Author Topic: Heresies of Vatican II (Read 12484 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #105 on:** October 20, 2011, 04:07:19 PM »

Agreed, ManofGosh. Great post.

Those were actually the Vatican II docuмents.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #106 on:** October 20, 2011, 09:07:42 PM »

More heresy from the Vatican II docuмents:

Quote

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Still waiting for Caminus to try and prove me wrong rather than either attack my character or totally avoid me.

Caminus · « **Reply #107 on:** October 20, 2011, 09:50:11 PM »

All in due time my friend. Keep studying.

Gregory I · « **Reply #108 on:** October 26, 2011, 01:02:20 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #109 on:** October 26, 2011, 10:28:44 AM »

Spiritus, would you agree that each person has a "right to seek the truth" and to do what is necessary, within limits, to find it? Thankfully, DH at least mentions the that rights are founded in the truth, and apart from that, I think it is primarily concerned with the freedom of Catholics to preach the Gospel and primarily that of the Church.

Quote

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth

The Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires. This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.

Caminus · « **Reply #110 on:** October 26, 2011, 11:04:11 AM »

Greg, look back at your posts and read where you were forced to admit that the offending sentence viz. salvation and false sects is qualified as an indirect denial of an article of faith. Now, supposing I granted this admission, you have just proven my point, since heresy is a direct denial of a defined article of the Catholic faith. An indirect denial is generally a proposition that leads to the denial of an article of faith by a process of inference or deduction, depending on how the sense of the proposition is taken.

As far as natural worship to God, you have conceded the point. Bringing in statement regarding supernaturally meritorious before God is irrelevant, no one, not even the Council claimed it was. The Council was (wrongly) explaining certain noble truths of the Muslim religion and esteemed them under that aspect (again, absolutely wrong objectively speaking, but true subjectively). Just as you would esteem a friend who is not Catholic but possesses certain natural virtues.