Charismatics, Trads, and Orthodoxy

[DeoOptimoMaximo]

it's always been a precept of the church that the fullness of salvation is found solely through the catholic church. that hasn't changed

ecumenicalism is good in that it tries to bring the unification of the divided body together, however not at the expense of the cc loosing itself in the process.
just something to ponder.....

[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]

And furthermore, I provided a lengthy reponse, with multiple relevant citations from the Magisterium, and all you can come up with in response is "I will not serve, no matter what the Popes say".

It doesn't reflect well on you, and it does not lead me to take you more seriously, as little seriously as I already take you as a twelve year old.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Era Might

[Resurrexi]

[quote]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.[/quote]

so you are saying that I'm committing a mortal sin by saying that religious freedom is evil. Well, that's what you think, but not what I think.

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 04:26 PM']so you are saying that I'm committing a mortal sin by saying that religious freedom is evil. Well, that's what you think, but not what I think.
[right][snapback]890635[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And that response would be fine if you were a Lutheran.

But you are not a Lutheran, you are a Catholic. Or at least you purport to be. Hence, it does not matter what "you" think. All that matters is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Yes, it is a mortal sin to reject the doctrinal teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which included, among other things, the development of the Church's doctrine on religious liberty, as Dignitatis Humanae made clear:

[quote]Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

I'm not gunna burn in hell for not believing in religious freedom... that's ludicrous.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 02:30 PM']I'm not gunna burn in hell for not believing in religious freedom... that's ludicrous.
[right][snapback]890640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do not think that is the point he is making.

He is making the point that it is a sin to refuse to give religious assent to the teachings of the Church.

[Era Might]

Whether you will, in fact, burn in hell is not for me to say.

Nevertheless, disobeying the doctrinal teaching of an Ecumenical Council, such as the teaching expressed in "Dignitatis Humanae", is a mortal sin, and hence, is punished in hell.

All indications you have given suggest that you reject this teaching, and hence, objectively, I must warn you that you are committing a mortal sin.

Do with that information what you will.

[Resurrexi]

I am not committing a mortal sin.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I want an infallable statement from a Pope or Dogmatic Council proving that!

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 03:37 PM']I am not committing a mortal sin.
I want an infallable statement from a Pope or Dogmatic Council proving that! 
[right][snapback]890644[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

More than plenty of evidence has already been provided to you. You are exercising 'cafeteria catholicism' which is really just another way of saying that your doing exactly what Protestants do. You don't like some of the teachings of the Church so you ignore them. Like Era Might said, you aren't a Lutheran.

[Resurrexi]

The teachings of the Church do not change. I do not reject any teachings of the Church.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 17 2006, 01:53 PM']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.
[right][snapback]890605[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

rediscover? Oh so i guess the church lost teh Holy Spirit.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 17 2006, 01:53 PM']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.
[right][snapback]890605[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

he lead plenty of gay priests to mass didnt he?(those who caused the scandals)

Edited February 17, 2006 by Akalyte

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 04:37 PM']I am not committing a mortal sin.
I want an infallable statement from a Pope or Dogmatic Council proving that! 
[right][snapback]890644[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Have you been reading my posts? Something does not have to be "infallible" (a concept which I doubt you even understand in any depth) to be binding:

[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.

--Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Humani Generis"[/quote]

As for the infallible nature of an Ecumenical Council, in general, we need only look to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[quote]A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions.

--Entry on "Ecumenical Councils" [/quote]

We can also look to the Professio Fidei of the Council of Trent, issued by Pope Pius IV in 1565:

[quote]I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, [b]and general Councils[/b], and particularly by the holy Council of Trent, [b]and by the ecumenical Council of the Vatican[/b], particularly concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching. I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church hath condemned, rejected, and anathematized. [/quote]

We must "undoubtedly receive and profess" the teaching of the "general Councils", particularly "the ecumenical Council of the Vatican", which the Second Vatican Council constituted, in addition to the First Vatican Council.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 04:43 PM']The teachings of the Church do not change. I do not reject any teachings of the Church.
[right][snapback]890652[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, they do not change, but they do develop. Note what Pope Pius XII says in his Encyclical Letter "Humani Generis":

[quote]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]

There are things which are "under dispute" in Catholic theology, and which can be resolved by the Church, whether in Council or by the Pope himself. Hence, future Catholics would have to submit to something which was legitimately "under dispute" in the past.

The Second Vatican Council settled certain new points of doctrine, and we owe our obedience to its teaching, under pain of mortal sin.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Era Might

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Specter' date='Feb 16 2006, 11:18 PM']Okay, in reading your fears about this dialogue becoming heated, I was wondering what it could possibly be.  When I was reading your post, I was noticing things about it that clicked into place.

1) The charismatic movement isn't about changing the Church into a more pentecostal type Church.

2) Traditional Catholics, which I am going to assume are pre-Vatican II.

3) The contradiction in your proposal is that, through Confirmation, the Holy Spirit IS active in a reverent community.  Oh how I wish you could witness St. Isidore's Parish in Grand Rapids, MI.  I suppose it depends on how hard you're willing to look.  Remember.. faith isn't about emotion, it's about making a choice.
[right][snapback]890174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

traditional catholics are not pre-vatican II!! they are in union with vatican II.