Fr. Cantalamessa? Help!....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusade_Guy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uh huh. Like I said, I don’t remember actually using that phrase - “the spirit of vatican II” - in my life, and I wouldn’t say I’m a follower of “the spirit of Vatican II”. I don’t know what such a claim would mean.
It’s enough for me to say I’m a Catholic trying to follow Christ as closely as I can. I don’t need to apply any labels to myself apart from “Catholic.”

You make the claim I follow the spirit of vatican II. What are you actually accusing me of? Or is that just a tidy little phrase with no real substance or purpose beyond putting a label on someone and suggesting they believe something they don’t actually?
Again, can you see how much of what you write is, simply, slanderous?

And what are “traditionalist Catholic sources”? Are they something different from “Catholic sources?” Catholic sources like Pope Pius XI’s encyclical “Moralium Animos”?

If I wanted to become a “Traditional Catholic”, what would I need to do? What would I need to affirm, and what would I need to renounce?
I’m confused…do you reject Vatican II or not?? What do you mean you don’t follow the spirit of Vatican II? If it is a valid, binding, Spirit-led council as you seem to believe, wouldn’t you accept it? I find it strange that you pretend that Vatican II and it’s “spirit” are two opposing things…I’m glad I don’t have that problem. I’m perfectly content saying I follow the spirit of Trent or the spirit of Vatican I.
If you want proof that what we have now in the Church IS the authentic interpretation of Vatican II, one need look no further than the pontificate of John Paul II. He is credited by so many as laying down the “authentic implementation” of the council, or something like that. If you accept at least that much (about John Paul II), then by necessity you must accept that lay ministers of communion, rock music at Mass, bare-breasted native women having roles in the Mass, altar girls, inviting heathens to pray to their false gods, kissing the scriptures of false religions which denies the divinity of Christ and encourages the slaughter of Jews and Christians (kissing is a gesture we use for the gospels at Mass…wonder what kind of message he was trying to send), implying that no one may go to hell after all even though Christ himself said many would be damned, etc. etc. etc. are all part of the authentic implementation and interpretation of Vatican II.
 
You’re not very “balanced”, Balance. 😉
How do you know the SSPX ISN’T authentic Catholic teaching if you won’t even investigate what they’re trying to say? The reason the Society of St. Pius X exists is to preserve authentic Catholic teaching in the face of the greatest crisis the Church has ever endured.
Here’s my “investigation”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

I’d rather go with that, from the Vatican, than with something from a society that loudly proclaims its orthodoxy but was founded by a man who later excommunicated himself.

I want the same things you want - but it seems to me you and your ilk want them so that some kind of triumphant “Catholicism” can again reign supreme, not so that the ordinary men and women of this world can find peace and love and healing in Christ.

I find this confusing:

“The Society of Saint Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the Priesthood and that which pertains to it.”

What does that mean? Is it just me, or should the purpose of the Society be to help people encounter, and grow in relationship with, Christ? And providing good priests be the means to that end, not the end in itself, which is what that quote seems to suggest? I would like to think that’s what SSPX members want - why, then, isn’t that the first thing they say on their homepage?
 
Here’s my “investigation”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

I’d rather go with that, from the Vatican, than with something from a society that loudly proclaims its orthodoxy but was founded by a man who later excommunicated himself.

I want the same things you want - but it seems to me you and your ilk want them so that some kind of triumphant “Catholicism” can again reign supreme, not so that the ordinary men and women of this world can find peace and love and healing in Christ.

I find this confusing:

“The Society of Saint Pius X is an international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the Priesthood and that which pertains to it.”

What does that mean? Is it just me, or should the purpose of the Society be to help people encounter, and grow in relationship with, Christ? And providing good priests be the means to that end, not the end in itself, which is what that quote seems to suggest? I would like to think that’s what SSPX members want - why, then, isn’t that the first thing they say on their homepage?
WOW. Balance, where do you get the idea that somehow Traditional Catholics don’t care about having a relationship with Christ?? Please step down off of your self-righteous pedestal.

I do think that Catholicism “reigning supreme” will help men and women find peace, love, and healing through Christ–don’t you?

And you really just need to please quit assuming everyone who doesn’t accept the Vatican II novelties doesn’t believe in following Christ. And use your common sense (if you have any) …why did Jesus institute the priesthood? “To help people encounter and grow in relationship with Christ”–especially by teaching the faith, administering the sacraments and offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. They don’t have to state it first thing on their website because they DO it. Actions speak louder than words, Balance; a true follower of Christ doesn’t need to brag about how much He loves Christ. Do you think that the SSPX has some kind of evil motive and doesn’t want people to know Christ? And it doesn’t “suggest” they are ordaining priests is the end in itself–YOU suggested that when you read that into it…apparently you want it to suggest that. The SSPX priests and laity who attend their chapels are QUITE loving and charitable and focused on Christ (hint: that’s why they attend a Mass that’s focused on CHRIST and not on other people!)

P.S. His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre (may he rest in peace) didn’t “excommunicate himself.”
 
I’m confused…
you’re confused? I’m confused!
😉
do you reject Vatican II or not??
How could I reject Vatican II? I’ve made my choice, my leap of faith, to be a Catholic. If I rejected Vatican II I wouldn’t have made that choice, believe me, and I wouldn’t be here.

What do you mean you don’t follow the spirit of Vatican II? If it is a valid, binding, Spirit-led council as you seem to believe, wouldn’t you accept it?

Come on now, you’re playing games!
You said I was a “follower of the spirit of Vatican II.”
I replied that I’d never claimed to be that, that that isn’t the sort of thing I say, certainly not about myself: that “Catholic” is pretty much the only label I need. It’s obvious then, that I follow Christ. As far as following anything or anyone else, if I was wanting to talk to you about my own faith and what my prayer or spirituality looks like (which i don’t really, that being quite personal and you being a bit difficult to talk to - but I will for the purposes of my argument), I might say something like “I’m a follower of Francis, and Mother Teresa, and Mary MacKillop, among others.” (Obviously I don’t need to explain to you that when we Catholics say something like that we mean we follow Christ when we follow the Saints.) I wouldn’t say “I’m a follower of the Spirit of Vatican II, or the Spirit of Trent” because that doesn’t mean much to me. It sounds a bit vague - and if I was talking to you, knowing you don’t like ambiguity and vagueness (even if you do talk of being a follower of the “Spirit of Trent”), I definitely wouldn’t use it.
I find it strange that you pretend that Vatican II and it’s “spirit” are two opposing things…
now you’ve lost me, sorry.
If you want proof that what we have now in the Church IS the authentic interpretation of Vatican II, one need look no further than the pontificate of John Paul II. He is credited by so many as laying down the “authentic implementation” of the council, or something like that. If you accept at least that much (about John Paul II), then by necessity you must accept that lay ministers of communion, rock music at Mass, bare-breasted native women having roles in the Mass, altar girls, inviting heathens to pray to their false gods, kissing the scriptures of false religions which denies the divinity of Christ and encourages the slaughter of Jews and Christians (kissing is a gesture we use for the gospels at Mass…wonder what kind of message he was trying to send), implying that no one may go to hell after all even though Christ himself said many would be damned, etc. etc. etc. are all part of the authentic implementation and interpretation of Vatican II.
It strikes me that what you sound like is something like this:

“The Church is the whore of babylon - you must accept that. Look at the Inquisitions and Crusades, the worship of idols, the pagan symbols, the conspiracies, collaboration with Nazis etc etc.”
Like some antiCatholic Christian who has a virulent hatred of the Catholic Church and hasn’t really thought it through but has read all sorts of strange theories and false histories, you throw out a stream of unrelated and isolated events that would require pages and pages in response, pages and pages to answer and refute the erroneous basis of each claim.
But you don’t seem to want to be honest and open - it’s enough for you to throw out a stream of invective like that in the hope that the seeming weight of it will carry your argument.

Can you see how you sound? Or is this just going over your head?

I’ll pray for you.
 
Contarini,
If the “ecumenism” you speak of does not lead to conversion to the Catholic faith, outside of which is no salvation, then it is a false ecumenism and no true Catholic can support it in good conscience because it leads to religious indifference. I have read several of Cantalamessa’s sermons and several of his statements (specifically regarding Martin Luther and the charismatic/pentecostal movement) and found them quite problematic and confusing. It is hardly suprising that one who is a member of a man-made ecclesial community which is constantly changing its doctrines (or rather, getting rid of doctrines), electing homo “bishops”, and shifting its stance on moral issues to keep up with the times would be pleased with someone like Cantalamessa, who teaches a gospel that is that is so vague and watered-down to the lowest common denominator so that it offends hardly anyone. After all, as New Oxford Review magnificiently stated in one of their advertisements, the Episcopal Church is not the true church and has never claimed to be; the Lord has simply let that church go her gay and goofy way. The Catholic Church, however, IS the one true church

Anything good in the CC is as much a gift to her as anything good in other Churches is a gift to them. God has no need of the CC, no need whatever; or of any of us. Which means that the CC is in no position at all to look down its nose at any other form of faith, Christian or not. It’s not as though we have no scandals of our own. If the CC is Christian, why do we waste time crowing over the scandals in other Christian churches, rather than on setting our own house in order ? It’s as Christian as it behaves, no more, ISTM.​

and Catholics loyal to their Church’s traditions must vehemently defend this doctrine and proclaim it as necessary for salvation in these times of confusion. If the current Pope encourages and participates in joint worship services with heretical sects, then I disagree with him and think what he is doing is wrong. I have on my side dozens of previous popes who condemned such worship as false and a mortal sin. Traditional Catholics understand that the Pope is authoritative and we obey him when he is obedient to tradition; but if he departs from it, while we respect his office as pope and submit to him in infallible decisions, we cannot join him in this error. In this since maybe we are “more Catholic than the pope”, since we are saying the same thing that popes and theologians in the past have said.
Why should a Catholic be concerned about the “war” for the Wesleyan tradition? The “Wesleyan tradition” is steeped in heresy and false teaching.

You’ve just answered your question :). *If *the Wesleyan tradition is in such a bad way, of course you should be concerned about it.​

Besides, Wesleyans are Christians too; there is a lot they can teach us, if only we have the humility to learn. Or are militant atheists preferable to those who are our brothers in Christ ? If we reject those who from our POV are not kosher enough to be real Christians, we may have to put up with real atheists or real Islamists or other, zealous & undisguised, opponents of Christianity in all its forms. ##
The only war the Catholic should be concerned with is the war for souls to be brought into the Church so that they too might be saved. Why should a Catholic be concerned about the squabbles among various Protestant denominations? It matters not whether one is Wesleyan or Calvinist, for there is no salvation to be found in either of those false religions.

If we aren’t concerned about those squabbles, then we are condemning ourselves to be ignorant of those Christians - which means that we are providing the conditions for mutual ignorance, suspicion, & hate. Ignorance of others is a wonderful preparation for misunderstanding them. If we don’t understand them, how can we understand their beliefs ? And if we don’t understand their beliefs, what right have we to criticise those beliefs, or to complain of their misunderstandings of our own ?​

 
WOW. Balance, where do you get the idea that somehow Traditional Catholics don’t care about having a relationship with Christ?? Please step down off of your self-righteous pedestal.
You’ve misunderstood me, and I’ll accept that it might have been because I wasn’t as clear as I could have been.
Again, you use the phrase “Traditional Catholic” and I’d ask, what exactly do you mean by that? Is that something different to a “Catholic”? Do you and I belong to different churches or to the same one? What, then, exactly differentiates us - or to put it another way, why do you choose a label that makes a distinction between you and me?

So I don’t believe that “Traditional Catholics” (whatever that means) don’t care about having a relationship with Christ.
what I said was: “I want the same things you want - but it seems to me you and your ilk want them so that some kind of triumphant “Catholicism” can again reign supreme, not so that the ordinary men and women of this world can find peace and love and healing in Christ.”

What I meant was that it seems to me that what comes through to me in the posts of many people who *label themselves * “Traditional Catholics,” thus setting themselves apart from the rest of us Catholics, is a kind of spirituality which seems to be focussed on the things of God rather than on God himself. They speak a lot about “abuses” and “correct liturgy” and “mortal sin” and so on (and mostly, everything they say is orthodox) but Christ seems to come second a lot of the time. Read the message boards, read the things people say one second and how it matches what they proclaim themselves to be in the next second. It’s there in the posts - this is not something I say from reading one post, it’s something that comes across from reading many, or, in the real world, from knowing someone for a while.
This is not a statement I make lightly, believe me. But I have met, again and again and again, people who loudly and fiercely proclaim themselves to be “Traditional” or “Orthodox” but whose behavour is so often suspicious, hard-faced, rude, confrontational, uptight and uncharitable. The people I know who are *really *orthodox (ie, in love with Christ and his Church) and whose faith is rooted in the traditions of the Church don’t ever need to label themselves as such. They just get on with it.

I’m not saying every person who labels themselves “orthodox” or “Traditional” is like this - it seems to be a trend though.
I do think that Catholicism “reigning supreme” will help men and women find peace, love, and healing through Christ–don’t you?
No I don’t! For a start, the Church will never have the place in society that she once had. What will help men and women find Christ is lay Catholics waking up and living out their call to love.
They don’t have to state it first thing on their website because they DO it.
But isn’t it telling, in a world that needs a clear proclamation of Christ, that the first thing on their website is not a clear proclamation of Christ but an obscure sentence about the priesthood? Completely orthodox, but not that clear.
Actions speak louder than words…
That’s my point about many who label themselves with things like “Tradional” or “orthodox” - their actions speak loudly than their words. Their words are all about love of Christ, and devotion, and obedience, and authority, and their actions are often something less.

I’m not on any high horse or pedestal here - I used to be a bit like what I’m describing - then I grew up.
Do you think that the SSPX has some kind of evil motive and doesn’t want people to know Christ?
Umm, now that you mention it… 😃

No, unlike many Catholics I’ve met, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories.
I think they do want people to know Christ - I just think they’re going about it in a very wrongheaded way.
And it doesn’t “suggest” they are ordaining priests is the end in itself–YOU suggested that when you read that into it…apparently you want it to suggest that.
Yeah, maybe I was reading a bit much into it. i still wonder why they wrote it like that though.
The SSPX … who attend their chapels are QUITE loving and charitable and focused on Christ (hint: that’s why they attend a Mass that’s focused on CHRIST and not on other people!)
I attend Mass that’s focussed on Christ and not on other people too.
Archbishop Lefebvre (may he rest in peace) didn’t “excommunicate himself.”
Well, that’s what excommunication is, a personal choice to put oneself outside the Church, after repeated attempts by the Church to encourage the person in question to put aside their sin and disobedience. Archbishop Lefebvre decided not to repent, and so excommunicated himself. That’s not what his followers see it, but it’s how actual Catholics see it.
 
Contarini,

You are making excellent points and understand our failth very well! Congratulations!

I think the Internet format can lead to great misunderstandings since nuances do not come across.

Cantalemessa is associated with the Catholic Charismatic movement. Now they have gotten more and more orthodox over the years and are in fact, in my opinion, are moving towards discovering Traditonal Catholicism. From speaking with friends and the local pastor of a charismatic parish who has a similar background to mine, I see this trend. We are both the only Catholics in our birth families and we were both baptized in the Holy Spirit as Protestants and speak in tongues. He has been teaching his flock well and tradition is coming even to them. ( But I attend the Old Mass almost every Sunday. It is so DEEP. )
Now the charismatics haven’t started celebrating the Old Mass yet, but they are moving towards traditional practices. So soon the love and tradition will be united and what a power house it will be!

I think this because they are beginning to see that the body must also worship with the soul and in such a way as to not be distracting.

You have to realize that many who are traditionalists have also been poorly catechized due to the poor sheperding that has been going on in the Church for the last 40 years. They are also for the most part been ‘sheep without a shepherd’. They have been spiritually abused by the shepherds. They are clinging for dear spiritual life to the truth they do know, that the liturgy as celebrated in most parishes banalizes and trivializes the Holy Sacrifice and that the Old Mass was the culmination of liturgical development. It is hard to be a saint or to grow in virtue when there is so little spiritual guidance available. They have been left, like the people who attend the new Mass, to drift with every wave.

So when I was invited to a Protestant service, as I was in my pro-life work, it always seemed so empty, since Jesus’ Bodily presence wasn’t there. I was quite reluctant to go to such services or even ecumenical services as a result, not because I didn’t like the people, but that it was as worship so empty without the Blessed Sacrament. I thought why go there when I can go to Mass and see and receive Jesus? So it is a penance for Catholics to attend. Sure we may be great friends with the people, but Jesus is our best Friend and we love Him more than anyone or anything.

By the way, Fr. Raymond Brown was quoted in homilies in one parish I attended to cast doubt on the divinty of Jesus and the historicity of the Gospels. You have to reject that part of what he writes. Of course like most dissenters, he doesn’t reject everything about Christianity, but it makes him useless as a reliable source of theology.
 
Plenty of Methodists and other Protestants converted to Catholicism BEFORE ecumenism; more so than now, as a matter off face. Seriously, how is dumbing down our faith and focusing on the lowest common denominator going to encourage anyone to convert to Catholicism? We’re only giving them the impression that they don’t need to convert, after all we have sooo much in common already…
Do you have verifiable statistics that more Methodists and other Protestants converted to Catholicism before the era of ecumenism than do now? I, myself, have no idea of how the rates of conversion compare. Also, I never argued that ecumenism should be “dumbing down our faith” or even “focussing on the lowest common denominator.” What I specified was an ecumenism that clarified theological terminology and educated all involved about what various Christians believe (a good example of this approach would be Jimmy Akin’s book Salvation Controversy, where he analyses what is meant when different Christians use the terms “justification,” “salvation,” “sanctification,” etc). I am not saying that you stop there and say to other Christians: “I’m ok, you’re ok.” Or, “we are so similar, isn’t that great.” The point is, how do you try to evangelize someone when you are completely ignorant about what they believe? How does a Protestant convert to Catholicism if he thinks Catholics worship Mary…or if he thinks that we believe that we can be saved without grace? If you could have an ecumenical discussion on the theological significance of Mary, a Protestant can walk away with a lot of ignorance dispelled. He can say, ‘oh, gee, Catholics do not worship Mary, they venerate her.’ Then, boom, maybe that will be one more obstacle to conversion that is cleared away. What the heck is the harm in that? And what is the harm in some ecumenical ventures if they produce such a fruit? In a previous era, many protestants just sat with the presumption that Catholics were evil non-Christian idolaters. They would never consider that Catholic Church as the one Christ founded because they were ignorant of what she taught and had no respect for her… and would not even give the Church an honest hearing. Again, I go back to the main fruits of a theoretically GOOD ecumenism: increased mutual respect, clarification of beliefs, end to polemics… all which can clear obstacles to conversion and full communion. Just because Cardinal Kasper says some goofy things, or a lot of ecumenism is watered down and bad does not mean that a good and useful form of ecumenism is impossible. Serious ecumenism should not lead to relatavizing, but it does not need to do so. I am sorry, but a lot of “traditionalist” Catholics seem to just be too extreme in reacting: it is a knee jerk reaction–“ecumenism = “new Church” = bad.” Just like someone said elsewhere–the parishes should ban Bible studies just because abuses are possible (and because, “in the good ole’ days, we didn’t study the Bible”… valuing personal ignorance of Scripture just because it is “traditional” is repulsive to me).
 
Just like someone said elsewhere–the parishes should ban Bible studies just because abuses are possible (and because, “in the good ole’ days, we didn’t study the Bible”… valuing personal ignorance of Scripture just because it is “traditional” is repulsive to me).
I think you are trying to quote something I wrote. The actual quote is:
I wouldn’t be upset if the Church decided that bible study courses be shut down in the parishes. Back in the “good ole days” we weren’t exactly encouraged to study the Bible. Instead, we were encouraged to learn what the Church scholars had interpreted instead of our personal interpretation.
Which doesn’t say exactly what you characterized. Then, Genesis315 kindly restated what I was trying to say in clearer language:
I know what you’re saying, but I think it should be clarified. Bible reading was encouraged in those days (there were big indulgences attached to it and encyclicals written on it), but the faithful were encouraged to read it in line with Tradition and the teaching of the Church. Nowadays, it’s often, studied without access to the Fathers, Saints, Magesterium, etc. and the emphasis is more on “what it means to you.”
To which I replied:
You nailed it. When I was a youngster, I was given a bible for my Confirmation by my Grandfather. He told me to read it so I could understand what the the Church was telling me about it. Later on, I understood that I could study the bible for a lifetime and never replicate the scholarship and time that the Church as devoted to bible study.
So I rely on the Church to interpret the Bible. I don’t rely on a group of lay people or myself to have the background to interpret the scriptures. In fact, believe it or not, in my traditional Mass we have scripture readings at every Mass. And not only that, Father usually has a sermon based on the scripture read that day and explains what it means according to the Church.

“valuing personal ignorance of Scripture just because it is “traditional” is …” I don’t think I ever said that, but if you want to believe it, fine.
 
I think you are trying to quote something I wrote. The actual quote is:

Which doesn’t say exactly what you characterized. Then, Genesis315 kindly restated what I was trying to say in clearer language:

To which I replied:

So I rely on the Church to interpret the Bible. I don’t rely on a group of lay people or myself to have the background to interpret the scriptures. In fact, believe it or not, in my traditional Mass we have scripture readings at every Mass. And not only that, Father usually has a sermon based on the scripture read that day and explains what it means according to the Church.

“valuing personal ignorance of Scripture just because it is “traditional” is …” I don’t think I ever said that, but if you want to believe it, fine.
Sorry, I did not mean to assert that that is what you thought, I guess I was attacking the over-reaction that I see among some. I think that all Catholics should be familiar with Sacred Scripture and be in a regular (daily) practice of reading it. As I said in my other post on this topic, the Bible is not to be studied in order for private interpretation. However, to know Jesus Christ intimately, you must be familiar with the Scriptures (on a PERSONAL level). It is not enough just to hear a priest preach to you about how Genesis 3:15 points to the Immaculate Conception if you never read Genesis yourself. I think that the readings in the liturgy (as I have also said in my other post) require some background knowledge of the Scriptures as a whole. Many people are unfamiliar with the Old Testament, for example, so that when they hear a reading from Isaiah, for example, at Mass, they either turn off or do not appreciate the context. That is all I am saying. What we need is good Bible studies that make use of the guidance from the Magisterium (as I also wrote in that previous post)… not the banning of Bible studies just because of the risk of abuse. Catholics who just rely on the liturgy or preaching to give them a full understanding of Scripture will not necessarily get that.
 
So I rely on the Church to interpret the Bible. I don’t rely on a group of lay people or myself to have the background to interpret the scriptures. In fact, believe it or not, in my traditional Mass we have scripture readings at every Mass. And not only that, Father usually has a sermon based on the scripture read that day and explains what it means according to the Church.
I, too, rely on the Church to interpret the Bible, of course. However, as I wrote before, I also do NOT read the Bible in order to interpret its meaning and form my own doctrines (which appears to be what you are rightly guarding against). No, I read and study the Bible because it is the Word of God and I want to know God intimately. The Catechism is full of the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. That is great and important. But we need more than just learning our catechism. There is a great importance in personally engaging the Word of God (that is all I am saying)… letting it take root in your heart. I guess, when I speak of reading and studying Scripture I am referring to the spiritual practice (as a devotion such as lectio divina)… perhaps when you think of “Scripture study” you think of the Protestant approach to reading the Bible in order for private interpretation and to formulate one’s own set of doctrines. That is not how I view Bible study (nor would any mature Catholic).
 
Sorry, I did not mean to assert that that is what you thought, I guess I was attacking the over-reaction that I see among some. I think that all Catholics should be familiar with Sacred Scripture and be in a regular (daily) practice of reading it. As I said in my other post on this topic, the Bible is not to be studied in order for private interpretation. However, to know Jesus Christ intimately, you must be familiar with the Scriptures (on a PERSONAL level). It is not enough just to hear a priest preach to you about how Genesis 3:15 points to the Immaculate Conception if you never read Genesis yourself. I think that the readings in the liturgy (as I have also said in my other post) require some background knowledge of the Scriptures as a whole. Many people are unfamiliar with the Old Testament, for example, so that when they hear a reading from Isaiah, for example, at Mass, they either turn off or do not appreciate the context. That is all I am saying. What we need is good Bible studies that make use of the guidance from the Magisterium (as I also wrote in that previous post)… not the banning of Bible studies just because of the risk of abuse. Catholics who just rely on the liturgy or preaching to give them a full understanding of Scripture will not necessarily get that.
I think we may be trying to say the same thing. See my quote about my Gradfather giving me a bible so I would understand what the Church was teaching. I have concern about bible study classes conducted by lay leaders. At least in my experience, I have seen too many lay classes/committees drift into personal agendas instead of the purpose of the class.
 
I think we may be trying to say the same thing. See my quote about my Gradfather giving me a bible so I would understand what the Church was teaching. I have concern about bible study classes conducted by lay leaders. At least in my experience, I have seen too many lay classes/committees drift into personal agendas instead of the purpose of the class.
Yes, I reread your quote about your Grandfather and I understand. I also do agree with what you say about Bible studies and personal agendas. Mea culpa… I did not mean to distort what you had written earlier.
 
What dogmatic statements? Could you please show me where Vatican II made a single dogmatic pronouncement??
Is english your first language?

I ask because I am having trouble understanding why you can not read what I have said and understand it, but here it is for a third time. Please notice the emphasized text.
I never said that it made any dogmatic pronouncements. I said that where it made any dogmatic statements it is infallible.
 
There is zero distinction in Catholic legal language between a “statement” and a “pronouncement”.

You’re engaging in semantical games.
 
What dogmatic statements? Could you please show me where Vatican II made a single dogmatic pronouncement??
This would seemt to be getting a little ridiculous. Were there dogmatic consitiutions in Vatican II? You betcha. Are you bound by them? You betcha. Did they proclaim something new and interesting truth? Nope but they were dogmatic and did contain dogma.
 
Perhaps you should try reading the text of the sermon before judging it. He did not deny a single Catholic dogma, as far as I can tell. Your sources are either ignorant or malicious. Frankly, I’ll trust the preacher to the papal household to interpret Catholic doctrine before I’ll trust some random guy on the Internet.

I certainly hope you don’t, since I am going to urge my online students (I’m teaching a church history class for Asbury Seminary) to attend the lectures (alas, I live too far away). If some Catholic gets up and starts ranting about how Fr. Cantalamessa is a heretic, it’s not going to help me convince the Protestant students that Fr. Cantalamessa represents Catholicism. But it’s your right to scuttle my evil ecumenical schemes if you want to! Just please do actually read the sermon (which is available on the Internet) before you create a fuss. Make sure you know what you are talking about.

Also, the Catholic Church has irrevocably committed itself to ecumenism and has strongly encouraged joint worship (short of Eucharistic communion, of course). I know that you may not care one bit what your own Pope says (given that this is the “Traditional”–otherwise known as “more Catholic than the Pope” board). But the Pope has clearly spoken in favor of “spiritual ecumenism,” and Fr. Cantalamessa’s visit to Asbury is a potentially momentous step forward in that project.

Frankly, I think you are speaking evil of things you haven’t even tried to understand. One would think that “Traditional Catholics” would be more likely to practice traditional virtues like humility and obedience, but it doesn’t seem like it. I know Asbury Seminary to some extent (my wife knows it much better, having attended it and being the granddaughter of a former president). The Wesleyan tradition Asbury represents (and with which I identify myself, although in its most high-church version) has a lot in common with Catholicism. (Actually our doctrine of faith and works differs very little from yours, which is why Fr. Cantalamessa’s message about justification is so important for us–it may not do much for Baptists, because however you explain the Catholic position there are going to be huge gaps. But we are divided from you, on this issue at least, largely by differing emphasis, different terminology, and centuries of mutual misunderstanding.) Furthermore, evangelicals of a Wesleyan bent don’t have a rich intellectual heritage, and we are always open to temptation by Calvinism. In the end we (Wesleyan Protestants) face the choice between the two–Calvinism or Catholicism. When I teach church history online for Asbury, it’s astounding how Calvinist many of the students are, because in Protestant circles this is probably the most intellectually coherent and spiritually deep option these days, if one isn’t going to move toward Catholicism. There’s a war going on for the soul of the Wesleyan tradition, and Fr. Cantalemessa’s visit could make an important contribution to that war.

In Christ,

Edwin
Reluctant to deviate too much from the requirements of humility and obedience, I will rely a little as possible on my own words, and as much as possible on the evidence with just a brief background.
  1. Relevance.
The video is from this year, uploaded to the Internet less than two months ago.
  1. Context.
The video shows Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa at a Protestant (Anglican) meeting, the Leadership Conference of the Alpha Course.
  1. Key point.
15:50-17:18 Sola Fide
  1. URL
lc17.alpha.org/node/119
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top