Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Catholictrue

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

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

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

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

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

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

She made that up out of convenience.

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.

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.

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.



 

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Catholictrue

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

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

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

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

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

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

She made that up out of convenience.

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

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."