Author Topic: Heresies of Vatican II (Read 12890 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #75 on:** October 12, 2011, 08:11:31 PM »

And when your finished with that, then please explain how asserting a factual matter is tantamount to heresy? What does the assertion that this particular man or that particular group worships the true God have to do with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself? It is certain that Councils can make factual errors, stating something is so and so in the concrete order when it is not so without denying any principle at all.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #76 on:** October 12, 2011, 08:38:08 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

You didn't answer the question.

I did answer the question. I said that pagans, muslims, buddhists, hinduists, etc. worship satan. Protestants offer false or natural worship.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #77 on:** October 12, 2011, 08:40:00 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

And when your finished with that, then please explain how asserting a factual matter is tantamount to heresy? What does the assertion that this particular man or that particular group worships the true God have to do with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself? It is certain that Councils can make factual errors, stating something is so and so in the concrete order when it is not so without denying any principle at all.

To say muslims can worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity is more than error, Caminus. It's heresy. Why are you so afraid to admit Vatican II was heretical?

Caminus · « **Reply #78 on:** October 12, 2011, 09:34:18 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Caminus
You didn't answer the question.

I did answer the question. I said that pagans, muslims, buddhists, hinduists, etc. worship satan. Protestants offer false or natural worship.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Caminus · « **Reply #79 on:** October 12, 2011, 09:34:54 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Caminus
And when your finished with that, then please explain how asserting a factual matter is tantamount to heresy? What does the assertion that this particular man or that particular group worships the true God have to do with the integrity of the Catholic faith itself? It is certain that Councils can make factual errors, stating something is so and so in the concrete order when it is not so without denying any principle at all.

To say muslims can worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity is more than error, Caminus. It's heresy. Why are you so afraid to admit Vatican II was heretical?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #80 on:** October 13, 2011, 09:08:22 AM »

No offense Caminus, but your idea that someone can worship God while at the same time rejecting the Trinity is rather poor reasoning.

You didn't respond to my question, I asked why you can't admit Vatican II was heretical. You didn't respond to any of my points actually, rather you use ad hominem attacks to try and win the argument. I've noticed that you have been avoiding alot of questions and points lately.

Caminus · « **Reply #81 on:** October 13, 2011, 10:20:40 AM »

No offense taken since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever heard of a thing called "Natural Theology"? I have neither affirmed nor denied anything; I'm trying to take the conversation slow, defining terms, starting from basic principles and nominal definitions in order to arrive at a precise understanding of doctrine and the problem of the Council itself. So either answer my questions or bow out of the conversation.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #82 on:** October 13, 2011, 03:48:09 PM »

The problem of the Council is that it teaches heresy and promotes Freemasonic thought.

Sorry, but could you remind me what questions I have not answered?

Gregory I · « **Reply #83 on:** October 13, 2011, 07:51:08 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

No offense taken since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever heard of a thing called "Natural Theology"? I have neither affirmed nor denied anything; I'm trying to take the conversation slow, defining terms, starting from basic principles and nominal definitions in order to arrive at a precise understanding of doctrine and the problem of the Council itself. So either answer my questions or bow out of the conversation.

I would like to say Caminus, even though we disagree, I DO appreciate you taking it slow and being patient. I do admit you seem capable of Critical thinking.

So, here is my response to your OTHER question:

No, I do not believe God can be worshiped Naturally.

Here is why:

1. Humans, devoid of grace, no matter how hard they reason and deduct the existence of God, are clouded in their intellect by Original sin. It is INEVITABLE that what they consider "God" will at some point be more or less an exaggerated vision of themselves: They have nothing else to go off of. Therefore, they cannot worship God as he is; they therefore commit idolatry, which is not simply the worship of idols, but the FALSE worship of God; which is destined to inevitably be false.

2. Humans, devoid of Grace, are under the wrath of God. They are under the dominion of Sin, Death and Satan. Without baptism, they cannot perform ANY good work that is supernaturally meritorious, or pleasing, to God. If they are incapable of being supernaturally pleasing to God, it stands to reason that the worship offered "God" (Which is an inevitable distortion of God) is not supernaturally meritorious or pleasing to him. Therefore, they are displeasing to God: They are unregenerate and reprobate, a la session 5 and 6 of the Council of Trent.

What is your opinion of my response? Is it not grounded in Catholic Dogma?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #84 on:** October 14, 2011, 02:49:45 AM »

I must say that the line about Muslims worshiping the one true God is not a clear-cut heresy like I used to think it was. It may still be heresy. But it's not a slam dunk really and I wouldn't use this to prove that Benedict and JPII are anti-Popes anymore.

Here is how I think about all of this now. When you read the various debates about invincible ignorance, the theologians are questioning just how much someone has to know about God in order to be saved. Many of them say that what must be known is that ( i ) God exists and that ( ii ) He is a rewarder of the good.

In this sense, perhaps certain Muslims can be said to be worshipping the one true God. They know he exists, and that he is a rewarder; as they believe, he'll reward them with fleshy delights. But if they are in invincible ignorance, maybe even to believe this is enough... No one knows.

So the Muslims are worshipping something according to their limited and false understanding. How do we explain what they're worshiping? Is it the devil? Is it a devilish perversion of the true God ( this gets my vote )? Or is it a limited and incomplete concept of God? What are the minimum attributes that must be known about God according to which He can still be called God?

Well, here's the trick, and this is why this Modernist statement smacks of heresy while being so hard to pin down. This line from Lumen Gentium basically assumes that all the Muslims have invincible ignorance when this can't be farther from the truth.

This may be pretty abstruse so let me explain further. Someone in invincible ignorance may be saved knowing as little about God as a Muslim. You could fairly say of that person that they worship the same God as a Catholic, because they are Catholic by desire.

But someone who is not in invincible ignorance would NOT be worshiping the true God by being a Muslim; rather he would be rejecting the true God. So to just say flat-out that ALL Muslims worship the same God as Catholics is probably heresy.

Gregory I · « **Reply #85 on:** October 15, 2011, 02:19:12 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Caminus
No offense taken since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever heard of a thing called "Natural Theology"? I have neither affirmed nor denied anything; I'm trying to take the conversation slow, defining terms, starting from basic principles and nominal definitions in order to arrive at a precise understanding of doctrine and the problem of the Council itself. So either answer my questions or bow out of the conversation.

I would like to say Caminus, even though we disagree, I DO appreciate you taking it slow and being patient. I do admit you seem capable of Critical thinking.

So, here is my response to your OTHER question:

No, I do not believe God can be worshiped Naturally.

Here is why:

1. Humans, devoid of grace, no matter how hard they reason and deduct the existence of God, are clouded in their intellect by Original sin. It is INEVITABLE that what they consider "God" will at some point be more or less an exaggerated vision of themselves: They have nothing else to go off of. Therefore, they cannot worship God as he is; they therefore commit idolatry, which is not simply the worship of idols, but the FALSE worship of God; which is destined to inevitably be false.

2. Humans, devoid of Grace, are under the wrath of God. They are under the dominion of Sin, Death and Satan. Without baptism, they cannot perform ANY good work that is supernaturally meritorious, or pleasing, to God. If they are incapable of being supernaturally pleasing to God, it stands to reason that the worship offered "God" (Which is an inevitable distortion of God) is not supernaturally meritorious or pleasing to him. Therefore, they are displeasing to God: They are unregenerate and reprobate, a la session 5 and 6 of the Council of Trent.

What is your opinion of my response? Is it not grounded in Catholic Dogma?

Caminus · « **Reply #86 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:14:28 PM »

Don't worry, Greg, a response will be forthcoming soon. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a theology manual and read about topics such as natural virtue, theology and religion; whether a man can have a purely natural love of God or attain to some certain knowledge of the true God with certainty; whether men have a natural end as well as a supernatural end. I think you'll find that your analysis is entirely out of line viz. Catholic theology and possibly even Catholic doctrine, but I'm running short on time. I'll be back shortly.

Gregory I · « **Reply #87 on:** October 16, 2011, 01:07:45 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Don't worry, Greg, a response will be forthcoming soon. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you pick up a theology manual and read about topics such as natural virtue, theology and religion; whether a man can have a purely natural love of God or attain to some certain knowledge of the true God with certainty; whether men have a natural end as well as a supernatural end. I think you'll find that your analysis is entirely out of line viz. Catholic theology and possibly even Catholic doctrine, but I'm running short on time. I'll be back shortly.

In this, I find you are correct. I have downloaded the Theology Manuals by Scheeben from the library and have been reading about Natural Revelation. Obviously, Vatican I taught that God can certainly be known by the light of reason alone, but imperfectly and obscurely. Man can also have a certain natural love for God as well.

But this alone is not sufficient to save man.

In the Section on the Beatific Vision:

"III. The absolute exaltedness of the beatific vision, and of The Beatific
its glory and beatitude above the powers of rational nature, likewise
places it above all the claims or requirements of
nature, and makes it supernatural in the sense of absolute
gratuity. The creature can only claim for its happiness
whatever contributes to or achieves the development of its
natural faculties. Besides, the gratuity of the beatific
vision and kindred privileges is attested so often in various
doctrines of faith, that we are bound to receive it as a
fundamental dogma. Thus, the vocation to the beatific
vision supposes a real and true adoption ; it can only be
known by a supernatural revelation. Nature, by its own
power, cannot merit it, nor even elicit a positive desire of it
worthy of being taken into consideration by God. All
these points have been defined against Baius, and dealt
45 8 A Manual of Catholic Theology. [BOOK III.
CHAP. ii. with in former sections. It is, moreover, evident, at first
sight, that no creature can have a claim to what is God's
most personal property."

SO, they may KNOW God, dimly, and they may think they have a kind of selfish love for him, but they cannot love him in such a way as to merit eternal life apart from grace.

Therefore, he is not truly worshiped, for worship is a property of faith, but those devoid of grace have no faith, for faith is a gift of God.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #88 on:** October 16, 2011, 09:14:15 AM »

Even the wise and learned leaders of the Jews in the time of Christ were unable to grasp the concept of natural revelation vs. supernatural revelation. Nicodemus told Our Lord that all of the signs He showed and words He imparted were signs that 'God [was] with' Jesus (The Holy Gospel according to St. John, chapter 3, verses 1-3).

Our Lord plainly told Nicodemus that unless one is born of water and of the Holy Ghost, it is impossible to see the Kingdom of God. Surely recognition of God's KingDOM is analogous to recognition of God's KingSHIP, in other words, His Godhood, at least rightly understood.

Natural revelation is not only faulty because of its inability to see and understand God rightly, that is, to attain to the condition of heart and soul necessary for the Beatific Vision. Natural revelation is also deficient because, having its origin in the minds and hearts of sinful human beings, it will not stop at what it CAN understand correctly, but it will ultimately be 'hijacked' by the selfish desire of mankind to attain to righteousness on their own. Thus, natural revelation is NEVER devoid of the perverse desire possess divine knowledge without God's help, as in the Garden of Eden.

Whatever natural revelation CAN reveal as true and right about God and religion will always be awash in distortions, imaginings and relativism, which, as has already been mentioned, is nothing more than creating a 'god' in one's mind who is essentially just 'man writ large'.

This attitude of relying on natural revelation was one of the chief sins of the Jews of the Old Covenant period; God Almighty continually reminded them that His ways were (and are) NOT their ways, and that He is totally unlike them, as opposed to their erroneous belief that God was essentially their 'genie' who just approved and validated whatever they wished to do.

This error is nowhere more evident in our day than in the writings of the Mohammedan h-ly book; their god is no more than a supernatural warlord who just rubber-stamps all of the political and revolutionary ambitions of the 'prophet' just when he needs them.

Natural revelation is not a basis for establishing right religion any more than it is for being a fan of a movie or music star; the teenager might (by what is possible to be known) know all the facts and figures about so-and-so, but his imaginings about what-all they would do or say when they met are not only conjecture, but really just an overlay of the teen's personality onto the star he idolizes.

Natural revelation BEGINS with what CAN be known, but is always used as a vehicle of the selfish, unconverted sinner as no more than a platform for his or her ego.

The desperate reaching for Heaven without God's revelation and supernatural assistance was the hallmark of Eve's obedience to the serpent and it is the same today.

St. Bernadette of Lourdes, pray for us.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #89 on:** October 16, 2011, 03:25:47 PM »

No sede here can prove even ONE heresy contained in the texts of VCII. Not one.

They misinterpret the texts and then declare their own misinterpretation as heresy.