FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: When did Vatican II become dogma?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Of course Islam is a fortress almost impossible to break: it has much resemblance to the Truth and a inner fanaticism difficult to destroy. Satan did a good job there.
I find it hard to be convinced that everyone who honestly thinks Christianity is bunk, and yet cleaves to their monotheistic religion is in active Devil-worship. Nothing like this so much as appears in Sacred Tradition, or in the Holy Scriptures. Those who do their best according to the lights of grace and reason are obviously wrong when they are wrong; this does not mean that they aren't trying to please God, and so on some level are addressing Him with their prayers, chants, etc. If the righteous pagans can be given some hypothetical slack, I don't see why Muslims can't be.

I think I've participated in other threads about this same subject. I have to say that this time around, the arguments against what Vatican II says (and what I think it most sensible) are very poor (this may not be everyone's fault).

I'm inclined to stick by what the Council says - no matter what kind of Council it was.

Here is a good article on NA.

And an excerpt:
Quote:...In all of this, Vatican II is expressing a positive statement, while pre-conciliar Popes are expressing a negative statement. This means the former says what these religions have, while the latter says what they do not have. Then NA puts all this in greater context at the end of #2:

    The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

Moving on, we get to a more confusing part: On Muslims.

    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,(5) 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.

Now Modernists and progressives will read this as saying Islam is good. However, we should notice that "Islam" never appears. Rather it says "Moslems" (Muslims). This is because the Church indeed does esteem Muslims since they are made in the image and likeness of God. So? That doesn't mean we agree with them. It's like esteeming one's protestant father because he worked hard and sacrificed for you, even though he doesn't have the true faith. The document goes on to make note of the things we do agree with Muslims on, like belief in one God, and belief in "a moral life", again not necessarily the same as our moral life. Like before, Vatican II is emphasizing all the positives about Islam, where as prior Popes (Urban II for instance) emphasized the bad. Yet the Church does not esteem Islam, which has perennially been her most dangerous enemy and is a false religion. They reject Christ as God and Saviour (and original sin to boot) and say he was a prophet, which NA admits. Thus we can not esteem this religion as such. Thus reading this in light of the Church's tradition, we could say "Yes, Muslims believe in some of the same things we believe in, but they still need Jesus Christ to be saved through His Church."

Where NA becomes ridiculous is in the following paragraph:

    Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

A "few quarrels" is to put it mildly. We should not forget that if it were not for Our Lady's intervention at Lepanto, St. Peter's would have minarets like the Hagia Sophia (shame, shame) in Constantinople. Yet that is exactly what the council is telling us to do, forget. One thing I can guarantee, is that they are still mad about that. They remember because it is a stigma in the eye, the atrophy of Islam after the defeat of the Ottomans in 1681 in Vienna begins Islam's downfall, when the West surpassed it, enslaved it. Even today, all technology in Islam comes from the West, including their science and medicine. They don't like that. They have been unable to modernize or produce modern technology (except to change the characters of American video games into Jihad warriors) and as far as they are concerned it is our fault. The problem with this statement of the Council is that it is only through the past that we can understand Islam, and that based on their perennial doctrine contained in the Qur'an and the Hadiths (Traditions) creating peace means they must deny a large part of their religion which is the opposite.

This however does not comprise heresy, it comprises bad judgment, like the 2nd Council of Constantinople, and like that council, the prudential decisions and reforms of this one will one day be called into question....
Ok let me get this straight.
Gpd is a trinity. He has told us so.
The mohamadans reject the trinity and find the trinity repulsive
Yet u and other libtards (note not the mohamadans) claim so what, they worship the same God!
Now really
Who has the poor arguments?
U can stick with Vpoo all u want.
I'm sticking with CHRIST! And those who deny the trinity deny CHRIST.
Dismissing the trinity is no matter!
Some on this thread have essentialy argued relativism. That's heresy!!!!!
If u don't belive me then read what the mojhamadans say and think about God! About the Holy Trinity.
Another argument is they worship the same God because they call him creator yet almost all religions have a creator diety. I don't see any saying hindus or shinto worship the triun God!
Ss for the so called ritious pagans before CHRIST that is termed forshadowing. Mohamadanism came after CHRIST. Revelation is complete for u to belive mohamadanism worship the triun GOD is blasphemy!!!!!!
Again stick with Vpoo all u want
Sip sip
I'm stickoin with CHRIST and Tradition!
Sip
I remember a ways back there was a large controversy somewhere in Indonesia, where the mohametans wanted to essentially "copyright" the word allah (meaning God), as in the vernacular of that area, Catholics also referred to God using the same word. Surely this shows that even they believe we worship different Gods.
Look Dk, I don't know what limitations you have. Clearly you are at a disadvantage when it comes to having to post on the forum. You're a good man, and you are even better for clinging to the Cross. But I resent being called a "liberal", as if I were unfaithful, or thought it a nice thing to be unfaithful to Christ and the Truth.

Muslims worship in a manner that is not ordained by God. Which is to say that they do not worship Him in His way. They, Muslims, do however worship, according to their minds and hearts, a Deity that has most of the characteristics that we understand through faith God truly has. These have been mentioned here, as well as in Dignitatis Humanae.

What I am not saying when I say that Muslims (and every decent monotheist as the very least) worship "the same God" is that they worship properly, and with every notion about God correctly. I don't think one has to be informed by complete Divine Revelation (free of all error), nor be given directives on how to worship by God Himself in order to be worshiping God. What I am saying, though, is that Muslims (and every decent monotheist at the very least) is ipso facto talking about God as revealed by Christ and His Church when they are talking about their God, though what they believe about Him and His will is wrong and not a salvific thing of itself: Without even knowing it.

Now, to my knowledge, I have not offended Christ because I have not said anything against the Faith. I am only expressing what I think to be true after having considered Revelation, and observing my Muslim friends and reading their holy book. And that which I am expressing only grants non-Catholics (in this case Muslims) the dignity that finds itself in any religious appetite or tendency.


Let's set this in reverse. Let's say that..

I am a Catholic worshiping God according to my understanding of Him. I am firmly convinced that Jesus is all that He said about Himself, and my inner and outer life is influence according to my faith in God as Trinity.

And yet...I am in error. Islam is truth, and my conception of God is woefully incorrect. (I am, though. considered a kind of brother by Muslims, still a kind of infidel for not submitting to God by Muhammad's words.) But, it is safe to say, that I am indeed still worshiping God (in Arabic: "Allah") though I do so in a way that on some level offends "Allah". I am not fulfilling "Allah's" commands because I am not living the life set out for me in the Holy Qu'ran, nor am I a member of the community of Muslims, who are "Allah's" first and true possession. However, I am still laboring in the Savior's vineyard, doing the will of the Father (hopefully).

Though I be in error, and though I predicate God wrongly, am I not still offering my prayers to The Holy One? Are my deeds done in love for God's sake not done in love for "Allah's" sake, though I misunderstand Him and His Truth? Though I reject Muhammad His Prophet, etc. etc. etc.-- Am I not still on some level quite ignorant of what is lacking in my situation, and still yet worshiping with my whole life God, who in fact revealed Himself most perfectly by Muhammad's pen at the whisper of an Angel?


None of this about me being Muslim is true or accurate. But I think this brings the point I'm trying to make, home. When I say that when a Muslim worships God, I mean that he is worshiping God. There is one God. Not two. And you can't just slip the Devil in here as if it were certain that all non-Christian prayers went to Satan, and those who addressed those prayers to Satan were his minions. THAT is a gap in sound thought, not what I've just said. Moreover, it is not even a vague notion in Tradition or Scripture that this is so. Its a mighty leap to extrapolate from the premises (a) God is a Trinity & (b) Muslims don't believe in God as Trinity, the conclusion that .: Muslims don't worship God, who happens to be a Trinity, btw.

On the contrary, Scripture does give something of an answer to this question (which, I don't think, can be answered exactly, since we're dealing with something more on the individual, personal and subjective level than on an empirical, scientific, or even purely theological level):

Acts 17 Wrote:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

The God of Islam is this unknown God. They do not really know God, because their religion portrays Him in a way that is not entirely true because of its error. I've heard the testimony of a Muslim convert who related quite warmly to this passage, and who told me that his love for Islam was really his love for Christ the Divine Savior, and the Trinity He is One with.

I don't know how I can make this much more intelligible, except by saying that all I that have said so far contradicts both the statements: "Muslims worship the Devil" and "The God represented in Islam is not the God as known by Christians, and that means that Muslims don't actually worship GOD."

(09-24-2009, 07:15 PM)Arun Wrote: [ -> ]I remember a ways back there was a large controversy somewhere in Indonesia, where the mohametans wanted to essentially "copyright" the word allah (meaning God), as in the vernacular of that area, Catholics also referred to God using the same word. Surely this shows that even they believe we worship different Gods.
We're not arguing about the fact that our conceptions of God are different. We're arguing about what is intuitive and commonsensical: that when a Muslim prays, that he is praying to our God with His attributes, and not to Allah according to their doctrine - nor are they praying to Satan, or to NOTHING, or to Side Show Bob.

Did you know that all that is meant when one says "Muslims worship a different God from Jews" one really means that one's vision is different from the others? This construct does not, in our culture, confirm two separate deities existing together, occupying the imagination or thought of one or both!

That's how I can say in one breath without being contradictory that Muslims worship the same God we do, and that they don't worship the same God we do.
(09-24-2009, 06:03 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]Ok let me get this straight.
Gpd is a trinity. He has told us so.
The mohamadans reject the trinity and find the trinity repulsive
Yet u and other libtards (note not the mohamadans) claim so what, they worship the same God!
Now really
Who has the poor arguments?
U can stick with Vpoo all u want.
I'm sticking with CHRIST! And those who deny the trinity deny CHRIST.
Dismissing the trinity is no matter!
Some on this thread have essentialy argued relativism. That's heresy!!!!!
If u don't belive me then read what the mojhamadans say and think about God! About the Holy Trinity.
Another argument is they worship the same God because they call him creator yet almost all religions have a creator diety. I don't see any saying hindus or shinto worship the triun God!
Ss for the so called ritious pagans before CHRIST that is termed forshadowing. Mohamadanism came after CHRIST. Revelation is complete for u to belive mohamadanism worship the triun GOD is blasphemy!!!!!!
Again stick with Vpoo all u want
Sip sip
I'm stickoin with CHRIST and Tradition!
Sip

You keep telling it like it is DK! ! ! :chleader:
No one here has yet said it clearer or simpler. Thank you for that too!

They are infidels - not even baptized, they willingly reject the whole idea - therefore, they are not numbered among God's adopted children, so via Scripture, BY DEFAULT they are son's of the devil and that is who they worship.  :deadhorse:
Unbaptized, therefore Devil worshiping.

I'll let St. Thomas Aquinas deal with you and your logical dissonance upon death.

As for me, I have better things to do than to waste time and effort when my remarks aren't even dealt with seriously.

I'll be reviewing though.
I would like to mention that the discussed quote from Nostra Aetate has a footnote that references "St. Gregory VII letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania". Does anyone have a link to an online facsimile or transcription of this document?
why are so many of you so eager to defend islam?
(09-24-2009, 09:22 PM)Arun Wrote: [ -> ]why are so many of you so eager to defend islam?
I'm sorry, but I just wanted to check the that the quoted statement is not pulled out of nowhere, dipstick.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13