CathInfo.com

Nishant's sleight of hand here using fake translations.  Actual Latin of Pope St. Gregory the Great's letter to the Muslim King:

Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam cæteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem sæculorum et gubernatorem hujus mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur.

Latin uses the term "veneramur" (along with "laudamus" ... praise).  But Nishant's mendacious translation renders to "venerate" as "adore".

As you, Latin theological terms are precise.  "adoration" is reserved to worship of God.  "veneration" is directed towards creatures.  Pope St. Gregory's use of this term clearly refers to a natural reverence they have but one cannot adore God without the supernatural faith of who He actually is.

PS:  Vatican II says Muslims "adore" the One True God using the Latin of "adorare" in both Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate.

Suarez, citing St. Thomas, backs up this distinction, where he says that they might have a natural belief in and reverence for Him.

That's the key distinction Nishant is deliberately obfuscating.  We can know about the nature of God and His natural attribute through natural reason (as taught by Vatican II) ... although even that could be somewhat fraught with error.

But, as Our Lord taught, we cannot know the FATHER except through His Revelation, i.e. in so far as the supernatural Three Persons go.  Yes, Aristotle, Muslims, Jews, can all to some extent come to belive in, to naturally "know" God, but they cannot adore Him, since adoration requires true supernatural knowledge of God.

Bellarmine, moreover, uses the Latin "colunt", which mean to make religious observances toward, or make acts of honor, not "worship", as falsely translated, which could imply adoration.

Finally, De Lugo, whose orthodoxy was otherwise suspect, just says "acknowledge" (making it pointless to even bother with the Latin).

I still stand by my argument about historical analogies. To me, saying "this time it's different" - and that earlier groups who broke with the Church (even though they also had elaborate arguments that sounded convincing to a layman's ear, and were often willing to suffer persecution for their views) were just in error, but we in our situation somehow aren't - that's a huge stretch.

Therein lies your mistake, the reason I say this is because this time, it really is different.

In Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. Wathen said something along the lines of: "The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column," which I think perfectly describes what happened this time - which is what makes this time altogether different because this time, the enemy is within.

What is a "Fifth column?"

Google:
"A Fifth Column is a hidden group of people who work to hurt their own country or team from the inside. They secretly help an outside enemy."