Author Topic: Nostra Aetate -- Dimonds Analysis (Read 1526 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** November 27, 2013, 07:22:34 PM »

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/vatican-iis-Jєωιѕн-heresy/#.UpaVXZko6Uk

There's a crucial logical error in the Dimonds' analysis of this "heresy" in Vatican II. Just an illustration of how it's very important to be very precise.

Just wondering if anyone else sees the problem.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:34:13 PM »

Nostra Aetate does not actually say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God. it just says that the Jєωs should not be "presented" as rejected by God. So, contrary to what the Dimonds say, there's no direct contradiction of dogma.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #2 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Nostra Aetate does not actually say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God. it just says that the Jєωs should not be "presented" as rejected by God. So, contrary to what the Dimonds say, there's no direct contradiction of dogma.

Forgive me if I'm not comforted by accepting the idea of Nostra Aetate teaching traditional doctrine regarding the Jєωs, and simultaneously teaching that this same doctrine should no longer be taught...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:39:40 PM »

I never said that NA teaches traditional doctrine, just pointing out that it escapes the charge of open heresy. This could be looked upon as a pastoral admonition. It doesn't DIRECTLY say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:44:45 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I never said that NA teaches traditional doctrine, just pointing out that it escapes the charge of open heresy. This could be looked upon as a pastoral admonition. It doesn't DIRECTLY say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God.

But it directly says that we shouldn't teach that they are.

If someone said we should no longer teach that Christ is God, would you "let them off the hook" because they aren't directly saying He isn't God?

It's the natural implication of such a policy. Especially when the policy is supposed to come from the sole arbiter of truth, the Catholic Church.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #5 on:** November 28, 2013, 07:53:15 PM »

Because the Church cannot give error, it follows that if She says something should not be taught, that something contains error. She does not restrict it or forbid it the truth from reaching the world.

The Conciliar Church is an ecuмenical whore who will try to hide the truth at every corner, as a whore is wont to do.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2013, 08:14:33 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Ladislaus
I never said that NA teaches traditional doctrine, just pointing out that it escapes the charge of open heresy. This could be looked upon as a pastoral admonition. It doesn't DIRECTLY say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God.

But it directly says that we shouldn't teach that they are.

If someone said we should no longer teach that Christ is God, would you "let them off the hook" because they aren't directly saying He isn't God?

It's the natural implication of such a policy. Especially when the policy is supposed to come from the sole arbiter of truth, the Catholic Church.

Good point MD. I respect Ladislaus for playing Devil's Advocate. I think in some cases, it makes certain positions less credible, but I think in this case it doesn't. The wording in NA is more VII double speak.

I completely get the idea that as a Church and as a Catholic people, we should do our best to be respectful to all people as people. We should be charitable; however, that does not mean we let them off the hook for their false beliefs. If I still heard calls for conversion to the One True Church and the need to be baptized, I would feel much differently. But we don't. As far as the world is concerned the Church now accepts all religions and we're just one other option. And it makes it THAT much harder for those of us to try to convert others.

Sometimes I get angry and other times this gets me just so sad. Today I'm feeling the latter.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2013, 09:00:14 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

If I still heard calls for conversion to the One True Church and the need to be baptized, I would feel much differently. But we don't. As far as the world is concerned the Church now accepts all religions and we're just one other option. And it makes it THAT much harder for those of us to try to convert others.

It is a punishment from God upon the World. They would not listen anyways were a relative to come back from the dead, so God abandoned them ALL to their iniquities Orthodox, Protestants, Jєωs, Mohamedans and all other false religions.

Anyone of good will can still hear God's voice and find the truth, however, like in the time of Noah, only a few will believe. God said he would not again punish mans iniquities with a flood of water, however, today he abandons them to their flood of sin.

Quote from: bowler

The Chosen Chastisement of Our Times

The chosen chastisement for our times is not a noticeable chastisement. God has abandoned even Catholics to their own desires, even to the point of providing them with clergy that confirm them in whatever sin they desire. Scarcely can you find a Catholic that thinks anything but that we are living in the best of times. Truly we are living in the time described in 2 Timothy:

Quote
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim 4:3)

Saint John Eudes wrote in "The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations":

Quote
“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...

“When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, ‘Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart’. (Jer. 3:14,15) Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge upon the people in consequence of sin.”

Good Catholics get what they pray for.

Catholics who are indifferent, CINO, and fallen away, get what they desire, AS A PUNISHMENT. We have bad clergy today because that is what 99% of Catholics wanted. They wanted priests who let them do and believe whatever they wanted to. That is what they got! What they consider to be great, is in reality A CHATISEMENT from God.

God's worst chastisement is no chastisement, the people are left to do as they please, God has given them up to their desires, and even provided blind guides to confirm them in whatever sin they desire.

Quote
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:

19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things.

24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,

30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them
(Romans 1:18-32)

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2013, 05:47:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I never said that NA teaches traditional doctrine, just pointing out that it escapes the charge of open heresy. This could be looked upon as a pastoral admonition. It doesn't DIRECTLY say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God.

how about this quote..escapes open heresy??
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate #3: “The Church regards the Muslims with esteem. They adore the one God,

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2013, 05:57:35 PM »

Quote from: gooch

Quote from: Ladislaus
I never said that NA teaches traditional doctrine, just pointing out that it escapes the charge of open heresy. This could be looked upon as a pastoral admonition. It doesn't DIRECTLY say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God.

how about this quote..escapes open heresy??
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate #3: “The Church regards the Muslims with esteem. They adore the one God,

I wasn't talking about that passage, was I?

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:09:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: gooch
Quote from: Ladislaus
I never said that NA teaches traditional doctrine, just pointing out that it escapes the charge of open heresy. This could be looked upon as a pastoral admonition. It doesn't DIRECTLY say that the Jєωs are not rejected by God.

how about this quote..escapes open heresy??
Vatican II, Nostra Aetate #3: “The Church regards the Muslims with esteem. They adore the one God,

I wasn't talking about that passage, was I?

So Nostra Aetate has open heresy, your point of this thread is to point out it's an error to claim that specific passage about the Jєωs is open heresy correct?

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jєωs should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”

Jєωs are rejected by God, because all who reject Jesus Christ are denied by God. This is a truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Matthew 10:33- “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

so clearly you're mistaken

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2013, 06:22:07 PM »

Quote from: gooch

So Nostra Aetate has open heresy, your point of this thread is to point out it's an error to claim that specific passage about the Jєωs is open heresy correct?

I'm glad that SOMEone caught the point I was making. NA falls short of a direct contradiction of the dogma but clearly implies it and, in the words of theologians, "savors of" heresy.

But the "should not be presented as" gives the NO modernists wiggle room. It's in line with the so-called "pastoral emphasis" of Vatican II. You COULD interpret that as just meaning, "sure, the Jєωs are rejected by God but we shouldn't go around saying that for prudential reasons". I'm sure that's not what they had in mind but we can't prove it.

We need to be very careful in throwing the grave accusation of heresy around. There's plenty of REAL heresy out there in V2 and the V2 popes, but we need to be careful not to discredit all of our findings with bad logic.

Dimonds should have called what it is, "implied heresy". And that's bad enough on its own.

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #12 on:** November 29, 2013, 07:19:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: gooch
So Nostra Aetate has open heresy, your point of this thread is to point out it's an error to claim that specific passage about the Jєωs is open heresy correct?

I'm glad that SOMEone caught the point I was making. NA falls short of a direct contradiction of the dogma but clearly implies it and, in the words of theologians, "savors of" heresy.

But the "should not be presented as" gives the NO modernists wiggle room. It's in line with the so-called "pastoral emphasis" of Vatican II. You COULD interpret that as just meaning, "sure, the Jєωs are rejected by God but we shouldn't go around saying that for prudential reasons". I'm sure that's not what they had in mind but we can't prove it.

We need to be very careful in throwing the grave accusation of heresy around. There's plenty of REAL heresy out there in V2 and the V2 popes, but we need to be careful not to discredit all of our findings with bad logic.

Dimonds should have called what it is, "implied heresy". And that's bad enough on its own.

can you give me catholic teachings that distinguish between implied heresy and open heresy?