UOM as defined by Fr. Cekada, was not the UOM of V2, rather it was some defected version of the UOM. How this was possible is where they face their conundrum, which is explained away with more speculations in order to justify their first speculation that the popes were not popes, or as Fr. Cekada said in his video, "the pope problem".
Whether all the wild speculations about the pope and UOM are in fact true or not, are impossible to prove - and for us, *how* it happened really does not matter anyway. (This fact is something that SVs must cringe at.)
That we know the NO is evil does matter. This matters because since we know it's evil, we know we must remain with the true faith and condemn the new faith in spite of and no matter *how* it happened. That is where our responsibility lies. We do not need to attempt to solve the many theological questions of V2, certainly we should never even attempt to do so with speculations passed off as Church teaching.
Um, no. He is not saying that it was a "defected version of the UOM". He is saying it was NOT the UOM. Those are two very different things, but I think you know that and I also think you know that that is NOT what Fr Cekada is saying.
Perhaps to take another false stab at SVism?
-
My understanding of the video is
If the Magisterium teaches something that is against the teaching of the Church it must be rejected.
Therefore if people who set up Vatican II Magisterium and had teach error, they (including the Pope) are not inside the Church.
That's what I understand so far from this video you posted on page#1
-
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..."
The Catholic Church's doctrine is that the one God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one denies the Son, he denies the Father. This is also scriptural.
While the Vatican 2 docuмent does not specifically attach an anathema to any who does not accept this teaching, it is what it teaches.
Of course, I expect that you will deny that this is actually a "teaching". Even John Lane agrees with you there. Based on what the bishops and the pope of the Conciliar church teach commonly throughout the world and in their catechism, this is clearly intended to be what Vatican 2 is teaching.
-
It is an historical fact that the authentic UOM were at V2. How can we say this with absolute certainty?
Because no one has ever proven, nor will anyone ever prove that the UOM were not the authentic, legitimate, legal and official UOM no matter WHAT Fr. Cekada chooses to speculate, believe and preach - in that order.
According to you, it is historical fact that the AUTHENTIC UOM was at V2. Then act like it was: attend the NO and submit to the AUTHENTIC UOM's V2 teachings.
-
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..."
The Catholic Church's doctrine is that the one God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one denies the Son, he denies the Father. This is also scriptural.
While the Vatican 2 docuмent does not specifically attach an anathema to any who does not accept this teaching, it is what it teaches.
Of course, I expect that you will deny that this is actually a "teaching". Even John Lane agrees with you there. Based on what the bishops and the pope of the Conciliar church teach commonly throughout the world and in their catechism, this is clearly intended to be what Vatican 2 is teaching.
It's nice that you replied to Ladislaus' question, but he still has several in this thread to answer.
I will add one though that I just used recently elsewhere:
"This is why the first and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor." - Gaudium et specs, 24
-
One other thing to take into account is that while the Catholic UOM is infallible, the Novus Ordo pseudo "UOM" is not infallible and never made any claims of being infallible. This was essentially Michael Davies' "out" regarding the contradiction between the old and the new. Since under the "new," only the occasional rare exercise of an "extraordinary magisterium" is infallible, all bets are off for everything else they do. This is of course also consistent with Vatican II's utter lack of anathemas.
-
TKGS said:
I am certain Vatican 2 teaches heresy.
Ladislaus said:
Name one.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVXurgxtR8
-
I have some very naive thoughts on this issue. This is not opinions, just things that cross my mind. Bear in mind I don't believe in sedevacantism but I don't say anything against who says the Chair of Peter is vacante. I have no problems as long as they don't call me schismatic.
(http://s22.postimg.org/6ox23resx/22222222.png)
picture proves that the B. XVI is a heretic.
The Catholic Church can't teach heresy (Benedict XVI is there because VII allowed). In whch we conclude....?
- freemansons wrote the docuмents of VII ? OR
- Cardinalds entered the rooms as Catholics and while in there the lost their faith and became Antichrists (inc. the Pope).
-
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..."
The Catholic Church's doctrine is that the one God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If one denies the Son, he denies the Father. This is also scriptural.
While the Vatican 2 docuмent does not specifically attach an anathema to any who does not accept this teaching, it is what it teaches.
Of course, I expect that you will deny that this is actually a "teaching". Even John Lane agrees with you there. Based on what the bishops and the pope of the Conciliar church teach commonly throughout the world and in their catechism, this is clearly intended to be what Vatican 2 is teaching.
How very interesting that it was precisely Cardinal Richard Cushing (having silenced Fr. Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center) who played a vital role in drafting Nostra aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.
"His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version":
1. We must cast the Declaration on the Jews in a much more positive form, one not so timid, but much more loving ... For the sake of our common heritage we, the children of Abraham according to the spirit, must foster a special reverence and love for the children of Abraham according to the flesh. As children of Adam, they are our kin, as children of Abraham they are Christ's blood relatives.
2. So far as the guilt of Jews in the death of our Saviour is concerned, the rejection of the Messiah by His own, is according to Scripture, a mystery—a mystery given us for our instruction, not for our self-exaltation ... We cannot sit in judgement on the onetime leaders of Israel—God alone is their judge. Much less can we burden later generations of Jews with any burden of guilt for the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, for the death of the Saviour of the world, except that universal guilt in which we all have a part ... In clear and unmistakable language, we must deny, therefore, that the Jews are guilty of our Saviour's death. We must condemn especially those who seek to justify, as Christian deeds, discrimination, hatred and even persecution of Jews ...
3. I ask myself, Venerable Brothers, whether we should not humbly acknowledge before the whole world that, toward their Jєωιѕн brethren, Christians have all too often not shown themselves as true Christians, as faithful followers of Christ. How many [Jews] have suffered in our own time? How many died because Christians were indifferent and kept silent? ... If in recent years, not many Christian voices were raised against those injustices, at least let ours now be heard in humility.
He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church. In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cushing
-
It is an historical fact that the authentic UOM were at V2. How can we say this with absolute certainty?
Because no one has ever proven, nor will anyone ever prove that the UOM were not the authentic, legitimate, legal and official UOM no matter WHAT Fr. Cekada chooses to speculate, believe and preach - in that order.
Um, no. He is not saying that it was a "defected version of the UOM". He is saying it was NOT the UOM. Those are two very different things, but I think you know that and I also think you know that that is NOT what Fr Cekada is saying.
Perhaps to take another false stab at SVism? ...........
According to you, it is historical fact that the AUTHENTIC UOM was at V2. Then act like it was: attend the NO and submit to the AUTHENTIC UOM's V2 teachings.
You are stuck firmly in the Cekadian muck. I call it muck because if you've ever been stuck in muck (there are a lot of muck farms by me), you can sink in it up to the roof - and getting unstuck even if only stuck a little, takes an amazing amount of time and effort. I call it "Cekadian muck" because it is through Fr. Cekada's teachings that the sheeple who follow him into the muck get stuck.
Any way, I get the various different speculations mixed up. Someone said the UOM defected, maybe that was +Sanborn who said that - and you say Fr. Cekada teaches it was not the UOM at all, which is even more wild than a defected UOM in my opinion - I could be wrong about that, perhaps the defected UOM is actually the more wild speculation. Either way, they are both speculations.
I guess I want to know who were the people who were in the Council if they were not the UOM? I don't expect an answer from you on this btw, because I am certain you have no answer or your answer will only be more speculations - that's how it works with speculations.
To reply to your last sentence where you want me to join the Novus Ordo.
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.
Perhaps we will never know until the next world exactly what happened, but whatever happened, our responsibility is to persevere in the faith, not try to understand the abundant theological questions and possibilities of what happened, then not fully understanding, make guesses about what happened and pass off those guesses as factual or Church teachings.
In society, people who claim to know something they really do not and could not know, are either wrong or mistaken, but people who are persistent and teach the same mistake for years on end, are appropriately known as liars.
No, I do not know with absolute certainty what happened at V2 and neither do you, neither does Fr. Cekada or +Sanborn, or +Kelly, or +Fellay or etc. but we do know that we cannot partake of the NO because it is a danger to our faith.
Our concern lies in striving to persevere in and practice the faith as was handed down to us for +2000 years no matter what else happens, that is where our responsibility lies, if we want to save our souls.
How do we know what things the popes can and cannot legitimately do? We do not have to know. The only thing we have to know is our obligations to Christ as Catholics, all of which have been laid down for us for many centuries, all of which make up the traditional Catholic religion, practically all of which can be found in the catechism.
-
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.
-
I guess I want to know who were the people who were in the Council if they were not the UOM?
Wait, so now you WANT me to speculate? :scratchchin:
I actually don't know how to answer that question other than I know, based on Catholic teaching, that the UOM can not give us error and that an ecuмenical council can not give us error. Vatican II gave us error...lots of it. Therefore, logic tells me that Vatican II could not be authentic UOM. It also can not be an authentic ecuмenical council. My logic tells me that means that at the very least, the sitting pope who promulgated all such errors could not be an authentic pope.
-
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.
-
I guess I want to know who were the people who were in the Council if they were not the UOM?
Wait, so now you WANT me to speculate? :scratchchin:
I actually don't know how to answer that question other than I know, based on Catholic teaching, that the UOM can not give us error and that an ecuмenical council can not give us error. Vatican II gave us error...lots of it. Therefore, logic tells me that Vatican II could not be authentic UOM. It also can not be an authentic ecuмenical council. My logic tells me that means that at the very least, the sitting pope who promulgated all such errors could not be an authentic pope.
I could make a number of speculations about V2 that are more inline with the Catholic faith than the speculations of Fr. Cekada, but to what end?
+ABL was there in the Council no? He seemed to think it was purposely fallible - what does he know?
How about this for a wild speculation.........It can even be argued that V2 was not infallible on account of +ABL alone. If per Fr. Cekada's definition of the UOM, only one bishop did not go along with all the others, then we can say the NO is not a Universal teaching........it's universal minus one.
So since it was not universal, that is all the proof that anyone needs to know it did not meet the criteria on infallibility. The crazy guesses can go on and on..
-
"I actually don't know how to answer that question other than I know, based on Catholic teaching, that the UOM can not give us error and that an ecuмenical council can not give us error. Vatican II gave us error...lots of it. Therefore, logic tells me that Vatican II could not be authentic UOM. It also can not be an authentic ecuмenical council. My logic tells me that means that at the very least, the sitting pope who promulgated all such errors could not be an authentic pope." (2Vermont)
I am a huge fan of simplicity, especially when talking about absolute truths. I have been a sedevacantist for some 30 years now and have had the privilege of sitting at the feet of such eminent sedevacantists as Tom Costello and Hutton Gibson. As well, I have participated in these online forums for many years, most recently as an observer, as I confess I tire from all of the pontificating. One of the problems arising from the online discussions is that everyone is published and everyone is a theologian and I have certainly been guilty of this myself. I do not want to labor on that issue so I will get to my point.
The above quote, recently submitted by 2Vermont has to be one of the most brilliant posts in recent memory. I have seen it before of course, but in the midst of all that is going on recently on these online forums I almost overwhelmed by the simplicity of the statement which really answers the questions being argued ad nauseum. In other words this is a Catholic man with a true sense of what is Catholic. He is saying, if I may tell you how I read it, that I may not be able to answer the question, but what I know is Vatican II taught error (and it did) and it can't do that so logically it cannot be the UOM. Bravo! This is simply a defense of his faith. If the True Church can be said to teach error from the UOM then all has become irrelevant. You would be nothing more then another protestant cult. Everything becomes speculative if we argue that Councils and Popes can teach error and sadly you don't know when that is. Sedevacantism is not a solution to this crisis, it is a reality. I could go on but I simply wanted to post a response because I was struck by the beauty of 2Vermonts answer. Keep the faith my good man.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Everyone keeps arguing about the UOM. My question is where is the UOM today?
-
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
-
Here it is:
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.
-
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.
-
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.'
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQKRELvZ9xg
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVXurgxtR8
-
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.
-
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.
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
"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,
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?
-
Yes, he was. So were these:
http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVXurgxtR8
-
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.
-
Here it is:
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
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
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.
-
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?
-
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, 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.
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,
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
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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, 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.
-
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.
If I made it up, then the SSPX made it up:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2003_September/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
See the NOTE about the letter.
-
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.
You see nothing because you choose not to see anything.
-
CANTARELLA SAID:
----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!----
No, I'm a sedevacantist and I don't believe that any non-Catholic can be saved, and I don't believe in 'baptism of desire'. If you accept Francis or Benedict XVI as pope, however, you are the one who doesn't even believe that Outside the Church There is No Salvation is a dogma that must be accepted to be in the Church. That's because you hold that people who publicly deny it (e.g. Francis, Benedict XVI, the Novus Ordo 'hierarchy', etc.) are in the Catholic Church.
I should also add to the previous post that 'unum' in Latin can mean or signify, in some contexts, 'one and the same'; but there is a clear word meaning 'the same' (eundem) and Gregory VII didn't use it. And 'unum' can mean simply one in number.
Ladislaus also says, in reference to Nostra Aetate #3, "If that was the only thing in V2 that would be considered heresy, then really there would be nothing to see there at all." As stated previously, the passage ESTEEMS Islam, which is heresy. So, no, the passage as such could never be promulgated by the Catholic Church or a true pope at an ecuмenical council (and it wasn't).
The heresy in Vatican II on the Church of Christ that I brought up has also been ignored. Clearly there's no answer to it.
Cantarella also lends credence to the following position:
>>>Is the Catholic Church Becoming a Branch of the ѕуηαgσgυє?>>>
The Catholic Church cannot become a branch of the ѕуηαgσgυє. The notion that it could is contrary to Catholic teaching. The Church cannot become false to her Spouse. It cannot become infected with heresy and error. This important truth of faith is widely denied or ignored by non-sedevacantists who cling to the notion that Francis, Benedict XVI, etc. are popes. Adhering to this Catholic truth brings the correct position on the Church in our day to light:
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 22), Dec. 11, 1925: “Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Cantarella, do you really believe that Francis is pope? For instance, do you accept his official teaching in Evangelli Gaudium, which he identifies as the teaching of his 'universal magisterium' (#51)? That teaching includes the heresy that 'non-Christians are justified' (#254), and that Jews have a valid covenant with God (#247). If you don't accept his official teaching (that of his 'universal magisterium'), then you actually don't even believe he is the pope; but you aren't consistent enough to admit it.
-
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.
If I made it up, then the SSPX made it up:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2003_September/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
See the NOTE about the letter.
Throughout this entire thread, you have been attacking and undermining the R&R position, and now you bring a R&R source as only support to your position. OK....
Double standard.
And the question , when does the Church officially stop regarding Mohammedanism (better know as Islam) as a Christian heresy?" remains unanswered.
-
No, I'm a sedevacantist and I don't believe that any non-Catholic can be saved, and I don't believe in 'baptism of desire'.
Well, then you are certainly in the minority of the sedevacantists in CathInfo and probably the only one in this thread. Fr. Cekada also does not agree with you. Or better said us, because I am absolutely convinced that Outside the Church There is No Salvation whatsoever. Having said that, I see that at least there is order and consistency in your sedevacantist position, unlike the other ones.
Cantarella also lends credence to the following position:
>>>Is the Catholic Church Becoming a Branch of the ѕуηαgσgυє?>>>
The Catholic Church cannot become a branch of the ѕуηαgσgυє. The notion that it could is contrary to Catholic teaching. The Church cannot become false to her Spouse. It cannot become infected with heresy and error. This important truth of faith is widely denied or ignored by non-sedevacantists who cling to the notion that Francis, Benedict XVI, etc. are popes. Adhering to this Catholic truth brings the correct position on the Church in our day to light:
Of course, the True Church of Christ is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic and cannot defect (that is precisely the reason of my non-sedevacantism by the way) but that was not the "main point". I attribute the banality of language in modern docuмents and the overwhelming false pastoral approach and ecclesiastical implementations to a very real politico-economic power that has taken over the world: namely, Judaism and all its children. The infestation of "marranos" and Judaizers into the Hierarchy. History attests to the fact that since the very beginning of the Church, besides combating Her directly, the Jews have infiltrated high Catholic circles in order to distort the Faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity with deviant ideas, and thereby promote heresies and revolutions at all levels. It is a historical reality that emerges over and over again.
-
Cantarella, do you really believe that Francis is pope? For instance, do you accept his official teaching in Evangelli Gaudium, which he identifies as the teaching of his 'universal magisterium' (#51)?
51. It is not the task of the Pope to offer a detailed and complete analysis of contemporary reality, but I do exhort all the communities to an “ever watchful scrutiny of the signs of the times”.[54] This is in fact a grave responsibility, since certain present realities, unless effectively dealt with, are capable of setting off processes of dehumanization which would then be hard to reverse. We need to distinguish clearly what might be a fruit of the kingdom from what runs counter to God’s plan. This involves not only recognizing and discerning spirits, but also – and this is decisive – choosing movements of the spirit of good and rejecting those of the spirit of evil. I take for granted the different analyses which other docuмents of the universal magisterium have offered, as well as those proposed by the regional and national conferences of bishops. In this Exhortation I claim only to consider briefly, and from a pastoral perspective, certain factors which can restrain or weaken the impulse of missionary renewal in the Church, either because they threaten the life and dignity of God’s people or because they affect those who are directly involved in the Church’s institutions and in her work of evangelization.
Please point out where exactly does he identify this docuмent as the teaching of the "universal magisterium". If anything, he seems to be saying quite the opposite.
-
Some observations:
First of all, the problem is not unique to "SVism" but faced by all Catholics: For nearly 2,000 years the Church has authoritatively and infallibly and irrevocably taught certain things to be true, and rejected others as false. And then come Vatican II which throws all of that out the window. Just trying to discover what it takes to save our own soul is quite enough, to say nothing of figuring out how it happened or what it would take to restore things and prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again.
Getting back to Fr. Cekada's talk (great sermon, Fr.!) the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is infallible, pure and simple, per the Church's own teaching, Pope Pius XII:Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"; (Lk. 10:16) and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Humani Generis, Paragraph 20).
Even more to the point, Msgr. G. Van Noort writes in Volume 2 page 330:PROPOSITION. The college of bishops, whether gathered in an ecuмenical council, or dispersed throughout the world but morally united to the supreme pontiff, in its teaching on matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
This proposition is of faith.
So the real question is "What about Vatican II?" If it were to have belonged to the UOM then it too would have to be infallible and God has contradicted Himself. Clearly (though he does not mention it in the sermon) Fr. does not count Vatican II as part of that UOM or else he really would be as self-contradictory as some here have accused him of being. Now, the participants of Vatican II do seem to have been "morally united to Paul VI." If, in being united to Paul VI were they therefore united to the supreme pontiff? If so then that is a very big problem which can never be solved. If not then that is Fr.'s solution (SVism).
But the problem does run deeper in that the Church cannot have defected. Who, therefore, was "the Church" while all these prelates were tricked into signing things they should never have signed and (for the most part) would not have signed had they truly understood their content, import, and necessary ramifications?
Good questions. Has this been answered on this thread? I have only glanced through but did not notice a response.
-
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.
If I made it up, then the SSPX made it up:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2003_September/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
See the NOTE about the letter.
Throughout this entire thread, you have been attacking and undermining the R&R position, and now you bring a R&R source as only support to your position. OK....
Double standard.
And the question , when does the Church officially stop regarding Mohammedanism (better know as Islam) as a Christian heresy?" remains unanswered.
I disagree with the R&R position on the pope, but I agree with them when it comes to the pre-Vatican II Faith. Therefore, quoting the SSPX or the R&R wrt pre-Vatican II teaching would not be a double standard.
As for the so-called unanswered question? Perhaps you should read the NOTE in the link.
-
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.
If I made it up, then the SSPX made it up:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2003_September/errors_of_vatican_II.htm
See the NOTE about the letter.
Throughout this entire thread, you have been attacking and undermining the R&R position, and now you bring a R&R source as only support to your position. OK....
Double standard.
And the question , when does the Church officially stop regarding Mohammedanism (better know as Islam) as a Christian heresy?" remains unanswered.
I disagree with the R&R position on the pope, but I agree with them when it comes to the pre-Vatican II Faith. Therefore, quoting the SSPX or the R&R wrt pre-Vatican II teaching would not be a double standard.
As for the so-called unanswered question? Perhaps you should read the NOTE in the link.
Here is the NOTE:
The Council seems to justify its statement that "the Moslems adore with us the one true God, etc." by the quote contained in a note of personal gratitude sent by St. Gregory VII, Pope from 1073 to 1085, to Anαzιr, Emir of Mauritania. The Emir had been well disposed to oblige certain of the Pope's requests and had also been generous concerning some Christian whom he had taken prisoner. In this letter, the Pope stated that this act of "goodness" was "inspired by God," who commanded us to love our neighbor, and specifically asks "from us and you...that we believe in and confess the same God, although by different modes (licet diverso modo), that we praise and venerate each day the Creator of the ages and master of this world" (PL, 148, 451 A). How can such a statement be explained? The answer: by that era's ignorance regarding the religion founded by Mohammed.
At the time of St. Gregory VII, the Koran had not yet been translated into Latin. This is why basic aspects of its "credo" were not understood. It was known that the Moslems, those fierce enemies of Christianity, who suddenly emerged from the Arabian desert in 633 with a conquering violence, would sometimes demonstrate a certain respect for Jesus, but only as a prophet, and for the Virgin Mary; that they believed in one God, in the inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in the Judgment and in a future life. Consequently, they could have been taken for an heretical Christian sect ("the Mohammedan sect"), an equivocation that was held for a long time since, at the beginning of the 14th century, Dante placed Mohammed in hell among heretics and schismatics (Hell, XVIII, V. 31 ff.).
It is in this context that the praise privately addressed to the Emir by Gregory VII ought to be seen: praise for someone held to be a heretic who, on this occasion, had behaved charitably, as if the true God, in whom he thought he believed, had touched his heart. Thus, in effect, one can speak of a heretic who believes in the same God as ours, but in a different way. Nevertheless, St. Gregory VII's praise of the Emir did not prevent him from defending, in a perfectly coherent way, the idea of an expedition launched from all of the Christian countries against the Moslems, in order to help Eastern Christianity when it was threatened with extinction. This idea was carried out shortly after his death with the first crusade, preached by Urban II.
The first Latin translation of the Koran did not take place until 1143, fifty-eight years after the death of St. Gregory VII, by the Englishman Robert de Chester for the Abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable, who added a strong refutation of the Islamic creed. Actually, this translation was a summary of the Koran, and remained the only translation for many centuries, until the critical and complete version was done by Fr. Marracci in 1698. In the first half of the 15th century, the Cardinal of Cusa set the stage for this first translation by writing his famous Cribatio Alcorani, a critical study of the Koran. This preceded by a few years the Bull issued in October 1458 by Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini) for the purpose of launching a crusade (which was never carried out) against the Turks who surged into the Balkans after having seized Constantinople. In this Bull, the Pope referred to the Moslems as disciples of the "false prophet Mohammed," a definition that he reasserted on September 12, 1459, in a remarkable speech in the Mantua Cathedral, where the Diet charged with approving the crusade was convoked. In this speech, he referred again to Mohammed as an impostor; he also said that if the Sultan Mehmed were not stopped, after subjugating all of the Western princes, he would then "destroy the Gospel of Christ and impose the law of his false prophet on the entire world."3 Therefore, this speech rectified the former perception and constituted the Pontifical teaching's clear and strong condemnation of Islam and its prophet. Once and for all, it eliminated the equivocation which had defined Islam as a Christian "heresy."
Highlighted is what could be considered the answer to the question. It refers to an historical event and it really says nothing new but ends with what is strictly the SSPX interpretation, which of course, has the opposition to Vatican II Council - in itself - as the whole reason for their very existence. Naturally, Islam has been condemned over and over again as a diabolical false religion (the Pius II Bull this note cites is yet another example) but that is not what we are talking about. We have the great Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc still referring Mohammedanism as a heresy and this is in 1936. The Church did not condemn his work. For this and other reasons, there is just not enough weight in the textual paragraph in Nostra Aetate to be formal heresy.
THE GREAT HERESIES
by Hilaire Belloc
Chapter Four
The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
-
Double Post
-
Yes, he was. So were these:
http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012
This is a good link. Funny it is you who provided it because in the very first paragraph it supports my position; but not yours.
Nostra Aetate is a NON-DOGMATIC, fallible docuмent from a pastoral Council which turn out to be a massive failure.
From that link:
Given the latest raging of the false religion known as Islam, it is important for Catholics to know that the followers of Mohammed DO NOT worship the same God as Catholics. In fact, the Church has always taught against this sect. It was only in the erroneous Second Vatican Council did we hear the blasphemous lie that Muslims were held in 'esteem' and that they too worshiped God. The Second Vatican Council's non-dogmatic 'DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS' states,"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; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet."
-
Yes, he was. So were these:
http://defeatmodernism.com/defeatmodernism/popes-saints-state-islam-is-diabolic-false-religion9142012
This is a good link. Funny it is you who provided it because in the very first paragraph it supports my position; but not yours.
Nostra Aetate is a NON-DOGMATIC, fallible docuмent from a pastoral Council which turn out to be a massive failure.
From that link:
Given the latest raging of the false religion known as Islam, it is important for Catholics to know that the followers of Mohammed DO NOT worship the same God as Catholics. In fact, the Church has always taught against this sect. It was only in the erroneous Second Vatican Council did we hear the blasphemous lie that Muslims were held in 'esteem' and that they too worshiped God. The Second Vatican Council's non-dogmatic 'DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS' states,"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; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet."
I posted both links to point out the error in Vatican II about Islam. Posting a link doesn't necessarily mean one must agree with a website's or organization's overall position regarding Vatican II.
My overriding opinion on Vatican II stems from the belief that Vatican II was supposed to be an ecuмenical council/act of the OUM and therefore should have been free from all error whether it reaches the level of heresy or not. It was not free from all such error.
With that, I think there is nothing more I can add or say. I think I've made my views clear even if others disagree with them.