Charismatics, Trads, and Orthodoxy

[jezic]

i think that it is an action of the Magisterium of the Church and as such it is grave to be in violation of it.

I will look for the quote from JPII about this.

[Resurrexi]

Well the only dogma that was in Vatican II, was dogma that was previously defined.

[jezic]

the part i was thinking of was actually from something about the SSPX but i think Ecclesia Dei might be warranted.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 02:21 PM']Well the only dogma that was in Vatican II, was dogma that was previously defined.
[right][snapback]890559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise6.html"]This essay should be of some interest[/url]

[quote]V - The "Dogmatic/Pastoral" Artificial Dichotomy:

There is some truth to the assertion that the Council was "predominantly pastoral in character" but the dichotomy made between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" - as if something "pastoral" is automatically not "dogmatic" in any sense whatsoever -  is frankly a facile one. It has no support whatsoever from the Magisterium of the Church and therefore it should not be handled with the kind of smug certainty that many so-called 'traditionalists' like to utilize it. At the very least, it seems to this writer that "pastoral" and "dogmatic" as concepts should not be interpreted not in a vacuum. Instead, the meaning of the expressions should be sought in light of the way pastoral theology and dogmatic theology respectively are viewed. The following quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article Pastoral Theology defines this concept as it applies to theology in general:

    Pastoral theology is a branch of practical theology; it is essentially a practical science. All branches of theology, whether theoretical or practical, purpose in one way or another to make priests "the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (I Cor., iv, 1). Pastoral theology presupposes other various branches; accepts the apologetic, dogmatic, exegetic, moral, juridical, ascetical, liturgical, and other conclusions reached by the ecclesiastical student, and scientifically applies these various conclusions to the priestly ministry. [12]

Before delving into all that pastoral theology entails, a look at how it differs from dogmatic and other fields of theology would be in order as well:

    Dogmatic theology establishes the Church as the depository of revealed truth and systematizes the deposit of faith which Christ entrusted to His Church to hand down to all generations; pastoral theology teaches the priest his part in this work of Catholic and Christian tradition of revealed truth. Moral theology explains the laws of God and of the Church, the means of grace and hindrances thereto; pastoral theology teaches the practical bearing of these laws, means, and hindrances upon the daily life of the priest, alone and in touch with his people. Canon law collects, correlates, and co-ordinates the laws of the Church; pastoral theology applies those laws to the care of souls. In brief, pastoral theology begins, where the other theological sciences leave off; takes the results of them all and makes these results effective for the salvation of souls through the ministry of the priesthood established by Christ. [13]

In "presuppos[ing] the fields of apologetic, dogmatic, moral, juridical, and other fields of study in its applications to the care of souls", pastoral theology would not be divorced from the other sciences. (Indeed to some extent it would rely on them.) Hence one could accurately say that pastoral theology is indirectly concerned with dogmatic theology as well as moral theology and juridical theology (canon law). Transposing these distinctions onto the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council by corollary extension, it could be logically asserted that a Council that was "predominantly pastoral in character" would nonetheless have an indirect foundation in dogmatics; consequently a "pastoral council" would be "indirectly dogmatic" and presupposing the foundation of dogmatic theology in its pronouncements. (Which by asserting that the Council unlike previous Councils was not "directly dogmatic" is precisely what Pope Paul noted in several general audience speeches in the final thirteen years of his reign.)

By contrast, most of the earlier ecumenical councils were "predominantly dogmatic" but that did not detract from the fact that most of them also issued canons of disciplinary import as well. The distinction would be that most of the earlier councils were called to resolve a doctrinal crisis and disciplinary issues were an addendum issue if they were treated on at all. (Councils such as Constantinople II and III did not treat on disciplinary matters at all whereas by contrast of the five Lateran councils only the fourth was not predominantly concerned with matters of discipline.)

With the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, it was called not to address any one point of doctrine but instead to address the application of all Church doctrine to more effectively meet the conditions of the modern age. In the process, (i) previous dogmas of the faith would be reaffirmed, (ii) previously declared doctrines reasserted and perhaps developed a bit further, and (iii) theological controversies which touched on matters closely joined to dogma would be settled. Further still, (iv) doctrine would be developed to meet the needs of the age in certain parameters, (v) the disciplinary code would be revised, and (vi) the overarching approach in all areas would lean more to doctrinal exposition and its application then to dogmatic formulations. The tools used for this process would mirror those used in pastoral theology and include the following:

    Tradition and the Holy Bible...are the first sources of pastoral theology. As evidence of Tradition the decrees of general councils are of the highest moment. Next come pontifical [documents]; decrees of Roman Congregations...the various sources of dogmatic and moral theology and of canon law, in so far as they bear directly or indirectly upon the care of souls. Decrees of various provincial councils and diocesan synods together with pastoral letters of archbishops and bishops are also among the sources whence pastoral theology draws. [14]

If one reads the index of every document from the Second Vatican Council, they will see copious references to Sacred Scripture. There are also numerous references to the documents of the General Councils. (Particularly Vatican I and Trent but there is also more than thirty references to other ecumenical councils - particularly the councils of Florence, Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran IV, Constantinople IV, and Nicaea II.) There are also numerous references to documents from the papal magisterium - particularly Pius XII, Pius XI, John XXIII, and Leo XIII - along with various other papal pronouncements. (Such as Allocutions and Radio/General Addresses.) Included in this mosaic are references to the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church among other sources. Finally, the use was also made of documents from plenary councils which had received papal approbation, decrees from the Roman Congregations, etc.

Consistent with the understanding of "pastoral" in theology, the Second Vatican Council certainly meets the criteria in its usage of sources spanning the dogmatic, moral, and other fields of study. As far as the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, the Catholic Encyclopedia article Dogmatic Theology had this to say about the correlation:

    Pastoral theology, which embraces liturgy, homiletics, and catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to, moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology needs, therefore, no further proof. [15]

And just as "no further proof" is needed to demonstrate the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, there is no further proof needed to refute the facile dichotomy of "pastoral" and "dogmatic" when it comes to Vatican II when compared with most of the previous ecumenical councils. It suffices to say that most previous councils were directly dogmatic and indirectly pastoral whereas with Vatican II the converse was the case. But it does not suffice to say that the predominantly pastoral character of the Second Vatican Council precluded any active dogmatic elements at all and (as a consequence) any formal infallibility. For as we will now see, to some extent this element is active in all General Councils where the resolutions have received the approval - either manifestly or tacitly - of the Roman Pontiff.[/quote]

Edited February 17, 2006 by Brother Adam

[nowak.chris]

added a poll for people to identifiy the skew on this thread.

I consider myself both, some where in between, where I would most likely be rejected by both.

Bro Adam, there are those cmats who would deny the importance of adoring Christ in the blessed Sacrament for P&W (you're in Steubie, right? the Eucharistic FOP controversy comes to mind)

[jezic]

[quote]4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

...

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html"]Full Document here[/url]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='nowak.chris' date='Feb 17 2006, 02:30 PM']Bro Adam, there are those cmats who would deny the importance of adoring Christ in the blessed Sacrament for P&W
[right][snapback]890577[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not personally aware of anyone that believes that way. And yes I'm in Steubenville. I'm not Charasmatic or traditionalist. I'm simply Catholic.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 03:21 PM']Well the only dogma that was in Vatican II, was dogma that was previously defined.
[right][snapback]890559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just because something is not proclaimed through extraordinary dogmatic means does not mean 1) It is not a doctrinal principle of the Catholic Church, or 2) It is not binding on the faithful.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council taught:

[quote]This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, [b]even when he is not speaking ex cathedra[/b]; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, [b]the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to[/b], according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

--Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium"[/quote]

Note that the judgements of the Second Vatican Council must be "sincerely adhered to", whether they were pronounced by extraordinary means or not.

This, of course, was just a reiteration of the teaching of Pope Pius XII:

[quote]What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

--Encyclical Letter "Humani Generis"[/quote]

Note here the error condemned by Pope Pius, an error repeated by self-proclaimed "Traditionalists" today. He is chastising those who have recourse to the Fathers over and above Papal Encyclicals which, although not expressions of the extraordinary Magisterium in themselves, still require assent, as he goes on to explain:

[quote]Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.[/quote]

With Encyclicals, "Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority", but they do still express the mind of the Church, and hence, we must obey Papal Encyclicals as coming from Christ himself.

The documents of an Ecumenical Council far surpass an Encyclical in authority. They are an expression of what we call in theology the "Supreme Ordinary Magisterium", and it goes without saying, as we have seen, that they require the assent of all Catholics.

So did the Second Vatican Council, in fact, introduce a development of Catholic doctrine to which we owe obedience? Pope John Paul II answers in the affirmative:

[quote]Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in [b]points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new[/b], have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

--Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"[/quote]

We only have to look to the Council's document on religious freedom, "Dignitatis Humanae", to see that the Council provided a development of Catholic doctrine:

[quote][b]The council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes[/b] on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.[/quote]

[jezic]

yea! people who know more about documents found some stuff.

Is there a part where it mentions that people who ignore councils (like Vatican II) are in grave error? I thought i saw that somewhere.

[Era Might]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 17 2006, 03:40 PM']yea! people who know more about documents found some stuff.

Is there a part where it mentions that people who ignore councils (like Vatican II)  are in grave error? I thought i saw that somewhere.
[right][snapback]890593[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're thinking of, although our present Holy Father has chastised those who would reject or ignore the Council:

[quote]It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.

...

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one's own already-established convictions?

--The Ratzinger Report, pgs. 28-31[/quote]

[Akalyte]

personally, i think the charismatic movement was created because people were looking for "more", The nomal mass wasnt enough. Same reason why the penecostal church was founded. I'm not into the whole charismatic thing. Our gifts are all there at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we dont need an add on.

[jezic]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 17 2006, 01:45 PM']I'm not sure what you're thinking of, although our present Holy Father has chastised those who would reject or ignore the Council:
[right][snapback]890598[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That works

[jezic]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Feb 17 2006, 01:48 PM']personally, i think the charismatic movement was created because people were looking for "more", The nomal mass wasnt enough. Same reason why the penecostal church was founded. I'm not  into the whole charismatic thing. Our gifts are all there at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we dont need an add on.
[right][snapback]890601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well yes this might, (note might) be a small part of it, but at the same time one must point out that the movement has been in the Church since the beginning. The Catholic Church is by its nature Charismatic. It always has been. While the current expression of this fire of the Holy Spirit may take things to far, it is none the less his inspiration to rediscover his role in the Church and in the world. We loose nothing by doing this and it should draw us even closer to the Mass because the Mass is in some ways the "fullest" expression of the Spirit. It is the height of Liturgical life.

The charismatics i know are extremely devoted to the Mass and in fact, have grown greatly in their devotion since they "were baptised in the Holy Spirit" as they say. They start going to Daily Mass and Adoration as often as they can. This work could not be any except the Holy Spirit for satan does not lead people to the Mass.

[Resurrexi]

I dont believe in religious freedom no matter what Dignitatis Humanae says. That doesnt make me a heretic.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 04:17 PM']I dont believe in religious freedom no matter what Dignitatis Humanae says. That doesnt make me a heretic.
[right][snapback]890626[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A heretic?

No, not necessarily. The canonical definition of a "heretic" is someone who obstinately denies a proposition which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. For example, the Incarnation.

But just because you're not a heretic doesn't mean you're not on your way to hell. There are plenty of things one can disregard without being a "heretic", in a canonical sense. The Church's condemnation of contraception, for example, is not something which must be believed "with divine and Catholic faith", because it has not been asserted as a proposition of the Supreme Extraordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, those who disregard the Church's teaching on contraception, even though they are not thereby heretics, are still committing a mortal sin, and unless they repent, will go to hell.

Rejecting the doctrinal teaching of an Ecumenical Council, whether it makes you a formal heretic or not, is a mortal sin. Meaning you will go to hell for it.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Era Might