Traditionalist and Charismatic

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrikhank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have never said that the gift of tongues is not ever given out, as well as other extraordinary graces. It’s the intentional seeking out of these things which is not traditional. CCC 2003 makes no mention of intentionally seeking these things out.
Is there a need to repeat what is already in Scripture? How do you reconcile you position with the Apostolic Teaching in the New Testament? Why do you refuse the command to “earnestly desire the best gifts”.
BTW, I’ve never said anything even remotely close to accusing Pope Benedict of being a heretic. That’s rediculous.
Maybe you should investigate those sedavacantist claims before you start accusing charismatic Catholics of pulling out nonsense. 😉
 
Did you look at that link? From your posts, I don’t gather you want to be in support of such a perspective, do you?
I did not look at the link. But you can post a summary of what it says, if you like.
 
Is there a need to repeat what is already in Scripture? How do you reconcile you position with the Apostolic Teaching in the New Testament? Why do you refuse the command to “earnestly desire the best gifts”.

Maybe you should investigate those sedavacantist claims before you start accusing charismatic Catholics of pulling out nonsense. 😉
Quote:

"Why do you refuse the command to “earnestly desire the best gifts.”

What I desire, above all, guanophore, is salvation. Our life on this earth is short, but eternity lasts forever. No where in Church teaching or catechism does it state that I have to intentionally persue speaking in tongues or be slain in the spirit in order to save my soul. St. Paul didn’t say this, and neither did Our Lord.
 
According to Benedict XVI, the Jewish reading that Our Lord is not the Messiah, not the Son of God, and not foretold in the Old Testament, is possible and valid. This is totally heretical, apostate and antichrist.

In taking part in a Jewish worship service, Benedict XVI committed a public act of apostasy.

Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) totally rejects this dogma and the entire Catholic Faith.

Benedict XVI is formally heretical. He holds that Protestants and Eastern Schismatics don’t need to be converted and accept Vatican I. He is a blatant rejecter of the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation, and the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I.

There’s quite a bit of heresy in this speech that Benedict XVI gave in the Lutheran church.

First, Benedict XVI goes to the Lutheran temple and takes active part in a “common prayer” service (his words) with Lutherans, other Protestants and “Orthodox” schismatics. This is a manifestation of heresy by deed – attendance at a non-Catholic Lutheran temple.

Fourth, Benedict XVI recalls many false ecumenical achievements, including the totally heretical, Council-of-Trent-trashing Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification. He also recalled the “ecumenical memorial of 20th-century witnesses of the faith,” which was the commemoration of non-Catholics as martyrs for the Faith. He also recalled Ut Unum Sint, which is filled with heresies, including the idea that there are non-Catholic saints. He also promotes a new ecumenical translation of the Bible. Benedict XVI is a manifestly heretical non-Catholic antipope.

Benedict XVI is not even remotely Catholic.

Martin Luther was one of the worst heretics in Church history. Luther attacked the Catholic Church and its dogmas with ferocity. While never denouncing Luther as a heretic, Benedict XVI often speaks positively of Luther’s views and even praises him.

At Vatican II, Benedict XVI even complained that the document Gaudium et Spes relied too much on Teilhard de Chardin and not enough on Martin Luther.[45] Benedict XVI is also credited with saving the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on Justification, which declared that Luther’s heresy of Justification by faith alone (and many others) are somehow no longer condemned by the Council of Trent.

The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

He is saying that a false religion is good. This is apostasy.

Benedict XVI respects the Koran as a holy book of a great religion. The Koran blasphemes the Trinity, denies the Divinity of Christ, and says those who believe in it are as excrement. It also says that all Christians are damned. This statement by Benedict XVI is total apostasy. We already covered how John Paul II kissed the Koran; this is to kiss the Koran in words.

St. Thomas says that one who worships at the tomb of Mahomet is to be deemed an apostate; praying in a mosque, and toward Mecca like the Muslims, is much worse. That’s why no pope in history ever even went into a mosque; they all knew that to even go there would be to signify the acceptance of the false religion. With this action, the debate about whether Benedict XVI is the pope is utterly and completely over for anyone familiar with these facts and in possession of a modicum of good will. Tell your friends and relatives: Benedict XVI is a heretic, an apostate and therefore an antipope.

CONCLUSION ABOUT BENEDICT XVI

Benedict XVI is a manifest heretic. We have proven this without any doubt. He teaches that Our Lord may not be the Messiah; that the Old Covenant is valid; that Jews and others can be saved without believing in Christ; that schismatics and Protestants don’t need conversion; that non-Catholics are not bound to accept Vatican I; that Protestant Monasteries should be formed; that Protestantism is not even heresy; that Mass is valid without words of consecration; that infant baptism has no purpose; that Scripture is filled with myths; that the false religion of Islam is noble; that pagan religions are high; that salvation can be had outside the Church; that Catholic dogmas need to be purged; that Vatican II rejected Catholic teaching on religious liberty; that the unity of the Church does not exist; and that the Resurrection of the Body will not occur, just to name a few.

Since he is a heretic, he could not have been a validly elected pope. As quoted already, Pope Paul IV solemnly taught in his Feb. 15, 1559 Bull, Cum ex Apostolatus officio, that it is impossible for a heretic to be validly elected pope.

Therefore, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI is not a pope, but a non-Catholic antipope whom Catholics must completely reject. He presides over the new religion of Vatican II, a counterfeit Catholicism that has abandoned the Catholic Church’s traditions and dogmas.

One of Benedict XVI’s main characteristics is that he is a deceiver. While he teaches undeniable, astounding and manifest heresies, one of the ways by which he has convinced so many that he is conservative is that, among these astounding heresies in his writings, there are many conservative passages. But this is nothing new. Pope Pius VI pointed out that heretics, inspired by the Devil, have always used such tactics to inculcate heresies and deceive people.

:confused::(:mad:
 
@ Denise1957: It’s not so much a matter of seeking out extra gifts, according to Pope Benedict XVI, as responding to those gifts and charisms that have already been given to you at baptism and confirmation and “opening” them so to speak. Using them.

Don’t turn away from grace simply because it’s not the bare necessities of your own salvation. Accepting and using these charisms MIGHT be necessary for another person’s salvation. Thankfully, God is bigger than our failures to correspond to His graces.

This IS the teaching of the Church - in Scripture, in the teaching of the Pope, the Bishops, and in the dogmatic constitutions and documents from the recent Vatican Council.

There are many many many aspects of the faith that aren’t absolutely necessary for you to get to heaven. But, being a sinner myself, and knowing that the people around me are sinners and need me to conform myself to the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit to aid them in their own salvation - I’m going to take absolutely everything the Holy Spirit wants to give me, and I am not going to turn away from any gift, charism, or grace simply because it is closely associated with a movement that has abuses.
 
The world needs us and the gifts the Holy Spirit has given us. And God doesn’t just give you the basic necessity for you to get to heaven. He goes above and beyond that. How many loaves and fish were left over from the miracle?
 
@ Denise1957: It’s not so much a matter of seeking out extra gifts, according to Pope Benedict XVI, as responding to those gifts and charisms that have already been given to you at baptism and confirmation and “opening” them so to speak. Using them.

Don’t turn away from grace simply because it’s not the bare necessities of your own salvation. Accepting and using these charisms MIGHT be necessary for another person’s salvation. Thankfully, God is bigger than our failures to correspond to His graces.

This IS the teaching of the Church - in Scripture, in the teaching of the Pope, the Bishops, and in the dogmatic constitutions and documents from the recent Vatican Council.

There are many many many aspects of the faith that aren’t absolutely necessary for you to get to heaven. But, being a sinner myself, and knowing that the people around me are sinners and need me to conform myself to the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit to aid them in their own salvation - I’m going to take absolutely everything the Holy Spirit wants to give me, and I am not going to turn away from any gift, charism, or grace simply because it is closely associated with a movement that has abuses.
It’s very prideful to say that someone who does not speak in tongues is turning away from grace. That’s just wrong.
 
john aurelius,

I should have realized that the link you were providing says terrible and untrue things about Pope Benedict. That being said, I think it goes against forum rules to post that sort of thing. I hope that the mods will remove it. I am not going to comment on it.
 
What I gather from this thread is that Charismatic Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics can’t coincide harmoniously in the Church.

Did you know that it is the HOLY SPIRIT that guides our Church, and that through Vatican II and the Charismatic Renewal, this fact is only clarified?! How are we to strive for sainthood if our only focus is burning bridges in the Church? If you truly believed everything Mother Church teaches and that she is guided by the Spirit, there would be no disagreements about (Charismatics) the Church being “outdated” or (Traditionalists) the Church being “corrupted” and “Protestant-ized” by and through the Charismatic Renewal.

Fact: The Church never changes.

Jesus prayed for unity!!!
John 17:20-23
 
how much does it reflect traditionalists in general? I’ve never heard it outright in this forum but I’ve also kind of caught an undertone of dissatisfaction with Vatican II and the denial of the Popes to allow TLM for so long…

The SSPX is almost schismatic, are these the kind of arguments they use?
 
What I gather from this thread is that Charismatic Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics can’t coincide harmoniously in the Church.

Did you know that it is the HOLY SPIRIT that guides our Church, and that through Vatican II and the Charismatic Renewal, this fact is only clarified?! How are we to strive for sainthood if our only focus is burning bridges in the Church? If you truly believed everything Mother Church teaches and that she is guided by the Spirit, there would be no disagreements about (Charismatics) the Church being “outdated” or (Traditionalists) the Church being “corrupted” and “Protestant-ized” by and through the Charismatic Renewal.

Fact: The Church never changes.

Jesus prayed for unity!!!
John 17:20-23
👍
 
What I gather from this thread is that Charismatic Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics can’t coincide harmoniously in the Church.

Did you know that it is the HOLY SPIRIT that guides our Church, and that through Vatican II and the Charismatic Renewal, this fact is only clarified?! How are we to strive for sainthood if our only focus is burning bridges in the Church? If you truly believed everything Mother Church teaches and that she is guided by the Spirit, there would be no disagreements about (Charismatics) the Church being “outdated” or (Traditionalists) the Church being “corrupted” and “Protestant-ized” by and through the Charismatic Renewal.

Fact: The Church never changes.

Jesus prayed for unity!!!
John 17:20-23
I think that you will find that there are disagreements all over the boards on CAF. It’s not only between Traditionalists and Charismatics. There are often disagreemants about much smaller issues than this. As long as this thread is kept open, I think I’ll be allowed to voice my concerns (I hope).
 
john aurelius,

I should have realized that the link you were providing says terrible and untrue things about Pope Benedict. That being said, I think it goes against forum rules to post that sort of thing. I hope that the mods will remove it. I am not going to comment on it.
I’m glad this is your response, its very similar to mine in #361.

At least we have this in common. btw I didn’t provide the link.

I love the Pope, he is a great man with an extremely difficult job. I pray that he will be given the grace to fulfill his post and “feed my sheep”
 
I’m glad this is your response, its very similar to mine in #361.

At least we have this in common. btw I didn’t provide the link.

I love the Pope, he is a great man with an extremely difficult job. I pray that he will be given the grace to fulfill his post and “feed my sheep”
I love Pope Benedict, too! Seriously, if I were to ever meet him, which is highly unlikely, I’d have to stifle a strong urge to give him a big hug! And yes, he has a very difficult job.

Sorry, I had mistakenly thought that you provide the link.
 
I don’t see how uttering a babel is edifying. Further, when you do it in a group, what are you communicating? What’s it for? I’ve read a little about the lives of Saints. I don’t recall much about babbling.

Indeed, I think at least one said ecstacies and supernatural phenomena should be shunned, just in case it’s from the Devil. The Devil can work miracles, too. If John Smith can raise the dead but he’s still a vain man, he’s likely going to become a monster.

I think what happens when ordinary folk pursue the miraculous is trivial phenomena; things which are miraculous, but not much use e.g. a psychic who tells you stuff about yourself which you already know or who says you’ll come into money; 50 bucks. But along the way you go off the true path.
 
It’s very prideful to say that someone who does not speak in tongues is turning away from grace. That’s just wrong.
If someone is closed off to the gift of tongues, or any gift of the Holy Spirit, I think they are turning away from a chance to receive more grace. Forgive me, I do not mean to assert that I am better than anyone simply because I speak in tongues. But there is no reason to turn against such a gift.

I provided the link, as an example of how schismatic traditionalists view the Pope as “not even remotely Catholic”. I do think that some traditionalist minded individuals (I mean those who are not schismatic) do have a mindset that is opposed to the mindset of the Pope and the Vatican Council, at least judging from the many I know, but of course they do not outright deny the Pope or anything, and would hopefully change their opinions if they had more of an understanding of what was being taught.

That link, however, didn’t provide outright lies and false data so much as twisting the words and actions of the Pope - such as his outreach to Protestants and Orthodox, and his deep respect for the Islamic religion, and outreach to Muslims, and Jews and work for ecumenism.
If you truly believed everything Mother Church teaches and that she is guided by the Spirit, there would be no disagreements about (Charismatics) the Church being “outdated” or (Traditionalists) the Church being “corrupted” and “Protestant-ized” by and through the Charismatic Renewal.
Thank you. 👍
 
I don’t see how uttering a babel is edifying. Further, when you do it in a group, what are you communicating? What’s it for? I’ve read a little about the lives of Saints. I don’t recall much about babbling.

Indeed, I think at least one said ecstacies and supernatural phenomena should be shunned, just in case it’s from the Devil. The Devil can work miracles, too. If John Smith can raise the dead but he’s still a vain man, he’s likely going to become a monster.
Well, my friend, being Catholic is totally about miracles. Like the Eucharist.

It’s for prayer. It’s not babble - it’s a real language. Of course it sounds like babble to you if you don’t know the language. It’s letting the Holy Spirit pray through you in languages you do not know. It’s clearly evident in Scripture. There are many saints that have prayed in tongues. This is what St. Teresa of Avila says in Interior Castle:
In the midst of these experiences that are both painful and delightful together, our Lord sometimes gives the soul feelings of jubilation** and a strange prayer it doesn’t understand… What I am saying seems like gibberish**, but certainly the experience takes place in this way, for the joy is so excessive the soul wouldn’t want to enjoy it alone but wants to tell everyone about it so that they might help this soul praise our Lord. All its activity is directed to this praise. Oh, how many festivals and demonstrations the soul would organize if it could that all might know its joy!.. The devil cannot give this experience, because there is so much interior joy in the very intimate part of the soul and so much peace; and all the happiness stirs the soul to praise of the Lord.
Take it from a saint and doctor of the Church…
 
In this book… amazon.com/gp/product/0814650090/sr=8-2/qid=1306772239/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1306772239&sr=8-2&seller= the authors carefully examine the documents from ancient rites of Christian initiation. They examine such authors as Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, Cyril, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Severus, John of Apamea, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, etc.

Their conclusion is this:
All of them testify that the charisms were sought, or expected and received within the rites of initiation or in relation to them. The witnesses extend from the end of the second century into the eighth. Geographically they almost ring the Mediterranean seaboard. Hilary, Cyril, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzus are all Doctors of the Church, a title given to those who are outstanding in identifying the faith and practice of the Church.

Those charisms being those mentioned in I Corinthians 12:8-10. And probably specifically during the rites of Christian initiation - tongues and prophecy.
 
Food for thought from C.S. Lewis:

For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism. (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity.) There isn’t really, for an adult mind, this infinite variety of religions to consider. We may salva reverentia "without outraging reverence] divide religions, as we do soups, into “thick” and “clear.” By Thick I mean those which have orgies and ecstasies and mysteries and local attachments: Africa is full of Thick religions. By Clear I mean those which are philosophical, ethical and universalizing: Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Ethical Church are Clear religions. Now if there is a true religion it must be both Thick and Clear: for the true God must have made both the child and the man, both the savage and the citizen, both the head and the belly. And the only two religions that fulfil this condition are Hinduism and Christianity. But Hinduism fulfils it imperfectly. The Clear religion of the Brahmin hermit in the jungle and the Thick religion of the neighbouring temple go on side by side. The Brahmin hermit doesn’t bother about the temple prostitution nor the worshipper in the temple about the hermit’s metaphysics. But Christianity really breaks down the middle wall of the partition. It takes a convert from central AFrica and tells him to obey an enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord. The savage convert has to be Clear: I have to be Thick. That is how one knows one has come to the real religion.
 
In this book… amazon.com/gp/product/0814650090/sr=8-2/qid=1306772239/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1306772239&sr=8-2&seller= the authors carefully examine the documents from ancient rites of Christian initiation. They examine such authors as Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, Cyril, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Severus, John of Apamea, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, etc.

Their conclusion is this:
All of them testify that the charisms were sought, or expected and received within the rites of initiation or in relation to them. The witnesses extend from the end of the second century into the eighth. Geographically they almost ring the Mediterranean seaboard. Hilary, Cyril, John Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzus are all Doctors of the Church, a title given to those who are outstanding in identifying the faith and practice of the Church.

Those charisms being those mentioned in I Corinthians 12:8-10. And probably specifically during the rites of Christian initiation - tongues and prophecy.
As to the link for the book that you posted above, does Fr. McDonnall’s book have an imprimitur? I looked inside the book on the amazon site, and couldn’t find one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top