Why, because that means Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate will have to go out the window too? Just so everyone else gets a chance to understand how unambiguous the VatII position on islam is let's take a look at NA3:
3. 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.
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.
That "(5)" in NA references one line of a letter of Pope St. Gregory VII (1073 - 1085) to Anazir, king of the province of Mauretania wherein the sainted Pope writes This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world. Which sounds like VatII until one realizes that this same sainted pope called muslims a pagan race when calling a crusade in 1074. So which has more weight, diplomatic correspondence or:
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all who are willing to defend the Christian faith, greeting and apostolic benediction.
We hereby inform you that the bearer of this letter, on his recent return from across the sea, came to Rome to visit us. He repeated what we had heard from many others, that a pagan race had overcome the Christians and with horrible cruelty had devastated everything almost to the walls of Constantinople, and were now governing the conquered lands with tyrannical violence, and that they had slain many thousands of Christians as if they were but sheep.
The Church doesn't build doctrine based on the diplomatic correspondence of a pope, sainted or not. For that matter Walter Cardinal Brandmüller has said VatII's declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content” and CCC841 is based on exactly that... nonbinding content. If it is nonbinding it can be debated, if it can be debated it can be refuted and if refuted, repudiated.
How many more years do we have until that same pagan race is slaughtering Christians in the streets of New York (assuming they can find any)? THIS is what keeps me from sleeping at night, the very idea that the Catholic Church would proclaim that the Almighty God and Father of Jesus Christ is one and the same as the pagan moon god of islam. No, no, it cannot be, CCC841 and the documents supporting it must be thrown on the trash heap of history before we find ourselves dragged out into the streets and beheaded in front of our children.
There must be a new crusade, that unites all who call on the Holy Name of Jesus, to rid this world of the worship of the very devil himself before it's too late. I will not have my three daughters raped and my two sons impaled in the name of the Second Vatican Council's Decrees on religious liberty and inter-religious dialogue with pagans. No, there's your "No".
Finally. Common sense and honesty.
Thank you
Hoss
“Why, because that means Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate will have to go out the window too?”
No, nothing has to go out the window.
“Just so everyone else gets a chance to understand how unambiguous the VatII position on islam is let’s take a look at NA3:”
What exactly are you trying to prove? Today, Saturday, we think of the time Christ spent in the tomb. And what is it that you are doing? You’re attacking a Church council, a Catholic catechism? There isn’t something better you could be doing with your time than that?
“The Church doesn’t build doctrine based on the diplomatic correspondence of a pope, sainted or not.”
It’s a footnote. The Church has never built doctrine on a footnote. A footnote reference is merely a footnote reference. Using a quote already written is simply done to show an idea was already long since put to paper. Didn’t you ever write a paper in high school or college?
“How many more years do we have until that same pagan race is slaughtering Christians in the streets of New York (assuming they can find any)?”
Not many. And? Seriously, what are you saying? Are you saying that the outrages of some Muslims (even MANY Muslims) should some how change Catholic doctrine concerning God and those who profess to believe in Him? Really? So if Jews were slaughtering Christians in New York would that mean we some how change what the CCC says about Jews?
“THIS is what keeps me from sleeping at night, the very idea that the Catholic Church would proclaim that the Almighty God and Father of Jesus Christ is one and the same as the pagan moon god of islam.”
But you don’t lose any sleep at night that the Church acknowledges that the same God of the Jews is in fact THE God of all men - including Muslims? Aren’t you missing the point? If the Church says all three groups (Jews, Christians, Muslims) all acknowledge and adore the same God of Abraham, but also tacitly points out that two of those groups deny the Trinity, the Redeemer’s divinity, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit, how does that make you lose sleep?
“No, no, it cannot be,”
But it is. Shaking your fist and cursing at the sun won’t make it go away. No, just use your head, put on sunscreen and you won’t get burned.
“CCC841 and the documents supporting it must be thrown on the trash heap of history before we find ourselves dragged out into the streets and beheaded in front of our children.”
The one has nothing to do with the other. Christians have been killed by Muslims for almost 1400 years. The CCC came out in 1993. Someone could argue that the slaughter was WORSE in the century before and after the Catechism of Trent came out. Are you arguing that that should be revised as well to reflect that fact?
“There must be a new crusade, that unites all who call on the Holy Name of Jesus, to rid this world of the worship of the very devil himself before it’s too late.”
There are two problems with what you wrote there:
1) If there is to be a crusade, it must be a Catholic thing. Perhaps the Orthodox can do their part as well. It is doubtful that a crusade could include those who are obstinately heretical, however.
2) Satan worshipers do not agree with Muslims and Muslims do not agree with Satan worshipers. One of the reasons Muslims have been persecuting the Yazidis is that they are viewed by almost everyone in the Middle East as devil worshipers. They really aren’t devil worshipers either, but that is how they are viewed. Since Muslims and Satan worshipers are not the same group (for they disagree) it must simply be that Muslims are inclined to evil actions, sinful actions rather than that they actually worship the devil. In other words, they aren’t much different than other men in that regard but they are shackled with a belief system filled with errors and which actually exalts some sinful activities as morally sound practices (slavery for war captives would be an example).
A crusade is fine with me - and I know more about crusades and their history than probably anyone else here at FR. But if we are to go on crusade it will never be to “rid this world of [Muslim] worship” for that is not how or why crusades are fought. Crusades are fought to liberate holy places from occupation by a persecuting enemy, to liberate fellow Christians, to force a groups which has closed itself to Christian missionaries to accept them (even if no conversions might take place), and to push back the tide of a persecuting enemy. They are not to be fought to wipe out a people, or to destroy a monotheistic religion no matter how erroneous, nor to forcibly convert a people to Christianity. Those essentially are the rules of crusade.
“I will not have my three daughters raped and my two sons impaled in the name of the Second Vatican Council’s Decrees on religious liberty and inter-religious dialogue with pagans.”
Again, the one has nothing to do with the other. I too hope nothing ever happens to your children. Mind you, if something does, it will most likely be something done to them by another American who is NOT Muslim but who is interested in persecuting Christians. You do realize that, right? Also, if you lived centuries ago, your children would still be at risk of abuse and murder by Muslims so to blame such a possibility NOW on the existence of CCC 841 is ridiculous. You are building an impossible mountain out of molehill. If a Muslim harms your children he won’t be doing it because of CCC 841. He has never heard of CCC 841, doesn’t know what it says and doesn’t care. Neither did his ancestors when they went raping and pillaging centuries ago. What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense.
“No, there’s your “No”.”
No. My earlier “No” still stands. The very fact that you resort to talking about the possible rape and murder of your children being the result of CCC 841 shows you are not posting a rational argument against it.
Excellent post Legatus. I would add additional quotes from saints and popes regarding the Muslims and their religion (none of which even suggest they worship or adore the same God as we do):
Which sounds like VatII until one realizes that this same sainted pope called muslims a pagan race when calling a crusade in 1074. So which has more weight, diplomatic correspondence or:
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all who are willing to defend the Christian faith, greeting and apostolic benediction. We hereby inform you that the bearer of this letter, on his recent return from across the sea, came to Rome to visit us. He repeated what we had heard from many others, that a pagan race had overcome the Christians and with horrible cruelty had devastated everything almost to the walls of Constantinople, and were now governing the conquered lands with tyrannical violence, and that they had slain many thousands of Christians as if they were but sheep.
Interesting. So these two documents contradict one another (and Vatican II chose to use the former)? The first is a letter, but what is the second one? Legatus, could you provide links to these two documents?