Charismatic Roman Catholicism

[DustinsDad]

…You also speak of the need to convert. Ask yourself this question. If they have had no opportunity to convert, but still are
baptized and try to live the Commandments and do…Are you saying they are still going to hell because they are not Catholic…

Of course if they’ve “had no opportunity to convert” they won’t go to hell for not converting. But what exactly do you mean by having no opportunity to convert???

…As for the statement on evangelization, and your reply, are you saying that some Catholics do not need evangelization???

Of course not. Though I think evangelizaton and catechesis are not exactly the same thing though they share “parts”. See, evangilization is traditionally understood as the preaching of the Gospel to those outside the faith and bringing 'em to the faith. Catechesis normaly thought of as teaching the doctrines of the faith to those already within the Church.

Here are the dictionary.com entries for both:

evangelize -

1. to preach the gospel to.
2. to convert to Christianity.
   verb (used without object)
3. to preach the gospel; act as an evangelist.
   dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=evangelization

catechize -

1. to instruct orally by means of questions and answers, esp. in Christian doctrine.
2. to question with reference to belief.
3. to question closely.
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/catechize

I understand how aspects of each are shared - but we are specifically talking about conversion to the Church Christ established - still the ONE True Church, remember. Blurring the lines here between catechesis and evangilizing is simply not necessary.

…As to the “sin” of failing to listen to the Church and coming home, what about those who, through no fault of their own, have not heard.?

Then they are not guilty of the specific sin of remaining separated (but are still in peril for being cut off from the fullness of Truth and all the Sacraments).

…Part of rejecting is not just hearing, but it entails understanding.

Perhaps, but one can also *choose *not to hear - thus the failing to understand is the fault of the person because they chose to remain in the place where understanding is impossible.

…At this point I would agree with you. You can hear and not understand,. That is not a sin.

I agree this is a possibility. These are the folks who wrestle with this issue and the question of the Catholic Church, they have heard, they stuggle with it all, they are not sure what to do, there’s alot of false “baggage” floating around in the ol’ head.

I hope and pray for such folks, as you said earlier. But I’m not going to sit here and assume that Our Lord - who desires all to be saved - isn’t giving them sufficient grace to make the leap of faith simply because I don’t see a lightning bolt coming down from the heavens and striking them on the head.

It is a difficult situation and in the end, the Lord, as we both agree, reads the hearts, he knows where invincible/inculpable ignorance meets willful ignorance/rejection…I don’t. I just go by what I can visible see. And therefore, for the souls outside the visible bonds of HMC, I’ll pray and hope for them…and charitably invite them home and always do my best to explain the faith in the meantime.
.

…Your last section on the 1st commandment deals with a sin against faith, which is also covered by the first commandment. My question would be if one does not have the true faith, through no fault of his own, where is his sin?

By assuming this hypothetical person is already “through no fault of his own” ignorant of the One True Faith, you’ve already set him up as to have no sin or responsibility in the matter. But we can’t see for sure where the fault lies in anyone save for a child below the age of reason born into a protestant household (we know the child isn’t responsible). We must go by what we see. And what we see objectively in any such situation is a soul outside the visible bonds of HMC - and therefore a soul in serious jeopardy of losing their eternal soul.

We can hope and pray he’s outside by reason of inculpable or invincible ignorance…but let’s not keep him in such a state by our own mute mouths and/or inaction.

See, what you have done is introduced (or bought into the notion) that protestant folks are automatically invincibly ignorant* simply by their being born outside of HMC*. The Church never automtically assumed this for adult protestants no matter the faith-circumstance of their birth. It always understood the hypothetical possibility of invincible ignorance as a nuanced exception to the rule whereby they could be in the Church by spirit but visibly (see earlier reference to the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X).

Thing is, this nuanced exception to the rule is now considered the norm for anyone and everyone born in a protestant sect (as long as they “seem nice and holy” on the outside) - and the previous norm is now suddenly “not taught anymore”…something “rejected at VII”…indeed, something “bigoted.”

…These are some of the things that the CCC addresses.

Where does the CCC *ever *touch even remotely on the mortal sin of culpably remaing outside the Church Christ established? Where does it talk about the sins of culpably holding to condemned heresies and the mortal sin of culpably failing to listen to HMC regarding said heresies? Maybe I’ve read the chapters you cite too many times and now I’m missing it.

DustinsDad

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Throughout your response, what I have heard you say over and over is that it is possible for some who are not in the Catholic Church to be saved. See, it was not that hard. Incidentally, if you reread the CCC you will see that the Church says they CAN be saved, nor ARE saved, just as all Catholics are not all saved. It is the state of your soul at death that determines where you end up, i.e, Heaven or Hell. Obviously, on your last statement, about the culpability of mortal sin, such sin would cause one to lose their immortal soul to eternal damnation.
Deacon Ed B

 

[DustinsDad]

Throughout your response, what I have heard you say over and over is that it is possible for some who are not in the Catholic Church to be saved. See, it was not that hard.

I have said throughout this thread that it’s theoretically *possible *for an individual to be inculpably separated from the body of the Church but united to Her soul given certain criteria. Thus, even this theoretical possibility only allows for the possibility of the salvation of the individual because given the they are in the Church - not because they are 10, 20, 30, 40, or some other percentage united to her.

I have *never *said that one can be saved outside the Church - such would be a and absolutely is a condemned heresy. Yet you say it again, and again, and again as if it’s a no-brainer.

Incidentally, if you reread the CCC you will see that the Church says they CAN be saved, not ARE saved…

Where does it say (or where have you said) it is objectively sinful to remain separated from Holy Mother Church? Where does it say (or where have you said) that if anyone culpably reject one part of the Truth they reject it all? Where does it say that all outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church are objectively in a state of grave sin and their souls are in eternal peril?

…just as all Catholics are not all saved.

Whew - for a minute there I thought there was something different about the various religions - thanks for clearing that up!

Sarcasm aside - of course not all Catholics are saved and no one is saying that either. And there is a distinct difference that is eternally important. As it was stated infallibly at the First Vatican Council:
Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the catholic truth,
is by no means the same as that of those who,
led by human opinions, follow a false religion;
for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.

…It is the state of your soul at death that determines where you end up, i.e, Heaven or Hell.

Yep. All the more eternally dangerous for those cut off from the Sacrament of Confession and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

…Obviously, on your last statement, about the culpability of mortal sin, such sin would cause one to lose their immortal soul to eternal damnation.

Well if you believe one loses their eternal soul by culpably choosing to remain outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church, and if you believe one loses their eternal soul by refusing to listen to Holy Mother Church in the first place concerning the holding to or rejection of condemned heresies, then I’d say we certainly have made progress.

If you further admit that being born outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church doesn’t suddenly waive all culpability for remaining outside, I’d say the progress is significant.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[deborahssong]

Dustins dad,

Wow! what an informed man you are…however! what I would like for you to do is SHOW me please where it says in Scripture that CATHOLICS are the ONLY ONES going to heaven…you have attempted to prove your course of topic with the backup for vice versa…however where does Scripture say that…Jesus referrred a great deal to that…the matter of the heart…and so did the old testament prophets of old! I can honestly say…that I CAN now see at least a glimmer of where you are coming from, as I am studying earlychurch writers and such…however sayng that, how dare we presume that everyine outside the Catholic Church is headed for hell???as they are separated from the church???hmmmm gotta give me something more than the Catholic stance on this…if so many of the writers of versions of scripture are out there and all claim they have the message from the bible correct, then how for goodness sakes can they prove this? or have they proven this? What happened between the early church fathers writings, and interpretations of scripture, that has caused such kaos!!! and divisions?
I will repeat again…the word of God says that GOD WILL confound the wisdom of the wise…and that being so…Isnt it just possible that we have it wrong? I am still searching and right now…I will admitt that the evidence that you have proclaimed …I can see in some of the writings…some…and I am QUITE SURE that as I search God will reveal to me HIs truth! His word says so!!!
It is absolutely true…there are some in the church…that WILL NOT see heaven…absolutely…not my judgement …His!
People get so tripped up on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So tripped up! I didnt… I havent…, and I am so thankful that I know God thru My Precious Jesus…all your theoology and info will never change what He has done in my life…HIs existence is my lifeline…His presence tells me so!
Let me ask you for one more explanation ? What did Jesus mean in John 3;16. Please explain…Paul said he had the gifts of the Spirit and he also said NOT to keep them from using them…how do you explain that? I guess I will close! May You all be blessed beyond measure…If I seem a little rambled…I am sleep deprived…sorry…however dustins dad…you are so informed about certain things…I am amazed sir! look forward to your responses…though I may not agree with you about some your words are a blessing…

Deborah

 

[guanophore]

But how can you say that? No one is saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t heal and work in people in visibly incredible ways. We are just saying that not everything visibly incredible is the Holy Spirit. The one test - the absolute test given to us by Jesus and the Apostles in Holy Mother Church and in Scripture is the gospel this Spirit preaches. The Holy Spirit won’t give two contradictory gospels…He will only work to bring everyone to the one same Gospel:Galations 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

I agree with all you say. However I think that the HS does work in protestant communities, and does draw those in them to the One True Faith. If this were not true, I would never have returned!

Awesome! If such was the work of the Holy Spirit, then let Him finish the work and bring you home!!!

In saying this you recognize that the working of the HS in Protestant communities can be valid.

They’d have said, “Praise God! And now that He touched you in such a wonderfuol way - what are you going to do with this gift? Remain on the outside still? Or trust in this wonderful, merciful and loving God, and come back home to His Church where you can truly abide in Him and He in you.”

To most Protestants, and to me when I was one, this is weak. I did not experience God in a personal way until I did so in a Protestant faith community. That does not mean what you say is not true, it is, but most Protestants will be content with what they have found, and will say" why should I?"

I agree with you about the extraodinary experience of Jesus in the Eucharist. However, it was many years before I could experience that, and I could experience the charismatic gifts more immediately. I guess what I am trying to say is that some people need a different kind of drawing, and even though it reaches them through the emotions, intuition, and experiential evidence it is not invalid.

 

[guanophore]

I haven’t read Foowers of St. Francis, but I’m aware of certain saints having the mystical experience - extasies I think they are traditionally called. My understanding is that these are things given at the discretion of the Holy Spirit to people who in no way were looking for them or seeking after them or even expecting them in any way, shape or form.

While this is certainly true, it is not a requirement. I am curious to know what you think of this:

"…and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified. 1 Cor 14:1-5

That such can be given to multitudes by some person just by pointing to or touching them or what not is rather odd -

Why do you find this odd when the scriptural support is so strong?

I’m sorry - it’s just an ocean or redflags out there and I’m not seeing anything concrete on which to rest my suspicions.

I am puzzled why you will not accept the testimony of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that was founded by our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

 

[guanophore]

To Dustin’s Dad
In my response #201 when I said “for the rest” I did not mean I ignore other people. What I meant was there are times we must be silent and let the Holy Spirit do his part. For the honey, it means not brow beating, but giving facts, correctly and then give the other person time to reflect. Telling them they are going to hell will not help, but usually only alienate the other person. Somehow I have not figured how to tell a person in a loving way that he/she is going to hell.
Deacon Ed B

I think it is good that you have not figured this out, and I hope you never do! Jesus specifically taught that we should not try to separate the wheat from the tares. The HS is obviously working in the hearts of such persons, and we should not break the bruised reed.

 

[guanophore]

To dance around this issue is to misrepresent the Catholic faith. Most folks outside the Church* do know* that this is Church teaching - or at least “used to be”. And now your silence (or even direct contradiction of the traditional teaching - albeit well intentioned) on the matter will be taken by them to mean that the Church can and does change it’s dogmas…which makes conversion pretty much meaningless. Why? Because if the Church changes truth, then the Church ain’t what the Church says it is in the first place.

I’ll address your post above - the references to the current CCC - in my next post. Gotta run to the store.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Ok. Put your work where your mouth is. Go over to the Apologetics forum. Find a couple members like justasking4 and sandusky. You can find them using the “search” for posts feature. Preach to them, and don’t be nice. I will watch.

 

[DustinsDad]

…I would like for you to do is SHOW me please where it says in Scripture that CATHOLICS are the ONLY ONES going to heaven…

I never said only visible members of the Catholic Church can be saved. There are those who may be separated from the visible body but united to Her soul - thus they are in the Church.

It all goes to how we approach the all important phrase “through no fault of their own”. I don’t think this simply means everyone who doesn’t really know the Church is true - I think it also includes those who are culpable for their own disbelief and/or ignorance. Again, all things for the Good Lord to see and judge since so much is beyond what we can see with our own eyes - it’s in the heart. But again, we must err on the side of caution and go by what we objectively see - a soul outside the visible bonds of the Church Christ established. There’s a delicate balance in there somewhere.

…however where does Scripture say that…

Luke 10:16
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

…how dare we presume that everyine outside the Catholic Church is headed for hell?

Because the Catholic Church is the very institution Christ established for dispensing the remedy for Hell - Himself. Any by outside I mean those separated from both visible body and soul of the Church. Those outside through no fault of their own might be inside unknowingly - or they might not. And of course the phrase “through no fault of their own” being approached with the necessary caution so as not to lead to religous indifference.

…if so many of the writers of versions of scripture are out there and all claim they have the message from the bible correct, then how for goodness sakes can they prove this? or have they proven this?

I don’t understand the question.

…What happened between the early church fathers writings, and interpretations of scripture, that has caused such kaos!!! and divisions?

Sin.

(continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

…I will repeat again…the word of God says that GOD WILL confound the wisdom of the wise…and that being so…Isnt it just possible that we have it wrong?

The Church in her official teachings - no - formal error can’t be there. Me personally - check with what I say against what the Church Christ established officially and constantly has said. Check what they have “bound” for the faithful, because it’s infallible by Christ’s promise.

…I am still searching and right now…I will admitt that the evidence that you have proclaimed …I can see in some of the writings…some…and I am QUITE SURE that as I search God will reveal to me HIs truth! His word says so!!!

Amen - but the truth He reveals to you can’t contradict the truth He reveals through His Church - in fact, normatively it is through His Church that such will truth will be revealed.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

…It is absolutely true…there are some in the church…that WILL NOT see heaven…absolutely…not my judgement …His!

Very true. Very true.

…People get so tripped up on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So tripped up! I didnt… I havent…, and I am so thankful that I know God thru My Precious Jesus…all your theoology and info will never change what He has done in my life…HIs existence is my lifeline…His presence tells me so!

And if “my theology” ever tries to deny what Jesus has done in your life, then I’m screwing up the message or not being clear enough on what I’m trying to communicate - because denying what Jesus has done in yoru life is the last thing I would ever want to do.

…What did Jesus mean in John 3;16. Please explain…

It means by believing in Jesus we have eternal life - but the question is what is the nature of this belief?

I don’t think it’s mere intellectual assent to who Jesus is - but it is a* total* acceptance of Our Lord, accepting all His teachings and culpably rejecting not a one - and this means accepting on faith in Christ the One True Church He established.

I’ll quote again from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, this time from the section dealing specifically with faith: 9 Q. What is Faith?
A. Faith is a supernatural virtue, which God infuses into our souls, and by which, relying on the authority of God Himself, we believe everything which He has revealed and which through His Church He proposes for our belief.

10 Q. How do we know the truths God has revealed?
A. We know the revealed truths by means of the Church, which is infallible; that is, by means of the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, and by means of the Bishops, the successors to the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus Christ Himself.

11 Q. Are we certain of the truths the Church teaches us?
A. We are most certain of the truths the Church teaches, because Jesus Christ pledged His word that the Church should never be led into error.

12 Q. By what sin is the Faith lost?
A. Faith is lost by denying or voluntarily doubting even a single article proposed for our belief.

13 Q. How is lost Faith recovered
A. Lost Faith is recovered by repenting of the sin committed and by believing anew all that the Church believes.

…Paul said he had the gifts of the Spirit and he also said NOT to keep them from using them…how do you explain that?

I agree with that - but also point out that Paul prescribed certain guidelines that I think should also be followed - along with other parts of Scripture on the “discernment of the spirits” that should be kept in mind.

…I guess I will close! May You all be blessed beyond measure…If I seem a little rambled…I am sleep deprived…sorry…

From one sleep deprived soul to another…God bless you too.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

I agree with all you say. However I think that the HS does work in protestant communities, and does draw those in them to the One True Faith. If this were not true, I would never have returned!

I can agree with that.

In saying this you recognize that the working of the HS in Protestant communities can be valid.

Sure - individually. I just don’t think the work of the HS on individuals within Protestant communities can ever be separated from His call to those individuals to enter Christ’s Church.

To most Protestants, and to me when I was one, this is weak.

What say you now to it, now that you are back home?

I did not experience God in a personal way until I did so in a Protestant faith community.

Yep. It happens - and the Good Lord writes straight with crooked lines. That’s about all I can say to this. Sorry.

That does not mean what you say is not true, it is, but most Protestants will be content with what they have found, and will say" why should I?"

That’s where yielding to the Holy Spirit totally comes into play.

… I guess what I am trying to say is that some people need a different kind of drawing, and even though it reaches them through the emotions, intuition, and experiential evidence it is not invalid.

Of course not - but emotions, intuitions and experienctial evidence doesn’t mean they are automatically valid either.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

While this is certainly true, it is not a requirement. I am curious to know what you think of this:… 1 Cor 14:1-5

Addressed this at length somewhere in this thread…keep plugging through 'er.

…Why do you find this odd when the scriptural support is so strong?

For mass occurances of a “slain in the spirit” type phenomena? Where?

…I am puzzled why you will not accept the testimony of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that was founded by our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

You got the right emoticon - - what are you talking about?

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Ok. Put your work where your mouth is. Go over to the Apologetics forum. Find a couple members like justasking4 and sandusky. You can find them using the “search” for posts feature. Preach to them, and don’t be nice. I will watch.

Do a search of my posts - you’ll find me over there. But I’m always nice .

 

[guanophore]

I think this is where we have difficulty, precisely because some of what is in the CCC and some of what is written in the essays of VII can too easily be taken in more than one way…that is, there are ambiguities in there. When they can be taken in more than one way, we must take them in the way that is consistant with the way they’ve always been understood.

Okay - but is your new understanding “broader” than what all the people in the Church thought for 2000 years and what the Church infallibly defined as such? If you take it the way you (and a ton of folks these days) read it, then it changes the doctrine of the Church Herself…the very understanding of the nature of the Church is now different and contradictory to what it was before.

Yes, my understanding is Broader that what has been taught before. However, I think it is entirely consistent with what has been taught in the past, and is in no way contradictory. Thisi is what the development of doctrine is all about! The understanding of Mary’s role in the Kingdom has become more broad over time, but in no way inconsistent with what limited understanding came before. Jesus was clear that there were some truths that the Apostles were not yet ready to understand.

I mean, if Pope Pius XII - the Vicar of Christ - can write and officially teach for the church in no unambiguous terms: “…It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Are we now to say, “oops”, an ambiguous statement must be read in such a way as to contradict him and all the other popes and saints down through the ages? You are asking alot my friend - and with all due respect. I hope you see the problem and difficulty here.

While these things are true, He was writing in a time that had not yet seen many of the phenomena that we see today. We see the Holy Spirit working in many of these faith communities, and that by grace some do come to Christ in faith. How are we to understand and explain this? It is clear that they must, in some way, be Catholic, since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. However, we know that they are not properly joined, being out of obedience to the authority appointed by Christ. This is why we call them separated brethren.

I understand that - but it looks like you are taking an ambiguous statement and using it to thwart and overtern previous clear-cut statements. I’m saying if it’s ambiguious, read it in light of the previous clear statements - don’t read it and throw the previous clear statements in the trash-bin. Contradicting ourselves won’t win converts - and even the appearance of contradiction when none have been formally proclaimed can cause grave scandal and lead to religious indifferentism and the loss of faith.

I agree with you entirely. Since there are new experiences of faith that did not exist in the time that those documents are written, it is necessary for us to try to apply them in the modern context. Do you really not know any sincere Protestants?

. If we know that Christ desires the Salvation of all men, and if we know that normatively speaking their is no salvation outsideof the Church, then we must assume and believe and trust that God gives these people the grace to stay in or find their way back to that Church.

Yes, I agree with you.

 

[guanophore]

  Dustins dad........I am NOT there yet with this suffering issue.......I am researching that one.......oh of course I KNOW that suffering comes........but I do not beleive that we have to ....say bask in it?   ALl of the chruch fathers suffered yes....but for the sake of the gospel.....Paul suffered yes you bet and yes physically , but from wounds he received from serving the Lord Jesus!   Please allow me to explain.......the whole time I was critcally ill my heart and thoughts were about walking by faith thru the crisis and belieivng by faith for my healing....and that is where i focused......I also know that some of my catholic family were prayng for my healing as well. So though suffering  came...I sure wasnt desiring to stay there and yes, I tried desperately NOT to complain while I was in it!  Now if that is what you mean by suffering then I am there........I just do not see where sickness and disease is something God wants us to have......not since Jesus!

God allows suffering and sickness, and for the Christian, uses it to purify us individually, and the Body as a whole. We can offer our suffering for the benefit of our own souls, and that of others. Suffering is part of being a good soldier of Christ, and if we have the right attitude toward it, like anything else, all things can work together for the good. Paul offered his suffering for the Body.

Eph 3:12-13
13 So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.

2 Tim 2:3
3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

James 5:10-11
10 As an example of suffering and patience, brethren, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. 11 Behold, we call those happy who were steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

We embrace suffering when it comes because it helps us to build up steadfastness.

Intense prayer is the right response to suffering, just as you did.
James 5:13

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray.

1 Peter 2:18-20
19 For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.

Accepting suffering with the right attitude will bring God’s approval.

 Healing is for all who believe........Jesus didnt just deliver s few from that power.......His death and resurrection made it possible...to believe HIM for healing......there is more scripture about walking in the WHOLENESS of God, the favor of God, the peace of God, the deliverance of God, and on and on than there is suffering.   Jesus sufferd for the sake of man(reedmption)  to restore us back to HIs father, Our father our creator...that is why He suffered and so shall we...for the sake of the gospel yes!  There is no way we can suffer and undertsand what He went thru????  I dont thiink so

I agree that healing is for all who believe (and even some that don’t). We can enter into Christ’s sufferings by joining ours with His.

...as I have estudied the way in which He was beaten according to ROMAN law,  the way in which He had his beard yanked out, and on and on.....then oh my goodness...His crucifixion?  I do not beleive ANY of us could do that and live!!!

Well, that was the whole point of the torture - execution being the culmination.

At times, Jesus allows suffering to keep us humble. Remember how Paul asked Him to remove his ailment, and God told him “my grace is sufficient for you”.?

 

[DustinsDad]

Yes, my understanding is Broader that what has been taught before. However, I think it is entirely consistent with what has been taught in the past, and is in no way contradictory.

Well that then is the question.

…The understanding of Mary’s role in the Kingdom has become more broad over time, but in no way inconsistent with what limited understanding came before.

I agree - but it is our understanding of say, the eventual defining of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin didn’t contradict what was officially taught prior - they confirmed and articulated what the faithful already held to be true - I don’t think mass numbers of the faithful were “shocked” at these things, and no one could really accuse the Church of flip-flopping on anything relating to Mary. I don’t think the topic we are disucssing is very similar.

While these things are true, He was writing in a time that had not yet seen many of the phenomena that we see today.

Actually, that’s a quote from Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943 - only 65 years ago.

We see the Holy Spirit working in many of these faith communities, and that by grace some do come to Christ in faith.

Like I tell my Protestant friends when we have our theological debates - what you have is a great start, now let the Holy Spirit finish the work. True supernatural faith is more merely acknowledgeing Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior - it’s believing and accepting all that was revealed by Him and has been revealed by Him through His body the Church.

It is clear that they must, in some way, be Catholic, since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

But that assumes they are already saved…we don’t know this. The thing is we can’t see where willful rejection or ignorance meets inculpable/invincible ignorance and rejection.

However, we know that they are not properly joined, being out of obedience to the authority appointed by Christ. This is why we call them separated brethren.

Yes - but separated from what? The Church Christ established - outside of which there is no salvation.

Since there are new experiences of faith that did not exist in the time that those documents are written, it is necessary for us to try to apply them in the modern context.

Again, I think the latest quote I provided earlier was from 1943. What exactly are you talking about with these “new experiences”? Please explain.

(continued…)

 

[guanophore]

You know upon reading this thread, it would be too exhausting to try and counter the arguments for charismaticism. All I will say is that some people here need to realize when a Pope is infallible and when he is not. Just because a Pope says or supports something doesn’t make it infallible.

Crossing the line into near pope-worship (for some reason, only the post-V2 Popes that agree with their reasoning) is dangerously close here, and I’m not talking about the traditionalists…

It is not just the Pope, but the official teaching of the Church, from the book of Acts until the present day. The Gifts and the Call of God are irrevocable. The Charismatic gift will be here to strengthen the Church until He comes again.

 

[DustinsDad]

Do you really not know any sincere Protestants?

Oh yeah - a bunch that I hope are sincere, but ya never know because sincerety is a matter of the heart that only the Lord can see clearly…we see what’s on the outside.

One case in particular I want to describe, let me get personal here for a moment, just to show y’all that a traditional minded fella isn’t exactly a big ogre trying to condemn everyone to hell…

I have a dear friend from waaay back when. Sadly, we were both heathens together on the road to perdition. He was for the most part raised outside any particular faith - I had no such excuse and shudder to think of the “catholic” example I gave him during those times. He had the born again experience in the Navy, several years before I had my own faith reawakened. His reborn experience basically saved his life (at the time he was about 90% on his way to being booted from the Navy and pretty much a full blown alcoholic)…this all turned on a dime at his conversion - Praise God!

In the meantime, we had long since lost touch and I kept going my own destructive route. Until the Lord got my attention with the ol’ spiritual 2 x 4 and brought me back home.

Fast forward a couple of years - my friend was back in town visiting family and we made contact and went out for coffee, spending a couple of hours catching up and “witnessing” to each other - both of us simply amazed at the two former heathens now sitting in a public restaurant talking about Jesus for hours. Awesome.

Now, several years later, we still keep in touch (though he’s a long way away from where I live), and I have met his family - an awesome family at that - pretty much Penticostal, though I think they are attending Assembly of God these days. Love 'em all dearly - beautiful well behaved modest young girls and one little guy and they did do alot of home schooling, though I think the oldest is attending a regular high school now. In alot of ways, they remind me of the families at the traditional parish I attend.

Now, my friend and I, we don’t get into hard and heavy debates - He heard my “pitch” and knows roughly where I stand, and I think I know where he stands on much of this issue - but it is a respectful relationship, and we can even joke about it (he refers to himself always as “my protester friend” - and I am his “papist” friend)…but we both take God very seriously and never take pot-shots at each other. Now keep in mind that this is a fella who’s dad was/is catholic but who stopped practicing the faith after VII, saying the Church changed it’s teachings - and this is a big hurdle for my friend when I start talking about the unchanging Truth of the faith.

It’s a relationship that must be handled carefully - and it is perplexing to me. Of all my friends of the protestant pursuasion, this one is closest to home - where will it all land in the end? Hopefully we’ll all land squarely in the arms of Our Lord Jesus Christ for all eternity - and while I’m in no way going to “declare judgement” on them personally and individually, I can say objectively that they are outside the visible bonds of Holy Mothe Church and therefore I’ll try to cooperate with His grace to bring 'em home whenever the Lord gives me the opportunity. I’m not going to assume everything is alright the way it is. I love these folks too much to gamble on that one. So they are in my daily prayers and I try to provide a good example as best as I can, and I’m always ready to talk. Clearly by the grace of God, very clearly.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[guanophore]

I had been involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal for many years and I believe I was led there by the Holy Spirit through one of many doors into my Fathers House. As a wandering drug addicted athiest at the time I needed the visual and emotional experience and the comraderie that the prayer meetings provided. (Not everybody does but I think that often wounded people do and that this is one of many ways that Jesus leads many back into the fold.)

Anyone who prays and studies with an open mind and heart will be led to the truth and thus to the sacraments of the Church. True some people get caught up in the emotion and end up going from one emotional experience to the next and never allow themselves to mature spiritually but then many other people get caught up in the politics or other church activities and miss or forget the central meaning of our Faith too. Its true that some other Pentecostals Christians think that the Renewal is a split off from the Catholic Church and have tried with some sucess to lead weaker members away. Many more Catholics who dont go to Charismatic prayer meetings have been lead away too so I dont think that is particularly strange as anyone who doesn’t believe by faith in the real presence of Christ in the Euchrist is vulnerable.

I was a prayer group attendee and leader for many years but don’t go anymore, not because I believe it was wrong, but because I believe as I matured spiritually I was lead by the Holy Spirit to focus on the Eucharist and being part of the larger community of the Faithful. Many people who “went through the Renewal” are now active and practicing “regular” Catholics. I don’t believe the Charismatic Renewal was or is an end but a beginning for many, with the end being at the Mass and the Eucharist.

It is true that many emotional wounded people are lead or attracted to Charismatic Prayer Meetings and thus you get some strange reports about what goes on from time to time. But any activity of Catholics must be completely obedient to the hierarchy of the Church and in no way can be a seperate entity as the Spirit would never lead his flock away from the fold.

As a prayer group leader in the Renewal I think the Lord used the more visible gifts of the Spirit to lead this part of His flock back into the Truth of Church teachings in fact most of the people I knew earlier in the Renewal are now very active in their parishes and don’t go to meetings anymore. I think that was the path the Lord intended for them. I also believe that many people are being still lead to the Renewal by the Holy Spirit and that as he works in them their faith will grow stronger to the point where it wont need the emotional aspects but will be based on what they know to be truth.

It is the responsibility of a Charismatic Prayer group leader to ensure that nothing contrary to Church teachings goes on or is allowed to go on and to rebut anything does. We have had to ask some people to leave meetings if they persisted in saying anything contrary to Church Doctrine.

I know that for many the type of praise that happens at Charismatic meetings seems strange, and that open emotion makes many uncomfortable but I would not be too much with concerned with these things as long as the followerers are being obediant to the will and direction of the Clergy and Church Doctrine.

Thank you for sharing this. My experience parallels your own. I think some people do need the emotional/experiential approach that the pentecostal aspect provides. I have witnessed the same as you, that those who used to be prayer group leaders 20-30 years ago are now on the parish council and other ministries.

 

[guanophore]

As far as suffering, God can allow suffering. Just read the life of St. Catherine of Siena; She asked God to allow her to suffer the pain her father would have felt in purgatory so that he could go straight to heaven when he died. Ever after she had a burning pain in her heart. God gave St. Catherine of Siena and St. Francis of Assisi (just to name two) the stigmata. This is God allowing suffering for others.
Somewhere in St. Paul, I cannot find where at the moment, St. Paul says that we must make up in suffering what was lacking in Christ’s suffering. Basically he is saying that Christ suffered 75% of the suffering needed to make up for all of mankinds’ sins, and it is up to us to suffer the remaining 25%, and if we suffer 26% then Christ only suffered 74%.

This seems to be off topic, but I had to respond to it because I do not think it is right. Christ suffered everything, and His sacrifice is complete in and of itself. there is nothing that we can add to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, as it is complete, and total.

We can join our sufferings with his, for the sake of His Body, the Church. For example, Jesus never suffered leprosy or a brain tumor, so in that sense, we could say His suffering was “lacking” in that there are some human sufferings that we bear that He did not. It does not mean that His sacrifice is somehow insufficient.

It is strange, that today, 2000 years after Christ we can help Christ on Calvary by suffering, we can make it so that Christ suffered less. You see he only needed to make up for what was lacking, so if we suffer, we take away from what Christ needed to suffer and thus he suffers less.

No one can take away from the supreme suffering that He gave of His life on the cross. What we CAN do is mitigate His present suffering by offering ours in reparation for sins, those of our own, and others. Sin continues to cause suffering, and although Jesus paid the price of our eternal punishment, there are still many temporal punishments.

Just think that everytime we suffer well, we are keeping Christ from losing one drop of blood, or if we are suffering greatly, we may be keeping the whip from hitting Christ one time. I believe that is why many saints would wear hair shirts and would sleep on boards and submit themselves to all sorts of suffering.

They would, but it does not work that way, so that is why they don’t!

So,  from this I gather, that God does not like suffering, (it is only through sin that suffering entered the world), but also that God allows suffering and that suffering can be made into something holy if we suffer "well" and if we tie our sufferings to Christ's.

I think that you are right on with this part!

Sorry I know this was off topic, but it disturbed me.