Does the word "Reconciliation" bug you

[Resurrexi]

[quote]So, Tommy, we can clearly see that this is the authoritative Catechism of our age. And in case you missed this part;[/quote]

Dont call me tommy, please That's not my username! If you wish to refer to me as STM, Thomas, StThomasMore, or even my real name, Tyler, that is fine. But DO NOT call me tommy. understand?

and by the way, I dont see nothing, dude!

[quote]The Church wasnt always called the "Catholic Church" from the begining. The name was given to the Church, and shows up about the time of St Ignatius of Antioch. He called it "catholic."[/quote]

It was called Catholic, before Christian.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:48 PM']Dont call me tommy,
It was called Catholic, before Christian.
[right][snapback]885306[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, thats not the point. We should be able to agree that it wasnt called anything but "the Church", and was given the name Catholic.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]YOu keep saying that but please some proof. Also, how can one catechism be more authoritive than another? They express the same truth do they not? If they express the same truth then why do you reject the CCC? Honestly....answer this please. The Church has stated that the CCC is a sure guide for teaching. Why do you refuse to refer to it?[/quote]

The Church first stated that the CCT was a sure guide for teaching. I do not refuse it. It is ok when read in light of tradition, but otherwise it can be misleading. One catechism can definetly be more authoritive than another. Is the Baltimore Catechism of equal value as the CCT--- I dont think so, but it is a GREAT teaching tool.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]One catechism can definetly be more authoritive than another. Is the Baltimore Catechism of equal value as the CCT--- [b]I dont think so[/b], but it is a GREAT teaching tool.
[right][snapback]885309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Those bolded words show that it is a matter of personal opinion. Please produce some documents to show this.

Also, you say that you do not reject it, then can we please begin to use that one instead for, as Cam said, it is the one best suited to applying Church teaching to today's questions.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 10:48 PM']Dont call me tommy, please That's not my username! If you wish to refer to me as STM, Thomas, StThomasMore, or even my real name, Tyler, that is fine. But DO NOT call me tommy. understand?

and by the way, I dont see nothing, dude!
It was called Catholic, before Christian.
[right][snapback]885306[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok I won't call you Tommy any more (as I rustle your hair). I can see that you are sensitive. So we can clearly see that you either do not understand the language being used or you refuse to see the language being used. It is clearly stated.

How about you proving your position and how about you showing us how Fidei Depositum is incorrect in it's statement. Oh, I need to see some quantifiable proof as to the CCT being more authoritative than the CCC. Simply saying that it came first is not sufficient. There have been many developments of dogma, new infallible dogmas proclaimed, and several councils since the CCT, which mean that the CCT does not speak as accurately to the People of God as well as the CCC.

This position is affirmed in Fidei Depositum. I would like your thoughts and coherent proof as to defend your position. If you can't, or if you find it too difficult, simply say so. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you don't know or don't understand.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:06 PM']the US govt. is a bunch of flaming athiestic liberals.
[right][snapback]885224[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

my dog tag says i'm Roman Catholic as well

i work for the US Government and i'm not a flaming athiestic liberal

Edited February 13, 2006 by ReinnieR

[cappie]

The words according to the[b] Introduction to the Rite of Penance[/b] are to an extent interchangeable but the Sacrament of Penance is known strictly as the [b]Rite of Reconciliation[/b]

E.G.

A. RITE FOR RECONCILIATION OF INDIVIDUAL PENITENTS

B. RITE FOR RECONCILIATION OF SEVERAL PENITENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

Rite of Reconciliation

27. At the invitation of the deacon or other minister, all kneel or bow down and say a form of general confession (for example, the prayer, I confess to almighty God). Then they stand, if this seems useful, and join in a litany or suitable song to express confession of sins, heartfelt contrition, prayer for forgiveness, and trust in God’s mercy. Finally, they say the Lord’s Prayer, which is never omitted.

28. After the Lord’s Prayer the priests go to the places assigned for confession. The penitents who desire to confess their sins go to the priest of their choice. After they have accepted a suitable act of penance, the priest absolves them, using the formulary for the reconciliation of an individual penitent.

29. When the confessions are over, the priests return to the sanctuary. The priest who presides invites all to make an act of thanksgiving to praise God for his mercy. This may be done in a psalm or hymn or litany. Finally, the priest concludes the celebration with one of the prayers in praise of God for this great love.

C. RITE FOR RECONCILIATION OF PENITENTS WITH GENERAL CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

[God Conquers]

So there we have it from a priest. Thank you father!

[Resurrexi]

[quote]The words according to the Introduction to the Rite of Penance are to an extent interchangeable but the Sacrament of Penance is known strictly as the Rite of Reconciliation[/quote]

excuse me, but I do not follow the Novus Ordo, so this does not apply to me.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 10:54 PM']excuse me, but I do not follow the Novus Ordo, so this does not apply to me.
[right][snapback]885498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
geez

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 10:54 PM']excuse me, but I do not follow the Novus Ordo, so this does not apply to me.
[right][snapback]885498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Listen here, it applies to the entire Church!

Enough of this, well I am a [b]traditional[/b] Catholic so I do not follow anything after Vatican II. An [i]orthodox [/i]Catholic follows the teachings of the magesterium which includes Vat II, the CCC, et al. A priest has shown you that the proper name is the Rite of Reconciliation. You can either submit in religious assent to the magesterium or otherwise.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 06:24 PM']the word "Reconciliation" was never used until AFTER Vatican II when it was introduced to make the Sacrament touchy feel-goody. I positively hate the word, and will correct someone when they use it.
[right][snapback]885060[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
while I prefer to use the word confession or penance, the use of the word reconciliation is probably biblically inspired.

The Greek words [i]katallage[/i], [i]katallasso[/i], [i]katellagen[/i], etc. are used in some rich ways in the New Testament. For example Christ's saving work is described by St. Paul in terms of reconciliation between God and man. In fact, the Greek word means quite literally to be put into friendship or relationship with God. Christ came to reconcile sinful humanity to Himself and enable us to enter into a familial relationship with God. I think this biblically inspired term is quite fitting for describing the Sacrament. It no doubt has a different emphasis than penance or confession, but one could easily argue that it has the more profound and appropriate emphasis. I suspect this may have been the kind of thinking behind it and not some weird agenda to make everything touch feel-goody.

[i]If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away. Behold all things are made new. But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins. And he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us, for Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God. Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him.[/i] - 2 Cor 5:17-21

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Listen here, it applies to the entire Church! [/quote]

ever read a document called Ecclesia Dei (ok I admit the SSPX may be in schism, now lets get past that part!) It says you MUST respect those who desire the Traditional Sacraments, Rites, Calendar etc. and YOU are not showing respect to me. I follow the Old Rites. What you are saying is like telling a Easterner that they have to call their Sacrifice a Mass rather than a Divine Litrugy! It is so insulting! since I am under the Old Rite I need not call it the Sacrement of Reconciliation or have that be the name of the sacrament that I am recieveing. The official name in MY rite is The Sacrament of Penance, so that is the offocial name for me!

[quote]Enough of this, well I am a traditional Catholic so I do not follow anything after Vatican II.[/quote]

Vatican II was a pastoral council and did not define any dogma, it only restated already defined dogma.

[quote]An orthodox Catholic follows the teachings of the magesterium which includes Vat II, the CCC, et al[/quote]

Vatican II was Pastoral the CCC is not as authoritive as the CCT, end of story.

[quote] A priest has shown you that the proper name is the Rite of Reconciliation.[/quote]

I do not belong to his rite.

[quote]You can either submit in religious assent to the magesterium or otherwise. [/quote]

I do submit to the magesterium, but as I have said, waht you are telling me is that you dont appreciate my Rites or Calendar or Sacraments. What you are doing is trying to Latinize an Eastern Catholic, which should never be done.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 12 2006, 11:21 PM']ever read a document called Ecclesia Dei (ok I admit the SSPX may be in schism, now lets get past that part!) It says you MUST respect those who desire the Traditional Sacraments, Rites, Calendar etc. and YOU are not showing respect to me. I follow the Old Rites.[right][snapback]885530[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Wait a second..did you not just jump on someone (incorrectly I might add) for quoting someone you thought was in shicism? I refuse to simply forget that a group is in schisim for the sake of your argument.

I am not showing you disrespect for that Latin Mass and other sacraments, what I am saying is that you cannot set yourself apart from the rest of the Church. If it is called the Rite of Reconciliation in the Novus Ordo then it is an acceptable usage. Do not say that it does not apply to you because then your are simply ignoring it. Recongize that it is an acceptable usage (as shown by Father), but say that your prefer another. That is all we are asking.

[quote]I do not belong to his rite.[/quote]Excuse me, but the Latin Mass is not a rite. It is an indult.

[quote]Vatican II was Pastoral the CCC is not as authoritive as the CCT, end of story.
[/quote]Yet again show us proof. Thomas, you are grasping at straws again. Many have asked for proof from you that the CCT is more authoritve and you have yet to produce anything. Either show us documents or statements that it is the most authoritive or move on.

[quote]What you are doing is trying to Latinize an Eastern Catholic, which should never be done.
[/quote] You are an Eastern Catholic? You took my comment out of context. I said that it applies to the whole Church meaning that it is an acceptable usage for the Sacrament. It was not imposing on you to call it that, we are asking that you recongize it as acceptable.

[Paphnutius]

[i]Dogmatic Constitution on the Church-Lumen Gentium
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation- Dei Verbum[/i]

Compare those two with:

[i]Pastoral Consitution on the Church in the Modern World- Gaudium et Spes. [/i]

All three are documents from Vat II. As you can see they are ear marked for us to show which are dogmatic and which are pastoral. Vat II was in some parts dogmatic. You have stated that the titles are misleading, so I must presume that you think the magesterium intentionally called them dogmatic to lead the faithful astray? Please stop saying that it was mearly pastoral unless you wish to dive into the documents and discuss them.