Charismatics, Trads, and Orthodoxy

[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

[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.