Errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church
#1
Friends,

Let's make a new catalogue of the errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church.

I'll begin with the notorious paragraph 841:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[quoting the Conciliar document LG 16 & NA 3.]

As we know, Muslims worship a false God - Allah - not the Holy Trinity, which they expressly reject. Thus those who continue unto the end to worship the false God Allah shall be damned, not saved, "For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Next, paragraphs 1257 and 1261:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Incredible!

They're refuted here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Excerpt:

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

And here:

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200704...Limbo.html

Now it's your turn.

"O horror, horror, horror! Tongue nor heart cannot conceive nor name thee!"

-Macbeth, 2.3.59


Reply
#2
Focus on your own errors. You are actively leading people away from the Church.
Reply
#3
Su is right, work on your own self rather than cause scandal by slandering the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves." - Matthew 23:15

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." - Philippians 2:12
Reply
#4
(02-10-2012, 02:45 AM)su Wrote: You are actively leading people away from the Church.

Not at all. The Catechism of the Conciliar Church - which St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, wouldn't recognize as Catholic - leads people away from the Catholic Church, and this is most uncharitable. For charity demands that people be led to the Catholic Church, not to the Conciliar Church. Don't you agree? Or don't you find the passages quoted above, for instance, to be horrible? Much more could be cited too, as shown here:

http://sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catech...olic_I.htm

We've heard of people as wolves in sheep's clothing. Lupine books can also be made to appear sheepish. Such are the effects of - as Pope Paul VI said - the smoke of Satan having entered the Church. Or don't you take him at his word that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church? He knew best, having opened the doors to it. Or do you think the effects of the smoke of Satan entering the Church are trivial? But how could they be? Among these efffects are the production of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church. What a coup by Satan! His strategem: "I'll move the hierarchy to produce a catechism sprinkled with lies - and to then call it Catholic!" Horrible, and horribly uncomfortable, I know! But we're interested in truth, not in comfort. Aren't we?

Age, thou art shamed.*
O shame, where is thy blush?**

-Shakespeare, Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**

Edit: I see that Parmandur has joined the ad hominem assault against me. An old story. Guys, if you don't like this thread, don't read it. Leave it to those prepared to provide yet more examples of the errors contained in the Catechism of the Conciliar Church. But if you insist on participating, don't waste time attacking me. Rather, try to refute the charges of error. By the way, there can be no defamation where there is no falsity.
Reply
#5
As to Allah, here are the words of a well-known priest on that topic:

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. Wrote:[size=10pt]Muslims Worship the One True God Only Their ‘Receiving Apparatus’ Is Defective
[/size]
In recent years many self-styled "traditionalist" Catholics have expressed shock that Pope John Paul II has stated on various occasions—usually during his apostolic journeys to nations with a strong Muslim presence—that the followers of Islam, together with Christians, worship "the one true God." But the Holy Father has done nothing more than restate the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which said, "The Church also views with esteem the Muslims, who worship the one and only God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth" (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions 2).

Some "traditionalist" Catholics cite these statements of the Council and the Pope as evidence for the sedevacantist position, which holds that the See of Peter is vacant, i.e., that there has been no true pope since Vatican II. Their thinking is that since Allah is a false god, the statements of Paul VI and John Paul II to the contrary constitute public heresy—even apostasy and idolatry—which is incompatible with their being true popes.

These people use this issue as a litmus test for determining who is Catholic and who isn’t. Simply ask a professing Catholic, they say, whether Muslims worship the one true God (as John Paul II says they do). If the person answers yes, then you can know without further ado that he has already reached "the end of the road"—total apostasy.

I have long been in public discourse with sedevacantists via letters and articles in various publications. (See, for example, "White Smoke, Valid Pope," This Rock, March 2001.) I am on record agreeing with Pope John Paul II that it can be said truly that the Muslims "worship the one true God" even though they deny his trinitarian character. At the same time, I believe unequivocally in the revealed mystery of the most blessed Trinity—as does John Paul II along with all his predecessors.

As for the sedevacantists’ litmus test concerning Allah as the one true God, they err by confusing two distinct questions: whether one person or two separate persons are being referred to in a given situation; and what the qualities or attributes of a given person are. Let me explain.

Imagine two people with their television sets in two adjacent houses, tuned in to the same channel at the same time, watching the same news bulletin. One TV set is in excellent condition, and the image of the news broadcaster can be seen perfectly on the screen. The set (or antenna) in the next house is in poor condition, and the image comes out on the screen in a blurry, confused, and partly unrecognizable form. Are the two viewers seeing the same man? Of course they are—there are not two different men in the TV studio producing the two respective images. Because of the second viewer’s defective receiving mechanism, he does not see the true attributes and qualities of the broadcaster’s face.

In the same way, there is only one supreme and eternal Creator of the universe who is recognized as such by both Muslims and Christians. But because of their defective "receiving apparatus"—i.e., they do not accept Christian revelation—Muslims err grievously by not recognizing God’s trinitarian character.

When we say that Muslims and Jews worship the one true God (while rejecting the Trinity), this by no means implies that such worship is as acceptable and pleasing to God as Christian worship "in spirit and in truth," whose principles the Incarnate Word has revealed and which the Catholic Church transmits to us in her teaching, liturgy, and sacraments. Satan has many different lies in his armory; he works by obscuring and twisting our understanding of God and his revelation as well as by seducing us to deny God outright.

Mr. Richard J. M. Ibranyi, an active and zealous sedevacantist, took issue with my analogy of the television sets, which I originally posed in a letter to him. My letter was in response to his criticism of an earlier article of mine against sedevacantism. To give you a taste of his rhetoric, I quote at length from his critique, which appeared in his own publication, Exurge Michaël (March 2002):

"Fr. Harrison, using black magic, exploits the craft of illusion. He tries to imprint a lie on the mind of the reader by using a false analogy. He wants you to believe that every false god mentioned in the Bible and by the saints is actually the true God who is not clearly seen. In other words, there is no such thing as a false god. A false god is actually a blurred and confused image of the true God. . . .

"According to Fr. Harrison, King David lied when he said, ‘The gods of the Gentiles are devils’ (Ps. 95:5). The new version according to Fr. Harrison reads, ‘The gods of the Gentiles is [sic] the true God not clearly seen.’ St. Paul says, ‘The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God’ (1 Cor. 10:20). Fr. Harrison teaches, ‘The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to God not clearly seen.’ The First Commandment is, ‘I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me’ (Ex. 20: 2–3). ‘What strange god?’, says Fr. Harrison, ‘a strange god is nothing more than the true god not clearly seen.’. . .

"[Fr. Harrison’s] piece of work is surely cursed, and with it goes a legion of demons to throw your mind off balance so that it would accept his apostate teaching that Moslems worship the true God. A conclusion of his false analogy is that if a man believes in one God, but that god is the sun, then when that man looks at the sun to worship it, he is actually looking at God, not the sun, thus the sun is God.

"The trick of his analogy lies in the statement, ‘Imagine two people with their television sets in two adjacent houses, tuned in to the same channel at the same time, watching the same news bulletin,’ both viewing ‘the same newscaster.’ The truth is that those who worship a false god are not even on the same channel (station) as those who worship the true God. The true God, the God of the Catholic Church, is only on one channel. All the other channels are real images of either a false god, if the non-Catholics believe in one God, or multiple gods (newscasters) if the non-Catholics believe in more than one god.

"There is no possibility of defective TV sets (receptive equipment: eyes, ears, and a mind) for those with the use of reason, because God gives these to men to clearly see all things. It is men’s wills and hearts that are defective, not their eyes, ears, and minds (TV sets). A Hindu is tuned in to a channel in which there are many newscasters (gods) in the same studio, and views many gods on his TV set. A Moslem’s channel is tuned in to Allah, he really sees Allah in the clear image invented by Mohammed. He truly sees a god that is not Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. . . . The defect is not in his capacity to see, his eyes, ears, and mind (TV set). Nor is it in God’s grace that is motivating him to believe. The defect is in his heart and will.

"Be gone, Fr. Harrison, with your black magic, for the deepest pit of hell awaits you unless you repent, convert, and abjure."

I replied to Mr. Ibranyi in a second letter dated March 30, 2002. The relevant parts (edited) read as follows:

"You write, ‘Fr. Harrison wants you to believe every false god mentioned in the Bible and by the saints is actually the true God who is not clearly seen. In other words, there is no such thing as a false god.’ You go on, ‘According to Fr. Harrison, King David lied when he said, ‘The gods of the Gentiles are devils.’

"The fact is, I never said or implied any of this, and have never believed it. I agree that all the false gods mentioned in the Bible are false gods, who are rightly styled as ‘devils’ by the inspired writers. I was talking only about Islam—a religion totally unknown to the human authors of Scripture and to the Fathers before the seventh century A.D. That is, I am not talking about the polytheistic and idolatrous cults that the biblical writers had in mind when they spoke of ‘the gods of the Gentiles.’

"You do not seem to realize that Allah is merely the word for God in the Arabic language, just like Deus in Latin, Gott in German, Dieu in French, and so on. (It means literally the Divinity—the only one that exists.) So it is that Arab Catholics worship Allah just as much as Muslims do. In all Catholic Bibles printed in Arabic, God is called Allah in both Old and New Testaments.

"So it is nonsensical and unjust to call Muslims ‘idolaters’ and thus to apply to them all the biblical strictures against pagan polytheism. The essence of idolatry is to worship some limited, finite being or object (real or imaginary)—either itself visible (e.g., the sun or moon) or represented by visible images—instead of the one, invisible, supreme, eternal, and infinite Being. And it is obvious that in polytheistic worship all the supposed gods are limited and finite: none of them is thought to be omnipotent and eternal. That is precisely what Scripture condemns as idolatry.

"The clearest biblical teaching on this point is probably Romans 1: 20–23. Here Paul condemns polytheists for refusing to acknowledge God’s ‘invisible attributes of power and divinity’ (v. 20) and instead ‘exchang[ing] the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes’ (v. 23).

"It is obvious that Muslims are not guilty of false worship in this sense. Indeed, Muslims are notorious for their zeal in insisting on the ‘invisible attributes of power and divinity’ of God and for their fanatical abhorrence of anything that they consider worship of any finite or created being (e.g., their detestation of our Christian veneration of images of Christ and the saints).

"So my analogy with the one man in the TV studio, seen correctly by some viewers and confusedly by others, in no way implies that pagan polytheists like those condemned in Scripture are also worshiping the one true God. The analogy in the latter case would be, as you say, with viewers of two completely different channels.

"Nor does your argument regarding the sun have any validity as a supposed reductio ad absurdum refutation of my own argument. My analogy in no way implies that ‘when a man looks at the sun to worship it, he is actually looking at God, not the sun, thus the sun is God.’ Sun-worship is idolatry because the sun is a finite, limited, visible object and as such cannot possibly be identified objectively with the one, true God. Recognizing the invisibility of God is an essential part of any worship (correct or incorrect) that can legitimately be described as worship ‘of the one true God.’ Of course the Muslims do recognize God’s invisibility.

"Basically, the great difference between Muslims and all idolaters/polytheists is that the former do, and the latter do not, recognize those attributes of the divinity described by Paul in Romans 1, which are in principle accessible to unaided human reason. What the Muslims lack is knowledge of the Trinity, which is accessible only through the supernatural revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"So again, for the record, I deny that idolaters and polytheists worship the one, true God in any way at all, and I deny that my aforesaid analogy regarding the Muslims implies that they do so.

"You also miss the mark in arguing against me that ‘there is no possibility of defective TV sets . . . for those with the use of reason.’ This, you claim, is because God gives to all of us the same good-quality sensory and mental ‘equipment’ for gaining knowledge. Of course he does. But (in terms of my analogy) you are confusing the viewer with the TV set. By ascribing all false belief to bad will you are implicitly denying the possibility of invincible ignorance of the true religion—a possibility clearly recognized by Scripture (Acts 17: 30) and traditional Catholic doctrine.

"In my analogy, the defective TV set does not correspond to any supposed defect in the senses and mind of normal adults. Rather, it corresponds to the Koran and the doctrinal system of Islam as such. Individual Muslims who are in invincible ignorance have been molded since infancy to see God through this distorting prism of a false ‘Scripture’ written by the false prophet Mohammed who rejected the Trinity and the Incarnation.

"In the case of the Muslims, Vatican II and Pope John Paul II are clearly presuming that the majority of them are not rejecting Christian revelation on the Trinity and the Incarnation out of malice, like the Pharisees, but out of ignorance. I think this presumption is reasonable. After all, only a minuscule proportion of Muslims would ever have been confronted with those ‘motives of credibility’ that, when recognized, morally oblige us to accept Christian revelation and become Catholics.

"I believe it is your position, not mine, that is contrary to Scripture. Since the Jews have the same concept of God as the Muslims—i.e., belief in his naturally knowable essence as outlined by Paul in Romans 1 but rejection of the supernatural revelation of the Trinity and the Incarnation)—your logic requires you to assert that the Jews do not worship the one true God any more than Muslims do. Paul, however, does not suggest for a moment that the Jews are idolaters, or that the God they worship is not the one true God. On the contrary, he says (speaking of the Jews in general, not those bad-willed leaders who conversed with our Lord in John chapter 8), ‘I testify with regard to them that they have zeal for God, but it is not discerning’ (Rom. 10:2).

"Paul obviously means by the word God here the one true God, not some idol or false deity. Under the heading of that ‘zeal’ which he ascribes to the Jews, their acts of worship would certainly have to be included. Hence, the Apostle’s divinely-inspired ‘testimony’ supports what I am telling you: the object of Jewish and Muslim worship is indeed the one true God, and not some finite spirit, creature, or idol; but the way they worship the true God is wrong (‘not discerning’).

"Indeed, it seems to me that your position logically implies the absurd idea that not even the ancient patriarchs—Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, et cetera—worshiped the one true God. They too were idolaters if the Muslims are idolaters, for, as regards their explicit belief, those holy patriarchs (like Jews and Muslims today) had no knowledge of the Trinity. And they had no idea that God himself would take on human nature. As Paul says, ‘The mystery of Christ . . . was not made known to human beings in other generations, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets’ (Eph. 3:5)."

Since the attention of the world has been focused more than ever on the Muslims as a result of the horrendous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is important that Christians have a clear understanding of what the followers of Islam do and do not believe. Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that in the twenty-first century this resurgent religion will play an increasingly important part in world affairs.

Vatican Council II and Pope John Paul II have taught rightly that in spite of their disbelief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, Muslims cannot justly be classified as idolaters. Allah—nothing other than the Arabic word for God—cannot be equated with Baal, Zeus, Ashtaroth, Krishna, Aphrodite, and the other local, finite, false deities of pagan polytheists. The nature of Islam is more that of a heresy—an offshoot of Christianity and Judaism that retains the basic monotheistic concept of the one true Creator God. In short, although Muslim worship, which includes a flat denial of Christ’s divinity, is not in itself fitting, God-pleasing, or salvific in character, the object of that defective worship—that is, the Being toward whom it is directed—is nevertheless the true God, imperfectly understood, as distinct from a disguised demon or a nonexistent figure of myth or legend.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., is a prolific writer on Church issues, especially those having to do with the "Traditionalist" movement. He is a professor at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico.
Reply
#6
(02-10-2012, 03:48 AM)Parmandur Wrote: As to Allah, here are the words of a well-known priest on that topic:

Muslim worship, which includes a flat denial of Christ’s divinity, is not in itself fitting, God-pleasing, or salvific in character

There you go. Nothing more need be said.

P.S. Very interesting that, before you edited your post, you described Fr. Harrison as a traditionalist. You then realized it was erroneous to do so, thus you deleted this word. Good work. 
Reply
#7
(02-10-2012, 04:27 AM)alphonsusjr Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 03:48 AM)Parmandur Wrote: As to Allah, here are the words of a well-known priest on that topic:

Muslim worship, which includes a flat denial of Christ’s divinity, is not in itself fitting, God-pleasing, or salvific in character

There you go. Nothing more need be said.

P.S. Very interesting that, before you edited your post, you described Fr. Harrison as a traditionalist. You then realized it was erroneous to do so, thus you deleted this word. Good work. 

I realized it might be a bit broad a use for some people.  He is a traditionally-minded priest, though.

The question of whether Allah is God is simple enough; the Catechism of Pius X allows as much when describing Muhamedans as infidels who acknowledge one true God.  They worship God incorrectly, but that doesn't make Allah, which is Arabic for "the God", from being God.  The same applies to the Jews.
Reply
#8
Anyways, the point is, the new Catechism isn't strictly speaking wrong.  An Institute priest I know described it as "an okay book, you do not need to burn it or anything."  The old Roman Catechism is a much better resource, and better reading.
Reply
#9
(02-10-2012, 03:48 AM)Parmandur Wrote: As to Allah, here are the words of a well-known priest on that topic:

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. Wrote:[size=10pt]Muslims Worship the One True God Only Their ‘Receiving Apparatus’ Is Defective
[/size]
In recent years many self-styled "traditionalist" Catholics have expressed shock that Pope John Paul II has stated on various occasions—usually during his apostolic journeys to nations with a strong Muslim presence—that the followers of Islam, together with Christians, worship "the one true God." But the Holy Father has done nothing more than restate the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which said, "The Church also views with esteem the Muslims, who worship the one and only God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth" (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions 2).

Some "traditionalist" Catholics cite these statements of the Council and the Pope as evidence for the sedevacantist position, which holds that the See of Peter is vacant, i.e., that there has been no true pope since Vatican II. Their thinking is that since Allah is a false god, the statements of Paul VI and John Paul II to the contrary constitute public heresy—even apostasy and idolatry—which is incompatible with their being true popes.

These people use this issue as a litmus test for determining who is Catholic and who isn’t. Simply ask a professing Catholic, they say, whether Muslims worship the one true God (as John Paul II says they do). If the person answers yes, then you can know without further ado that he has already reached "the end of the road"—total apostasy.

I have long been in public discourse with sedevacantists via letters and articles in various publications. (See, for example, "White Smoke, Valid Pope," This Rock, March 2001.) I am on record agreeing with Pope John Paul II that it can be said truly that the Muslims "worship the one true God" even though they deny his trinitarian character. At the same time, I believe unequivocally in the revealed mystery of the most blessed Trinity—as does John Paul II along with all his predecessors.

As for the sedevacantists’ litmus test concerning Allah as the one true God, they err by confusing two distinct questions: whether one person or two separate persons are being referred to in a given situation; and what the qualities or attributes of a given person are. Let me explain.

Imagine two people with their television sets in two adjacent houses, tuned in to the same channel at the same time, watching the same news bulletin. One TV set is in excellent condition, and the image of the news broadcaster can be seen perfectly on the screen. The set (or antenna) in the next house is in poor condition, and the image comes out on the screen in a blurry, confused, and partly unrecognizable form. Are the two viewers seeing the same man? Of course they are—there are not two different men in the TV studio producing the two respective images. Because of the second viewer’s defective receiving mechanism, he does not see the true attributes and qualities of the broadcaster’s face.

In the same way, there is only one supreme and eternal Creator of the universe who is recognized as such by both Muslims and Christians. But because of their defective "receiving apparatus"—i.e., they do not accept Christian revelation—Muslims err grievously by not recognizing God’s trinitarian character.

When we say that Muslims and Jews worship the one true God (while rejecting the Trinity), this by no means implies that such worship is as acceptable and pleasing to God as Christian worship "in spirit and in truth," whose principles the Incarnate Word has revealed and which the Catholic Church transmits to us in her teaching, liturgy, and sacraments. Satan has many different lies in his armory; he works by obscuring and twisting our understanding of God and his revelation as well as by seducing us to deny God outright.

Mr. Richard J. M. Ibranyi, an active and zealous sedevacantist, took issue with my analogy of the television sets, which I originally posed in a letter to him. My letter was in response to his criticism of an earlier article of mine against sedevacantism. To give you a taste of his rhetoric, I quote at length from his critique, which appeared in his own publication, Exurge Michaël (March 2002):

"Fr. Harrison, using black magic, exploits the craft of illusion. He tries to imprint a lie on the mind of the reader by using a false analogy. He wants you to believe that every false god mentioned in the Bible and by the saints is actually the true God who is not clearly seen. In other words, there is no such thing as a false god. A false god is actually a blurred and confused image of the true God. . . .

"According to Fr. Harrison, King David lied when he said, ‘The gods of the Gentiles are devils’ (Ps. 95:5). The new version according to Fr. Harrison reads, ‘The gods of the Gentiles is [sic] the true God not clearly seen.’ St. Paul says, ‘The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God’ (1 Cor. 10:20). Fr. Harrison teaches, ‘The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to God not clearly seen.’ The First Commandment is, ‘I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me’ (Ex. 20: 2–3). ‘What strange god?’, says Fr. Harrison, ‘a strange god is nothing more than the true god not clearly seen.’. . .

"[Fr. Harrison’s] piece of work is surely cursed, and with it goes a legion of demons to throw your mind off balance so that it would accept his apostate teaching that Moslems worship the true God. A conclusion of his false analogy is that if a man believes in one God, but that god is the sun, then when that man looks at the sun to worship it, he is actually looking at God, not the sun, thus the sun is God.

"The trick of his analogy lies in the statement, ‘Imagine two people with their television sets in two adjacent houses, tuned in to the same channel at the same time, watching the same news bulletin,’ both viewing ‘the same newscaster.’ The truth is that those who worship a false god are not even on the same channel (station) as those who worship the true God. The true God, the God of the Catholic Church, is only on one channel. All the other channels are real images of either a false god, if the non-Catholics believe in one God, or multiple gods (newscasters) if the non-Catholics believe in more than one god.

"There is no possibility of defective TV sets (receptive equipment: eyes, ears, and a mind) for those with the use of reason, because God gives these to men to clearly see all things. It is men’s wills and hearts that are defective, not their eyes, ears, and minds (TV sets). A Hindu is tuned in to a channel in which there are many newscasters (gods) in the same studio, and views many gods on his TV set. A Moslem’s channel is tuned in to Allah, he really sees Allah in the clear image invented by Mohammed. He truly sees a god that is not Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. . . . The defect is not in his capacity to see, his eyes, ears, and mind (TV set). Nor is it in God’s grace that is motivating him to believe. The defect is in his heart and will.

"Be gone, Fr. Harrison, with your black magic, for the deepest pit of hell awaits you unless you repent, convert, and abjure."

I replied to Mr. Ibranyi in a second letter dated March 30, 2002. The relevant parts (edited) read as follows:

"You write, ‘Fr. Harrison wants you to believe every false god mentioned in the Bible and by the saints is actually the true God who is not clearly seen. In other words, there is no such thing as a false god.’ You go on, ‘According to Fr. Harrison, King David lied when he said, ‘The gods of the Gentiles are devils.’

"The fact is, I never said or implied any of this, and have never believed it. I agree that all the false gods mentioned in the Bible are false gods, who are rightly styled as ‘devils’ by the inspired writers. I was talking only about Islam—a religion totally unknown to the human authors of Scripture and to the Fathers before the seventh century A.D. That is, I am not talking about the polytheistic and idolatrous cults that the biblical writers had in mind when they spoke of ‘the gods of the Gentiles.’

"You do not seem to realize that Allah is merely the word for God in the Arabic language, just like Deus in Latin, Gott in German, Dieu in French, and so on. (It means literally the Divinity—the only one that exists.) So it is that Arab Catholics worship Allah just as much as Muslims do. In all Catholic Bibles printed in Arabic, God is called Allah in both Old and New Testaments.

"So it is nonsensical and unjust to call Muslims ‘idolaters’ and thus to apply to them all the biblical strictures against pagan polytheism. The essence of idolatry is to worship some limited, finite being or object (real or imaginary)—either itself visible (e.g., the sun or moon) or represented by visible images—instead of the one, invisible, supreme, eternal, and infinite Being. And it is obvious that in polytheistic worship all the supposed gods are limited and finite: none of them is thought to be omnipotent and eternal. That is precisely what Scripture condemns as idolatry.

"The clearest biblical teaching on this point is probably Romans 1: 20–23. Here Paul condemns polytheists for refusing to acknowledge God’s ‘invisible attributes of power and divinity’ (v. 20) and instead ‘exchang[ing] the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes’ (v. 23).

"It is obvious that Muslims are not guilty of false worship in this sense. Indeed, Muslims are notorious for their zeal in insisting on the ‘invisible attributes of power and divinity’ of God and for their fanatical abhorrence of anything that they consider worship of any finite or created being (e.g., their detestation of our Christian veneration of images of Christ and the saints).

"So my analogy with the one man in the TV studio, seen correctly by some viewers and confusedly by others, in no way implies that pagan polytheists like those condemned in Scripture are also worshiping the one true God. The analogy in the latter case would be, as you say, with viewers of two completely different channels.

"Nor does your argument regarding the sun have any validity as a supposed reductio ad absurdum refutation of my own argument. My analogy in no way implies that ‘when a man looks at the sun to worship it, he is actually looking at God, not the sun, thus the sun is God.’ Sun-worship is idolatry because the sun is a finite, limited, visible object and as such cannot possibly be identified objectively with the one, true God. Recognizing the invisibility of God is an essential part of any worship (correct or incorrect) that can legitimately be described as worship ‘of the one true God.’ Of course the Muslims do recognize God’s invisibility.

"Basically, the great difference between Muslims and all idolaters/polytheists is that the former do, and the latter do not, recognize those attributes of the divinity described by Paul in Romans 1, which are in principle accessible to unaided human reason. What the Muslims lack is knowledge of the Trinity, which is accessible only through the supernatural revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"So again, for the record, I deny that idolaters and polytheists worship the one, true God in any way at all, and I deny that my aforesaid analogy regarding the Muslims implies that they do so.

"You also miss the mark in arguing against me that ‘there is no possibility of defective TV sets . . . for those with the use of reason.’ This, you claim, is because God gives to all of us the same good-quality sensory and mental ‘equipment’ for gaining knowledge. Of course he does. But (in terms of my analogy) you are confusing the viewer with the TV set. By ascribing all false belief to bad will you are implicitly denying the possibility of invincible ignorance of the true religion—a possibility clearly recognized by Scripture (Acts 17: 30) and traditional Catholic doctrine.

"In my analogy, the defective TV set does not correspond to any supposed defect in the senses and mind of normal adults. Rather, it corresponds to the Koran and the doctrinal system of Islam as such. Individual Muslims who are in invincible ignorance have been molded since infancy to see God through this distorting prism of a false ‘Scripture’ written by the false prophet Mohammed who rejected the Trinity and the Incarnation.

"In the case of the Muslims, Vatican II and Pope John Paul II are clearly presuming that the majority of them are not rejecting Christian revelation on the Trinity and the Incarnation out of malice, like the Pharisees, but out of ignorance. I think this presumption is reasonable. After all, only a minuscule proportion of Muslims would ever have been confronted with those ‘motives of credibility’ that, when recognized, morally oblige us to accept Christian revelation and become Catholics.

"I believe it is your position, not mine, that is contrary to Scripture. Since the Jews have the same concept of God as the Muslims—i.e., belief in his naturally knowable essence as outlined by Paul in Romans 1 but rejection of the supernatural revelation of the Trinity and the Incarnation)—your logic requires you to assert that the Jews do not worship the one true God any more than Muslims do. Paul, however, does not suggest for a moment that the Jews are idolaters, or that the God they worship is not the one true God. On the contrary, he says (speaking of the Jews in general, not those bad-willed leaders who conversed with our Lord in John chapter 8), ‘I testify with regard to them that they have zeal for God, but it is not discerning’ (Rom. 10:2).

"Paul obviously means by the word God here the one true God, not some idol or false deity. Under the heading of that ‘zeal’ which he ascribes to the Jews, their acts of worship would certainly have to be included. Hence, the Apostle’s divinely-inspired ‘testimony’ supports what I am telling you: the object of Jewish and Muslim worship is indeed the one true God, and not some finite spirit, creature, or idol; but the way they worship the true God is wrong (‘not discerning’).

"Indeed, it seems to me that your position logically implies the absurd idea that not even the ancient patriarchs—Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, et cetera—worshiped the one true God. They too were idolaters if the Muslims are idolaters, for, as regards their explicit belief, those holy patriarchs (like Jews and Muslims today) had no knowledge of the Trinity. And they had no idea that God himself would take on human nature. As Paul says, ‘The mystery of Christ . . . was not made known to human beings in other generations, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets’ (Eph. 3:5)."

Since the attention of the world has been focused more than ever on the Muslims as a result of the horrendous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is important that Christians have a clear understanding of what the followers of Islam do and do not believe. Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that in the twenty-first century this resurgent religion will play an increasingly important part in world affairs.

Vatican Council II and Pope John Paul II have taught rightly that in spite of their disbelief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, Muslims cannot justly be classified as idolaters. Allah—nothing other than the Arabic word for God—cannot be equated with Baal, Zeus, Ashtaroth, Krishna, Aphrodite, and the other local, finite, false deities of pagan polytheists. The nature of Islam is more that of a heresy—an offshoot of Christianity and Judaism that retains the basic monotheistic concept of the one true Creator God. In short, although Muslim worship, which includes a flat denial of Christ’s divinity, is not in itself fitting, God-pleasing, or salvific in character, the object of that defective worship—that is, the Being toward whom it is directed—is nevertheless the true God, imperfectly understood, as distinct from a disguised demon or a nonexistent figure of myth or legend.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., is a prolific writer on Church issues, especially those having to do with the "Traditionalist" movement. He is a professor at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico.
I've read the statements Fr. Brian Harrison has made of the SSPX. Not good at all.
He is not a traditional priest per se. He is a conservative priest. May God bless him.  He has criticisms of V2. That's good.
But at the end of the day he tries to interpret the V2 teachings as he thinks fit. Believe me, it is a lot better than how it is being taught now.
He tires to meld Post conciliar teachings (interpretations) with Tradition. Seems more like alchemy than anything else. But, he is in his right to do  what he can.
Oh, and the only plus that I give Fr. Harrison is that he is staunchly Anti-sedevacantist. A+

Excerpt from Fr. Harrison talking about the SSPX:

Since 1988 the Society of St Pius X and its supporters have maintained that 1) they are NOT in schism, and 2) that the bishops named by the Pope are NOT excommunicated, nor are the priests nor faithful who adhere to the SSPX, and 3) that the SSPX is in communion with Rome. Fr Brian Harrison O.S., described arguments by "members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X"  as "resorting to using the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories."

:eyeroll:
----------------------------------------------------------


That aside. AlhponsusJr is calling a spade a spade. I know it sounds judgmental, uncharitable, etc, but the fact remains that the Muslims do not worship God. Period. (I won't even say the same God. Because there is only one God). So for you bleeding heart liberals, the Muslims worship a "false god" (Just to be PC).

You can try to mess the Doctrines of The Church and give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt. But no cigar people.
Jehovah's witness say Jehova, muslims say Allah, the jews say God. =Same god? Yeah probably a similar false god.  But not God.  

All of a sudden you forgot our Creed. What a shame.



John 14:6-10
"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.
Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us.  Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father?  Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. "

Do you know what the our Muslim brothers think about Christ?  (Oh, the receiving apparatus is defective huh?)
Do you know what the jews think about Christ?                          (Oh, the receiving apparatus is defective huh?)
Do you know what the mormons think about Christ?                    (Oh, the receiving apparatus is defective huh?)

As much as I like the Arab novels and their culture, I am the first to admit that they do not worship God.

As per the jews, mormons, masons, jehova's witnesses, they are all in the same bracket. They worship a false deity or deities.


“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her" - Pope Gregory XVI

"Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests, the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects." St. Peter Canisius

St. Alphonsus attests to the fact how the Holy Monk St. Goerge of San Saba openly confessed to the Mohammedans:  "But the holy monk (St. George of San Saba) having declared that Mahomet was a disciple of the devil, and that his followers were in a state of perdition, he also was condemned (to martyrdom) with his companions.

St. Thomas Aquanis States " But through unbelief man is separated most from God: because he has no true knowledge of God. Nor can anyone in any way know God who holds a false opinion of Him".



The list goes on and on...
Just to add:   I personally prefer the tried and true statements from our Saints and Martyrs in regards to calling a spade a spade than a (God Bless him) Novus Ordo priest that is saying all religions lead to heaven..err, the same God except that the "defective receiving apparatus."

As for SU post that Alphonsusjr is leading people away. Well I don't think any decent Catholic would want to be uncharitable to people form other religions and say that they worship God.  In fact AlphonsusJr is being charitable.

It would be uncharitable for him (with the knowledge he has) to not reveal this.

(All though it might have been stated without calling out the new catechism. But, why cry over spilled milk?)

Die Wahrheit tut weh.
(the Truth hurts)

Good post AlphonsusJr!















Reply
#10
The term "conciliar" is an adjective that has long been used to describe those things that relate to the Second Vatican Council, such as the documents, commissions, or novel teachings such as Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. The question raises the objection as to whether this adjective can be used to describe the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.

In order to respond to the question a clear distinction has to be made. If by the term "church" is understood the visible, hierarchical structure, founded upon the rock of St. Peter, then clearly there can only be one Church, the Catholic Church. If we were to call the Catholic Church after Vatican II "conciliar" in this sense, then we would claim that it is no longer Catholic at all, but instead a separate visible, hierarchical structure. However, this is manifestly false, both because the adepts of Vatican II have hijacked the visible hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, and because they profess publicly to be Catholics.

However, there is another sense in which the term "conciliar" can rightly be applied to the majority of persons who profess to be Catholic, as well as to their ideas and opinions, profoundly influenced as they are by the Second Vatican Council. In this sense "conciliar" refers to the persons who have embraced and who promote the novelties of Vatican II, as well as to the novelties themselves. There are varying degrees of influence of the modern errors, from liberal Catholicism through rash opposition to Tradition to outright apostasy. The term conciliar or post-conciliar can consequently be applied to the modernist church, not as it is a canonical institution, but inasmuch and to the degree that it promotes the revolutionary errors of Vatican II.

Archbishop Lefebvre understood this reality very clearly, and the grave danger brought about by the infiltration of all these modernist principles within the very bosom of the Catholic Church. He had this to say of Rome in 1974, in his famous declaration of November 21:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

In his book Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre explained how the end result of this Conciliar Church is to separate its members little by little from the true Catholic Church established by Our Lord. By this he means that its revolutionary principles of freedom at all cost separate the clergy and faithful little by little from Tradition and produce indifferentism for all religions, eventually destroying the Catholic faith in the one true Church, and bringing about a generalized apostasy, even of those persons who outwardly appear to still be members of the Catholic Church.

Certainly, the Church itself guards its sanctity and its sources of sanctification, but the control of its institutions by unfaithful popes and apostate bishops ruins the faith of the faithful and the clergy, sterilizes the instruments of grace, and favors the assault of all the powers of Hell which seem to triumph. This apostasy makes its members adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated from the past of the Church, and thus separated from the Church of today, in the measure that it remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. [p.54]

[Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)