Author Topic: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (Read 3396 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #30 on:** December 03, 2019, 11:03:31 AM »

Quote from: Maria Regina on December 03, 2019, 10:48:18 AM

The topic at hand is the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the havoc it is causing by introducing modernism, especially rampant ecuмenism, which will ultimately lead to the rise of the Anti-Christ and religious globalism.

Contradiction.

karambit · « **Reply #31 on:** December 03, 2019, 11:57:12 AM »

Quote

JєωVermont says: Contradiction.

Would you care to elucidate why?

Jaynek · « **Reply #32 on:** December 03, 2019, 12:11:13 PM »

Changing 2Vermont's name to JєωVermont is a denial of the power of baptism. In Christ there is neither Jєω nor Greek. The idea that Jєωιѕн identity continues after baptism is associated with questionable (probably heretical) groups like the Association of Hebrew Catholics.

If you really want to be so petty as to call people names, please choose ones that do not sound as if you are supporting heresies.

2Vermont · « **Reply #33 on:** December 03, 2019, 12:28:09 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 03, 2019, 12:11:13 PM

Changing 2Vermont's name to JєωVermont is a denial of the power of baptism. In Christ there is neither Jєω nor Greek. The idea that Jєωιѕн identity continues after baptism is associated with questionable (probably heretical) groups like the Association of Hebrew Catholics.

If you really want to be so petty as to call people names, please choose ones that do not sound as if you are supporting heresies.

Meh, Jayne. I've gotten used to ignoring karambit's posts and those he's written with previously banned monikers.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #34 on:** December 03, 2019, 01:38:28 PM »

Quote from: karambit on December 03, 2019, 11:57:12 AM

Would you care to elucidate why?

Are you projecting? Maybe it is you who’s the crypto and you need to deflect so as not to blow your cover? You certainly don’t have the charity of a good Catholic.

poche · « **Reply #35 on:** December 04, 2019, 12:50:36 AM »

Quote from: Maria Regina on December 03, 2019, 10:48:18 AM

And now you are playing that divisive card, which will take this thread off topic.

Stop it!

The topic at hand is the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the havoc it is causing by introducing modernism, especially rampant ecuмenism, which will ultimately lead to the rise of the Anti-Christ and religious globalism.

Pope Francis has already shown his allegiance to the sects of -ism, like Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Buddhism, and he openly commits idolatry and heresy to push the satanic globalist agenda. Can you not see that Francis is doing the work of the devil?

It is also a passage that is very ecuмenical. Paul speaks to the Athenians with respect. He tries to explain Christianity in a manner that they will understand.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 04, 2019, 12:55:11 AM »

Quote from: poche on December 04, 2019, 12:50:36 AM

It is also a passage that is very ecuмenical. Paul speaks to the Athenians with respect. He tries to explain Christianity in a manner that they will understand.

You are the LYING HERETIC that insisted St. Paul taught that Jesus made Himself the devil: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082

Why would anyone anywhere ever believe one word you say?

You are not of our family. Leave our family gathering.

Jaynek · « **Reply #37 on:** December 04, 2019, 07:09:49 AM »

Quote from: poche on December 04, 2019, 12:50:36 AM

It is also a passage that is very ecuмenical. Paul speaks to the Athenians with respect. He tries to explain Christianity in a manner that they will understand.

The word "ecuмenical" refers to restoring Christian unity. (In the post-conciliar approach, this does not involve the various Christian sects becoming Catholic.)
It does not have anything to do with explaining Christianity to non-Christians.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #38 on:** December 04, 2019, 02:51:26 PM »

How is Croix de Fer STILL here? You may be worse than Poche, and I'm not even joking.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #39 on:** December 04, 2019, 04:28:22 PM »

Quote from: Uncle Buck on December 04, 2019, 04:24:17 PM

Poche has no idea what Catholic truth is and ad nauseam posts a phrase from Mit Brennender Sorge like it's breathing.
You are equally as annoying for being on your 45th account and learning not a damn thing.

Praeter · « **Reply #40 on:** December 10, 2019, 01:43:50 PM »

Quote from: karambit on December 01, 2019, 12:43:51 PM

[color=000000]You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know: for salvation is of the Jєωs. ~ Jo[color=000000]hn 4:22[/color]

[color=000000]Haydock Bi[color=000000]b[/color]le Commentary[color=000000] [color=000000]on this verse:

[/color][/color][/color][/size][/color]
[color=000000][color=000000][color=000000][color=000000][color=000000]The Israelites, on account of their innumerable sins, had been delivered by the Almighty into the hands of the king of Assyria, who led them all away captives into Babylon and Medea, and sent other nations whom he had collected from different parts, to inhabit Samaria. But the Almighty, to shew to all nations that he had not delivered up these his people for want of power to defend, but solely on account of their transgressions, sent lions into the land to persecute these strangers. The Assyrian king upon hearing this, sent them a priest to teach them the law of God; but neither after this did they depart wholly from their impiety, but in part only: for many of them returned again to their idols, worshipping at the same time the true God. It was on this account that Christ preferred the Jєωs before them, saying, that salvation is of the Jєωs, with whom it was the chief principle to acknowledge the true God, and hold every denomination of idols in detestation; whereas, the Samaritans by mixing the worship of the one with the other, plainly shewed that they held the God of the universe in no greater esteem than their dumb idols. (St. Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas)[/color][/color][/color][/color][/color]

As St. Thomas explains, idols are sensible objects, so this quotation cannot be used in support of the position that Muslims worship a different God. Again, I am not arguing that they do worship the one true God (although in a false way). I'm just trying to gain clarity on why they don't. I'm open to any and all arguments either way.

Praeter · « **Reply #41 on:** December 10, 2019, 02:00:41 PM »

Quote from: Maria Regina on November 30, 2019, 10:18:01 PM

Dearest in Christ, SimpleMan, Praeter, and Poche,

...

Then read what St. Gregory VII wrote.

Yes, the careful use of rhetoric is important, for both saints, Paul and Gregory, sought to preach to unbelievers that those unbelievers might receive the grace to repent and to receive Holy Baptism.

On the contrary, what Vatican II and the CCC teach is heresy because the Novus Ordo Vatican II "Church" now teaches that it is not even necessary to convert and to receive Holy Baptism. Witness the numbers of Protestants and even Jєωs who are told that it is not necessary to be baptized because they worship the same God. This is heresy. I have spoken with many who were told not to convert because as Protestants they already had the one true faith and the one true baptism. This is insidious.

There's two problems with this argument. First, either the statement is false, in itself, regardless of who said it, or it is not. It cannot be acceptable for Pope Gregory to say Muslims and Catholic adore one God, and heretical for Vatican II to teach it. Either the statement is true or it is not true.
Second, you can't say the statement is heresy when Vatican II teaches it because of what some people in the Church have allegedly said to potential converts years and decades later; nor is what they allegedly said a teaching of what you call the Vatican II Church.

Praeter · « **Reply #42 on:** December 10, 2019, 02:13:48 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on November 30, 2019, 10:15:37 PM

Simple man said:

"Well. is this in conformity with traditional, orthodox Catholicism, or is it not? And if it is not, how did this Pope ever get canonized?

Is anyone prepared to go back and say that there was a period of sede vacante while Gregory VII was on the papal throne? And undo the canonization?"

Keep in mind that this not a teaching coming from this pope.

It is a personal letter from the pope to an individual, a king in Africa, who presumably is a mahomedan, expressing his respect and affection for him, because "we both believe in and confess one god ... as creator and ruler of the world" which is what muslims do.

It is not something to be compared with the texts of Vatican 2.

It is not a teaching of Pope St. Gregory, but it does show what he believed. Would someone be wrong to believe what a sainted Pope believed, based on what Vatican II teaches?

Praeter · « **Reply #43 on:** December 10, 2019, 02:39:43 PM »

Here's an old article from Chris Jackson to add to the discussion.

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/803-the-pointlessness-of-the-catholic-muslim-same-god-debate

The Pointlessness of the Catholic/ Muslim “Same God” Debate
Written by Chris Jackson | Remnant Columnist

Conservative and Traditional Catholic apologists have spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining how Catholics and Muslims either do or do not worship the same God. Conducting a web search on the topic results in a cavalcade of apologetic websites promising to explain, often in painstaking detail, one or the other side of the issue. Why? Because, of course, a few lines from two docuмents of Vatican II which refer to Muslims seem to indicate that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. If you’ll indulge me, I’m going to attempt to cut through the morass created by the repeated attempt to “explain” these few lines by apologists on both sides and simplify this issue to its essentials.

First the “Dogmatic Constitution” (which teaches no new dogma) Lumen Gentium (LG) paragraph sixteen offers the following words regarding the Muslims:

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.

Before we even analyze the text, my first thought is, why is a “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” speaking about Muslims, or any non-Catholics for that matter? Isn’t a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church supposed to talk about the Church? Isn’t it in effect saying to the faithful, “here is what you need to know about the make-up, role, and nature of the Church?” If so, what are we to think when this Constitution, almost as a side-tangent, starts making factual statements about beliefs of those outside the Church? Isn’t this beyond the clear purpose and scope of the docuмent?

Further, are embedded commentaries about what non-Catholics believe or don’t believe supposed to carry the same authority as portions of the Constitution which actually discuss the Church Herself? If not, do these statements have any binding authority whatsoever? After all, did Christ give His Church authority to opine as to what non-Christians do or do not believe? Or rather to clarify and teach what Catholics believe?

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

In any case, on to the text. The difficulty many Traditionalists have with the above quoted words is that they say too much. In my opinion, the problem is that they don’t really say much at all. Let me explain.
Typically both Traditionalists and Conservatives assume the same initial premise from the above LG quote and then argue, ad infinitum, as to what conclusion should follow from that premise. The premise they assume is that the quotation is saying Catholics and Muslims worship the “same God.”[/font][/size]

Conservative apologists then say, yes we do worship the “same God” and list all the similarities of Catholic and Muslim belief in God: i.e. that He is one person, He is judge, He is omnipotent, He is merciful, He is creator of the universe, He spoke to Abraham and the Old Testament prophets, etc. This is enough to show, in the Conservative’s opinion, that Muslims and Catholics are talking about the “same God”, though Conservatives fully admit the Muslims get many other things wrong in their understanding of Him.

Traditionalists will argue that Catholics and Muslims most certainly do not worship the “same God.” After all, the Muslim god has no Son as Muslims deny the divinity of Christ. Also Muslims attribute all sorts of words, motivations, and decrees to their god through the teachings of the Koran that are wholly incompatible and inconsistent with the Catholic notion of God.

Thus, the discussion typically comes to an impasse. There is no way to really resolve the conflict because both sides are looking at the issue through the subjective viewpoint of the individual Catholic vs. the individual Muslim. Thus one endlessly analyzes the evidence in order to conclude either that the Catholic and Muslim views on God are close enough to be two different understandings of the same concept, or that they are two understandings of two completely different concepts.

In my opinion, this premise traps both sides in a never ending subjective and semantic argument where neither can fully declare victory. Why? Because, in order to settle any dispute you have to have a standard to apply the facts to. What standard are we using to decide whether two sets of beliefs in a deity refer to the “same” deity?
Each person in the dispute usually comes up with his own standard of “sameness” and then argues that the evidence either meets or doesn’t meet that standard. The discussion then becomes absolutely semantic, arbitrary, and pointless which is, by the way, another fruit of Vatican II: semantic, arbitrary, and pointless arguing over poorly worded and never clarified side tangents contained in a dogmatic Constitution that proclaimed no dogma. But I digress….

In my opinion, the solution here is understanding that the Council, far from making some revolutionary statement on a changed nature of God, or proclaiming that Muslims are saved, was simply trying to cozy up to the press and be ecuмenical by saying a few “good things” about the Muslims. This is more evident when one looks at the additional comments on Muslims in paragraph 3 of Nostra Aetate; a docuмent which, by the way. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller (Emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences) says is non-binding.
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, 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. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

If you do some research you will find that Nostra Aetate did not even intend to address the Muslims. It was instead supposed to only discuss only the Church’s relations with the Jєωιѕн people. However, near the last hour, some of the Eastern bishops became upset at the notion that the docuмent would not also address Muslims in whose nations these bishops functioned. Thus, the few words regarding Muslims in Nostra Aetatae were more or less injected into the docuмent as an afterthought shortly before the final version was signed.
The Council, caught up in being only positive at all costs, felt compelled to say something positive about Muslims, as well as all other religions. So it almost exclusively focused on elements of belief Catholicism and Islam have in common. But in addition to this, one also has to understand the broader framework and perspective Vatican II was operating under to put the statements regarding the Muslims in context.

If you read Nostra Aetate or Chapter two of Lumen Gentium it becomes clear that the Council recognizes there is objectively only one God up there in the Heavens and is of the opinion that that most if not all people who worship a Creator in any way shape or form, are, whether they know it or not, worshipping the only God there is.
If one looks at the much ballyhooed few and sparse lines about the Muslims in Vatican II with this in mind, one is forced to admit that the lines really don’t say much of anything important. Why? Because not only is Vatican II saying the Muslims worship God, it is basically saying that everyone who worships a Creating deity worships God. Thus, far from including Muslims in a special club with Christians and Jєωs who worship the “true God,” these texts go far beyond that to say that everyone who worships (unless perhaps they worship created idols), in actuality, worships the one true God.

Evidence you ask? Well, the first piece of evidence is sitting hidden right in Nostra Aetate. In paragraph two it states, in relevant part:

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.
“…a flight to God with love and trust?” Thus, from the viewpoint of Vatican II even Hindus are contemplating the “divine mystery” (the one God), though they express it through myths and philosophical inquiry. Plus to escape the human condition they fly to this same true God with love and trust.

Still not convinced? How about the words of St. John Paul II? In a 1985 address to the Leaders and Representatives of the Islamic and Hindu Communities in Kenya he stated:

The close bonds linking our respective religions - our worship of God and the spiritual values we hold in esteem - motivate us to become fraternal allies in service to the human family…
…We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all.

Thus one “close bond” linking Catholicism and Hinduism is our worship of the one and only (big G) God. In addition, St. John Paul II refers to “all those who worship him [God]”, obviously including Hindus as he is addressing the Hindus who are sitting right in front of him.

With this in mind, isn’t it curious that the notion of Catholics and Muslims worshipping “the same God” has produced countless apologetics tracts while the notion of Hindus and Catholics worshipping the same God has received almost no attention from either Conservatives or Traditionalists?

Thus, I propose the entire framework and understanding through which the Catholic/ Muslim “same God” issue has been debated ad nauseum is absolutely and positively pointless. This issue was created, yet again, by the pastoral, ambiguous, and novel method of communication the Council chose to employ, on top of its attempt to use politi-speak and selective praise to build an impression of unity with false religions Catholicism can have no real union with.

Once all of the nice words, commonalities, and praise and respect for individual non-Catholics are removed, the Council, in the above quoted statements really says nothing more interesting than the following: There is only one God who is Creator. Therefore everyone who worships the Creator, is really worshipping the one God, whether they know it or not.

So what does this mean for their salvation? Didn’t Lumen Gentium say that, “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator?” Yes it did. And a little further it cites the Scripture passage where Christ wills that all men be saved. The rub is what is not stated.

All Catholics agree that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator because God’s “plan” for salvation includes everybody. But the plan and the reality are two different things. The reality is that the only plan of salvation God has revealed involves Faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism into His Church. Thus God’s “plan” for non-Christians is salvation through conversion in Jesus Christ, not being saved through remaining in a false religion.

Sadly, paragraph sixteen of Lumen Gentium, crafted with the Council’s characteristic lack of clarity, opens the door for Muslims to claim the Catholic Church recognizes Islam as salvific, while Nostra Aetate can easily give Hindus and Buddhists the impression that they are on the right track, with little need to convert to Christianity.
No, the problem is not that Vatican II said too much with these statements, and it’s not even that it said too little. It’s that it didn’t really say much of anything we didn’t already know, but gave the appearance that it did. The fact that there is only one God is hardly new and the fact that many non-Christians believe in some sort of Creator is hardly new. But in presenting what it did say the way it did, in the ecuмenical climate it did, with only positive statements and little no counter-balancing condemnations, it, along with the actions of many post-Conciliar prelates, has led many inside and outside the Church to believe that non-Catholic religions are sufficient for salvation, gutting in practice, if not in principle, the only true incentive of the missionary.

The Pre-Conciliar Church, focusing on salvation of non-Catholics in Her role as guardian of souls, once rightly pointed out the fatal deficiencies in false religion and the need for the conversion of non-Christians for salvation. The Council docuмents, in contrast, shifted perspective from a concerned Mother warning non-Christian souls of danger, to the perspective of an observer who praises non-Christians for the elements of truth they get correct.

This latter approach is similar to a doctor praising a patient for eating a good diet, having good blood pressure, and maintaining low cholesterol while neglecting to tell him he has cancer. Indeed, what good does it do one to worship a Creator, yet reject Christ and the Church He established for salvation? As St. Paul said, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Praeter · « **Reply #44 on:** December 10, 2019, 03:01:32 PM »

I recall reading a quotation from an old catechism or Catholic book from the 19th century, that said the reason Jєωs even today are said to worship the same God as Catholics, is because the religion of the Old Testament was revealed. From what I recall reading he said, or at least seemed to imply, that believing in a revealed religion - even if they were mistaken on certain aspects of what had been revealed - is what determined if the religion believed in the true God.

I believe the quotation I'm referring to was posted here, but I can't locate it. If anyone has it, please post it again.

Author Topic: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (Read 3396 times)

2Vermont

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

karambit

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Jaynek

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

2Vermont

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

poche

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Mark 79

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Jaynek

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

JezusDeKoning

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

JezusDeKoning

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Praeter

Re: Problems with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?