iheartjp2 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='25 May 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1274822132' post='2117538'] Exactly it's only been 20 years since the 'birth' of the Charismatic Renewal. Its roots are not found in the roots in the birth of the Church but in the 1960's with an influx of Pentecostal heretical teaching. [/quote] 20 plus 1973 doesn't make 2010. I think you're just spewing out numbers at this point. [quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 May 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1274822219' post='2117540'] I am afraid that Mr. Likoudis and I agree on very little when it comes to theology, but there is one exception . . . we both reject any form of Pentecostalism in the Catholic Church. P.S. - Mr. Likoudis is not a former Protestant; rather, he is a former Eastern Orthodox Christian. [/quote] Changed it. Sorry! Really? You guys agree on little?! Well, it just goes to show how dissimilar two Mr. I'malwaysrights can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='25 May 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1274821282' post='2117518'] If you or anyone else truly wants to understand why Pentecost can only happen once and never again, please listen to this... [url="http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/KC/Disk%201/Pentecost.mp3"]http://www.sensustra...1/Pentecost.mp3[/url] [/quote] Ok, so obviously not everyone is going to receive the Holy Spiritin such power and in such security and in such an obvious fashion. I see nothing wrong or anywhere that would not allow for the Holy Spirit to come in a different way. Though this statement may be butchered later. Again, all I can say is that the Vatican has approved the Charismatic Renewal, and that is something I will stand by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 May 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1274822350' post='2117544'] He seems like a nice guy. [/quote] I did not say that he was mean or cruel; instead, I simply said that Mr. Likoudis and I have different views on theology, although we both reject Pentecostalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 May 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1274822494' post='2117551'] I did not say that he was mean or cruel; instead, I simply said that Mr. Likoudis and I have different views on theology, although we both reject Pentecostalism. [/quote] Are any of his books worthwhile reading? I was kind of intrigued because he's written about Eastern Orthodox/Catholic relations, which is a subject that interests me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='iheartjp2' date='25 May 2010 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1274822411' post='2117546'] Changed it. Sorry! [/quote] No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartjp2 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 After discussing this topic, I've come to the conclusion that the more extreme your opinions, the more off track you get, whether they be rooted in good or in evil. I'm taking one out of penciledone's book and just standing on the fact that the Church has done everything short of endorsing it. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it's here. [i]Now[/i] I'll say no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 May 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1274822602' post='2117557'] Are any of his books worthwhile reading? I was kind of intrigued because he's written about Eastern Orthodox/Catholic relations, which is a subject that interests me. [/quote] I have read one of his books on the papacy (the title alludes me at the moment), which I think is a polemical treatise that ignores anything that would speak against the Vatican I definition on papal authority, and I read his book [u]Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism[/u], in which - like in his other books - he attacks Eastern Christian theology (e.g., he rejects the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and the doctrine of energies, to name just two things). I see no harm in reading his books, although I see no real value in doing so either. Edited May 25, 2010 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 May 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1274823298' post='2117582'] I have read one of his books on the papacy (the title alludes me at the moment), which I think is a polemical treatise that ignores anything that would speak against the Vatican I definition on papal authority, and I read his book [u]Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism[/u], in which - like in his other books - he attacks Eastern Christian theology (e.g., he rejects the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and the doctrine of energies, to name just two things). I see no harm in reading his books, although I see no real value in doing so either. [/quote] Ah, I see. Didn't expect that from his short biography on that website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 May 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1274823505' post='2117585'] Ah, I see. Didn't expect that from his short biography on that website. [/quote] He converted in the 1950s and back then the Eastern Catholic Churches were very Latinized, so rejecting Byzantine theology was common for converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Moreover, if my memory serves me, I believe he is Roman Catholic, and not Eastern Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='iheartjp2' date='25 May 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1274814479' post='2117379'] Resurrexi, I've seen it said by you that you don't necessarily respect views with which you don't agree. That's fine. You don't need to. What I'm asking is that you at least respect these for whatever they are to you because the Church herself has come out and spoken in favor of them. [/quote] The Church has never spoken authoritatively in favor of practices such as "speaking in tongues" and "being slain in the Spirit". While individual churchmen may have given their personal opinions in favor of the subject, it is important to note the following: The personal opinions of individual churchmen ≠the teachings of the Church. I have absolutely no respect for practices such as "speaking in tongues" or "being slain in the Spirit," nor do I have any reason to have respect for them. Edited May 25, 2010 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 May 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1274823298' post='2117582'] I have read one of his books on the papacy (the title alludes me at the moment), which I think is a polemical treatise that ignores anything that would speak against the Vatican I definition on papal authority, and I read his book [u]Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism[/u], in which - like in his other books - he attacks Eastern Christian theology (e.g., he rejects the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and the doctrine of energies, to name just two things). I see no harm in reading his books, although I see no real value in doing so either. [/quote] Of course as a Catholic he would reject the the Eastern Orthodox teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, for it is heretical and contradicts the Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The same is true in regard to the Eastern Orthodox teaching on divine energies; he would reject it because it is contrary to the Catholic teaching on absolute divine simplicity. In regard to papal primacy, would you really expect a Catholic who actually believes in the teachings of the Church not to defend the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I in a treatise on the pope? Edited May 25, 2010 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartjp2 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Resurrexi' date='25 May 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1274823730' post='2117589'] The Church has never spoken authoritatively in favor of practices such as "speaking in tongues" and "being slain in the Spirit". While individual churchmen may have given their personal opinions in favor of the subject, it is important to note the following: The personal opinions of individual churchmen ≠the teachings of the Church. I have absolutely no respect for practices such as "speaking in tongues" or "being slain in the Spirit," nor do I have any reason to have respect for them. [/quote] Well, no, the Church hasn't done so explicitly, though the Church has tolerated the Charismatic renewal for some time now. Honestly, I don't even know if all of the bishops know about what goes on in Charismatic circles, but that's not even the point. The snarky, self-righteous attitude that people have gotten from you has gone on far too long. Some people find it endearing. Personally, I find it disgusting. I'm not asking you to do anything but kick that habit. Is that too much for you? That's the only concern I had in my first post on this topic. Everything else was secondary. We can agree to disagree. You and others have made up your mind and I'm okay with that. Your behavior, however, is just a [i]little[/i] too much. You may think you're being Christ-like when you use disrespect as a virtue to combat the things with which you disagree, but really, you're just being offensive. I'd refer you back to post #50. That is all. Edited May 25, 2010 by iheartjp2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote]you're just being offensive.[/quote] If I could give you a +1 for that, I would...but I wasted it in the lame board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='25 May 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1274824248' post='2117604'] Of course as a Catholic would the the Eastern Orthodox teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone . . . [/quote] Just like with Mr. Likoudis . . . it is no secret that you and I disagree on a large number of theological issues, but happily we do agree on the issue under discussion in this thread, i.e., that modern Pentecostalism is not compatible with Apostolic Tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikaele Posted May 25, 2010 Author Share Posted May 25, 2010 As far as I remember, 'glossolalia' has never been used by a Saint. Vincent Ferrer had the real gift of tongues, the ability to speak and be heard in another language which you have no knowledge of. If it was a gift of the Holy Spirit, then the Saints (at least some,) would have had the same gift. Yet it only came into the Church in the 1960s. The gibberish that charismatics call the gift of tongues, and being slain in the Spirit both have no root in history. <h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"> </h1> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts