Theology has consequences…
Vatican II in Action: Nigerian Diocese builds Mosque for Muslim Refugees
The Novus Ordo bishop of Yola in front of the mosque being built for IDPs in Adamawa, Nigeria
It is well-known that the members of the Vatican II Sect worship the same god as the Moslems. They say so themselves. In the 1964 dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of their beloved Second Vatican Council, they note that the followers of Islam “along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind” (n. 16).
Now, we know what god the Muslims worship because they are happy to let us know. It is “Allah”, who is not Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but merely creator. That is, Muslims explicitly reject the idea that the Creator of the world is one God in three divine Persons. In fact, they do not believe that God can possibly have a Son, since (so they reason) God cannot have a wife. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, this objection comes from minds that “are carnal [and] can think only of what is flesh and blood” (Reasons for the Faith against Moslem Objections, Chapter 3; alternate edition: Aquinas on Reasons for Our Faith), before proceeding to explain that “the mode of generation is not the same for everything, but generation applies to each thing according to the special manner of its nature.”
Rejecting the divinely-revealed dogma of the Trinity in favor of a non-Trinitarian creator is something the followers of Mohammed have in common with the apostate Jews. But, as St. John the Apostle makes clear, whoever denies the Most Holy Trinity, denies the true God: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also” (1 Jn 2:23). And as the great exegete Fr. Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637) observes, “he who does not know [the] Trinity does not know the nature of the Godhead”, adding that “if you take away one person you do away with the Godhead altogether” (The Great Commentary: Saint John’s Epistles, p. 117).
Since theology has consequences, bad theology will have bad consequences.
The “Diocesan Mosque” of Yola
Thus we come to find out that the Novus Ordo diocese of Yola, Nigeria, has built a mosque for Muslim refugees from other parts of the country (so-called “internally displaced people”, or IDPs) on the grounds that they supposedly have a right to worship in accordance with their conscience — a typical Vatican II error first introduced by “Pope” John XXIII (1958-63) in the 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris: “This too must be listed among the rights of a human being, to honor God according to the sincere dictates of his own conscience, and therefore the right to practice his religion privately and publicly” (n. 14). That stands in contradiction to Pope Pius IX’s 1864 condemnation of the following error: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus of Errors, n. 15).
In an interview, Yola’s ordinary, “Bp.” Stephen Dami Mamza, explained:
And if we were able to build houses for all of [the internally displaced], and also built a church for the Christians among them, then it is only a matter of justice and fairness that we also provide a space of worship for the few Muslims among them. There are about 10 to 12 Muslim families in the camp. I just felt that since we didn’t leave out the Muslims while providing food for the Christians or leave the Muslims out while building houses for the Christians, it is only just that we also build a mosque for the Muslims as we built a church for Christians.
People even ask, “Why should you, a Christian, build a mosque?” And my response to them is that, “I am a Christian, a pastor, a bishop and a priest, I shouldn’t deny anybody their right to worship.”
(qtd. in Hindi Livinus, “Why Yola Catholic church built mosque for Muslim IDPs – Bishop Mamza”, Punch, Apr. 11, 2021)
The reasoning here is typical for a Novus Ordo. Mamza thinks “it is only a matter of justice and fairness” that Muslims be given their own place where they can practice “their right to worship.” But that is false. Mamza reasons this way because as a Vatican II adherent he does not distinguish the true religion from false religions, the true worship of God from false worship.
That distinction has entirely been eclipsed by the Vatican II Sect because they no longer begin with God and His rights but with man and his (supposed) rights. Justly did Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) lament, 58 years before John XXIII usurped the Chair of St. Peter: “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God” (Encyclical Tametsi Futura, n. 13).
God’s Right to be Worshipped Truly vs. Man’s Right to Religious Liberty
It is because God has a right to be worshipped truly that man does not (and cannot) have a right to worship falsely. This being so, there is consequently no injustice involved in refusing to build a place of false worship for Muslims (or for members of any other false religion). False worship dishonors God and is detested by Him.
Of course God takes into consideration the subjective dispositions and good faith of those individuals who engage in false worship by mistake; that is, those who sincerely believe this false worship to be their duty towards God and meaning to honor Him. However, such subjective factors are irrelevant with regard to the objective reality that the worship is false and objectively repulsive to God.
This is taught in the pre-Vatican II moral theology manuals of the Catholic Church, such as the following:
False worship is opposed to the truth of religion (e.g., Old Testament rites which signify that Christ is still to come), or of rites (e.g., Mass by a layman, Mass according to a form disapproved by the Church), or of facts (e.g., fictitious revelations, ecstasies, mysticism, miracles, relies), or of morals (e.g., human sacrifice, praises of God to the accompaniment of lascivious words or music, etc.).
…False worship is from its nature a grave sin; it is seriously insulting to God because it offers Him dishonor as honor, and it is also seriously harmful to man because it casts discredit by its falsity on the name of religion.
Whereas the Church can often tolerate false worship given certain circumstances, she can never approve of it, much less accord it the status of a right.
In his Manual of Dogmatic Theology, the great Sulpician theologian Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey (1854-1932) states succinctly:
Hypothetically, if we posit the fact that the good of society demands that the various kinds of divine worship enjoy the same serenity as the true religion, then what today is called freedom of conscience and of worship can be tolerated.
Therefore, the Roman Pontiffs do not absolutely condemn these freedoms; but they do forbid that these liberties be considered as rights which must be granted to error or to false religion.
(Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by Mgr. John J. Byrnes [New York, NY: Desclee Company, 1959], n. 281.b.2; italics given.)
Notice that Fr. Tanquerey says that liberty of conscience or worship can be tolerated (not approved!) if certain conditions are met. In no case, however, can this liberty be considered a right.
That is, not surprisingly, the very teaching of the Supreme Pontiff himself, given in an address on Dec. 6, 1953:
First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.
(Pope Pius XII, Allocution Ci Riesce, sec. V)
What would Pope Pius XII have said in response to a bishop building a mosque on the grounds that it was “only fair” that Muslims also be given a place to worship?
To illustrate the incongruity further, perhaps it is a good idea for people to find out just what is actually recited and taught in mosques, though this need not be spelled out here.
When religious freedom was introduced as law in post-revolutionary France, Pope Pius VII (1800-23) denounced it strongly and explained:
…[W]hen the liberty of all “religions” is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), “asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me.”
(Pope Pius VII, Apostolic Letter Post Tam Diuturnas)
It is not difficult to see how this clear and forceful exposition of the true Catholic position is diametrically opposed to the toxic gunk that has been coming out of the Modernist-occupied Vatican since John XXIII.
An Objection refuted
Some may object that our analysis is unfair on the grounds that the Yola diocese was really just helping the Muslim refugees insofar as they are human beings, not insofar as they are Muslims. This argument, which may appear plausible on the surface, cuts right to the heart of the matter, for it brings to the fore the pivotal question: Does a human being have the inherent right to worship in accordance with his conscience?
As we have seen, the traditional Catholic answer is an emphatic no, whereas the answer of the Vatican II Sect, beginning with John XXIII, is yes, even if sometimes it is only a qualified yes. Hence, the objection assumes that the Vatican II doctrine is correct. Since this is the very issue under dispute, however, it cannot be assumed without committing the fallacy of begging the question.
Certainly, Muslim refugees must be helped in their temporal necessities. They, like people of any other religion or no religion, must be assisted with the human necessities they lack, such as food, clothing, and shelter (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Such things must be denied to no one in need of them, for we have been commanded to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mt 22:39), and our Blessed Lord made clear that everyone is our neighbor (see Lk 10:25-37; cf. Gal 6:10). However — and this is the key point — engaging in false worship is obviously not a human necessity but an aberration that can at best be tolerated. For that reason, Catholics cannot build a mosque for needy Moslems so they can worship in accordance with their false beliefs. Mosques are used by people only insofar as they are Muslim, not insofar as they are human.
Another Objection refuted
Another objection that is sometimes made is that Pope Pius XI (1922-39) taught religious liberty when he wrote: “The believer has an absolute right to profess his Faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law” (Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, n. 31). This objection was answered by Fr. Francis Connell in 1946, and his words illustrate once more how much the pre-conciliar teaching on this subject differs from that of Vatican II:
Question: In the English version of the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, sent by Pope Pius XI to the German bishops on March 14, 1937, we read: “The believer has an inalienable right to profess his faith and to put it into practice in the manner suited to him.” Could not one conclude from this that no matter what religion a person may profess he has a genuine natural right to practice it, without being molested or impeded?
Answer: If Pope Pius XI meant to teach what our questioner concludes from his statement, he certainly departed from traditional Catholic belief and from the clear teaching of his predecessor, Pope Pius IX, who condemned the proposition: “Everyone is free to accept and to profess that religion which, under the guidance of the light of reason, he has judged to be true” [Denz. 1715]. It is incredible that Pope Pius XI intended to teach a doctrine so utterly at variance with Catholic tradition — a doctrine, moreover, which would lead to the strange conclusion that a person has an inalienable right to be wrong.
The only reasonable interpretation of the Pope’s words is that he was speaking of the inalienable right of Catholics to profess and to practice their faith in the manner suited to their religious needs. It must be remembered that the Pope was denouncing the Nazi government for its restrictions on the Catholic Church, so that it was most natural that he should proclaim the right of the Catholic to practice his religion. It should be remembered, too, that our English word “believer” is not an adequate translation of [the German] “Der gläubige mensch,” as used in a papal document. This latter phrase is the equivalent of the Latin “fidelis,” which in the language of the Church normally means “one who has the Catholic faith.” Similarly, the word “Christian,” when used in the Church’s official statements, does not [ordinarily] signify anyone who accepts Christ as his religious leader, as the word does nowadays in our land. A Christian, in the language of the Church, [ordinarily] means a Catholic.
(Rev. Francis J. Connell, “Pope Pius XI and Religious Liberty”, American Ecclesiastical Review CXV, n. 2 [August, 1946], p. 139; italics given; underlining added. Reprinted with minor modifications in Father Connell Answers Moral Questions, ed. by Rev. Eugene K. Weitzel [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1959], pp. 2-3.)
Thus one can see the great contrast that exists between what the pre-conciliar (true) Popes and the “Popes” since John XXIII taught on this matter. The former is the true Roman Catholic position, the latter the pseudo-Catholic counterfeit.
Contradiction and Development
Some Novus Ordo authors freely admit, actually, that the positions are in contradiction with each other; which means that if the one is right, the other must be wrong.
For example, Joseph M. White writes about the dispute on this very issue between the orthodox Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-69), who received the papal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice medal in 1954, and his Jesuit opponent Fr. John Courtney Murray (1904-67), who was silenced by his superiors for this very error:
[Fenton’s] most important controversy was with the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray over the latter’s unorthodox interpretation of church teaching on church-state relations. Murray’s dissenting opinion was adopted in the Declaration of Religious Freedom [Dignitatis Humanae] at Vatican Council II in 1964, and Fenton’s positions have been eclipsed.
(Joseph M. White, The Diocesan Seminary in the United States: A History from the 1780s to the Present [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989], p. 333; underlining added.)
Note well: The position that was rejected as unorthodox during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939-58) became the doctrine of the supposed ecumenical council a few years later! And the true Catholic teaching was “eclipsed”, reduced to the status of “Fenton’s positions”!
Fr. Murray’s own introductory commentary on the Vatican II declaration (which was promulgated in 1965, not ’64, as White erroneously says) is telling, for he implicitly acknowledges the break with the prior teaching when he says: “The course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors (1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae (1965) still remains to be explained by theologians” (in Walter M. Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican II [New York, NY: Guild Press, 1966], p. 673).
Indeed! As a matter of fact, it “remains to be explained” to this very day. When in October of 1985 Abp. Marcel Lefebvre submitted a set of 39 dubia (“doubts”, requests for clarification) to the Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith (available in book form here) so they would explain the contradiction between the conciliar and pre-conciliar positions, the Vatican’s “disappointing” response in January of 1987 included some interesting lines, such as the following:
The fact that on the question of religious liberty, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council represents, indubitably, a certain newness relative to the prior magisterium, cannot be a problem if it is a newness which is formed within this reality of “development within continuity.”
Indeed, there is no problem if it is a genuine development of doctrine. But that’s just the point: Since there is an essential contradiction between the two positions, it cannot be a true development. For inasmuch as there is contradiction, there is not development, for genuine development does not repudiate the substance of the prior but crystallizes, deepens, and perfects it.
In this post we have seen that the differences between the traditional Catholic and the Novus Ordo positions on religious liberty are not merely academic. They are not merely a theoretical matter of details or nuances with no practical effect. On the contrary, some very practical differences result from these two very divergent theologies — for instance, the difference between building a mosque or not building one! See what a visible impact the infernal Second Vatican Council has had, not only in theory but also in practice!
How ironic that, while Jews, Muslims, and even Pachamama worshippers are allowed in the Modernist-occupied Vatican these days, the one religion that is definitely not permitted to be practiced there is traditional Catholicism.
Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use