Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

No need to defend them mate, I’ll just use your arguments.

*traditional catholicism is not a doctrine or de fide, no one has to believe it and you will not find one authoritative document saying otherwise *

You misunderstand Traditional Catholicism, it is based on the catholic tradition i.e. the teaching of councils, encyclicals, the writings of saints, doctors of the church and saints. So traditional catholicism by its very nature has the support of dozens of encyclicals, saints, doctors of the church, church councils and ecumenical councils. And Yes I can provide all the above if someone wants me too

 

[Warrenton]

Catholics with “options” are called Protestants

.

Varda, this is not correct. Protestants are not Catholics at all. They are not Catholic because they do not wish to be Catholic. We must respect their choice.

You don’t pick and choose your doctrine.

That depends on what you mean by doctrine. Doctrine means teaching, and falls into several broad categories. The doctrine of the Church does not come only from the bishops. If it did, we would be Arian now. Newman wrote extensively on this issue. Catholicism leaves considerable room for dissent, disagreement and skepticsm.

The Truth is objective, and unchanging. Either one thing is true, and part of Church teaching, or it isn’t. It can’t be both.

This seems a bit reductionist. There is, for instance, such a thing as subjective truth. “St. Mary answered his prayer,” is completely subjective, but also can also be completely true. One could easily be accused of irony in contending that charismatic activity is anything but intrinsically subjective. Indeed, I would argue that its basic subjectivity is what alienates some Catholics. But, I do not go as far as you seem to go, and accuse the practitioners of either Protestantism or subjectivism.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that charismatic activity illustrates just the limitations of the view you advanced against mine, don’t you think?

Moreover, which “Truth” are we talking about? To say “Christ rose from the dead” expresses an entirely different truth than saying “Pentacostalism is a Catholic thing.” Going farther, it is different than saying “during mass, bread is turned into Christ’s body.” To say “the Pope permits people to speak in tongues,” is as true as saying that “the Pope wears red slippers.” Both are true facts. But neither are doctrinal in the way that assenting to Christ’s divinity is doctrinal.

 

[Melchior_1]

You misunderstand Traditional Catholicism, it is based on the catholic tradition i.e. the teaching of councils, encyclicals, the writings of saints, doctors of the church and saints. So traditional catholicism by its very nature has the support of dozens of encyclicals, saints, doctors of the church, church councils and ecumenical councils. And Yes I can provide all the above if someone wants me too

You misunderstand me, I’m afraid, because I do understand Traditional Catholicism. But you’ll note I’m using a lowercase “t” on traditional in my previous post. Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, kneeling, and with an alter rail is not an essential part of our Salvation. I’m not going to Hell if there’s no incense at Mass. My wife isn’t going to get excommunicated for not wearing a veil. Things like that.

 

[jmj1984]

You misunderstand me, I’m afraid, because I do understand Traditional Catholicism. But you’ll note I’m using a lowercase “t” on traditional in my previous post. Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, kneeling, and with an alter rail is not an essential part of our Salvation. I’m not going to Hell if there’s no incense at Mass. My wife isn’t going to get excommunicated for not wearing a veil. Things like that.

Ah, those things of course aren’t essential and whilst they may outwardly dominate the movement, they’re not what make up its innards.

 

[Warrenton]

'…whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received yet no one speaks in tongues of all nations, because the Church already speaks in the languages of all nations. Since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost” (Tract. XXXII, in Joan).

It might be well to add here that it is not certain that the phenomena observed today is the same as that which occurred in New Testament times. The Apostles were understood by the people of diverse nations, indicating that when they were speaking in a language they had not learned, but a real language nonetheless. That seems to be the gist of what was happening in some of the Greek churches. St. Paul seems to be cautioning against speaking in words that sound like other languages, but really are not. CF iCorinthians 14

I am willing to entertain the idea that speaking in tongues as it is practiced today is both new and beneficial. However, I think there is an intellectual danger in thinking to recreate the methods of the earliest period of Church history from a remove of 2000 years. It is rather like the fanciful recreations of the life of “cavemen” one used to see in children’s natural history books.

 

[jmj1984]

It might be well to add here that it is not certain that the phenomena observed today is the same as that which occurred in New Testament times. The Apostles were understood by the people of diverse nations, indicating that when they were speaking in a language they had not learned, but a real language nonetheless. That seems to be the gist of what was happening in some of the Greek churches. St. Paul seems to be cautioning against speaking in words that sound like other languages, but really are not. CF iCorinthians 14

I am willing to entertain the idea that speaking in tongues as it is practiced today is both new and beneficial. However, I think there is an intellectual danger in thinking to recreate the methods of the earliest period of Church history from a remove of 2000 years. It is rather like the fanciful recreations of the life of “cavemen” one used to see in children’s natural history books.

Indeed The Angelic Doctor did not see tongues as tongues no one could understand he understood it as tongues of men.

And as for your second point thats similar to the condemnation of Antiquaranism I mentioned earlier

 

[Warrenton]

Indeed The Angelic Doctor did not see tongues as tongues no one could understand he understood it as tongues of men.

That is certainly made clear in the gospel narratives of Pentacost: the strangers in Jerusalem understood the preaching. St. Paul is characteristiacly somethat more occult, but the text in I Corninthians indicates that glossolalia is for the benefit of the unbeliever. This suggests consistency with Pentacost, and secondly, that the tongues were understood by the unbelievers, who would hear the good news in their own language.

And as for your second point thats similar to the condemnation of Antiquaranism I mentioned earlier

In the same vein, one hears that the Novus Ordo is more like ancient masses than the TLM, because some of the Eucharistic prayers are similar to those contained in an ancient lectionary. What is left out, of course, is that the source document is not a complete rubric of the mass. This gives a misleading impression that 1700 years ago one would have observed something quite similar to what one hears in the average church today, when in fact, that is probably not at all accurate.

 

[vardaquinn]

Go and read aquinas, you would benefit, what does your quote prove? That these gifts exist and? Does it say that people should speak gibberish or be disorderly in church? No. So please don’t insult The Angelic Doctor by using him to support your point of view.

As for the rest of your argments they are full of suppositions, ad hominem attacks and untruths, not even worth addressing.

Nobody is supporting speaking gibberish or being disorderly in church.

 

[vardaquinn]

1)That miracles are only a confirmation of a persons holiness or message if their message is true, that is orthodox. This obviously rules out all non-catholics
2)That miracles can be done by demons
3)That miracles can often be imaginary or the result of natural causes
4)That there is a risk that the weak will be deceived that these deeds imply that they are greater than the deeds of spiritual righteousness

That does not rule out all non-Catholics. Protestants at least preach the basic message of salvation in Jesus Christ, that He is the Messiah, is God and many fundamental truths of Christianity in varying degrees from denomination to denomination.

I acknowledge all the rest of the things he says. I don’t dispute, and agree with, all of what he says. You’re making a straw man argument.

 

[vardaquinn]

You misunderstand Traditional Catholicism, it is based on the catholic tradition i.e. the teaching of councils, encyclicals, the writings of saints, doctors of the church and saints. So traditional catholicism by its very nature has the support of dozens of encyclicals, saints, doctors of the church, church councils and ecumenical councils. And Yes I can provide all the above if someone wants me too

Then… most Catholic charismatics are all Traditionalists. Don’t confuse “tradition” with “Tradition”.

 

[vardaquinn]

That is certainly made clear in the gospel narratives of Pentacost: the strangers in Jerusalem understood the preaching. St. Paul is characteristiacly somethat more occult, but the text in I Corninthians indicates that glossolalia is for the benefit of the unbeliever. This suggests consistency with Pentacost, and secondly, that the tongues were understood by the unbelievers, who would hear the good news in their own language.

But also apparent in Scripture is tongues that is unintelligible to the speaker, and sometimes to those being spoken to. Why else would Paul even bring up interpretation of tongues then, if they did not need to be interpreted? And it is also evident as a form of prayer. See Acts 19, for just one of many instances.

 

[vardaquinn]

Indeed The Angelic Doctor did not see tongues as tongues no one could understand he understood it as tongues of men.

So do charismatics. You can potentially understand these if 1) you know the language or 2) you are given an interpretation.

 

[vardaquinn]

You misunderstand me, I’m afraid, because I do understand Traditional Catholicism. But you’ll note I’m using a lowercase “t” on traditional in my previous post. Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, kneeling, and with an alter rail is not an essential part of our Salvation. I’m not going to Hell if there’s no incense at Mass. My wife isn’t going to get excommunicated for not wearing a veil. Things like that.

But even those things aren’t at all in conflict with charismatics. I approve of, and support, and do most of those typically “traditional” things. I am also charismatic. I am frankly boggled by the conflict, except that many traditionalists must have fallen into Pharisaical hypocrisy. I liked one distinction made: Traditional vs. traditional being the living faith of the dead vs. the dead faith of the living.

 

[vardaquinn]

'I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, ‘God told me,’ ‘God answered me.’ Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution." The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29

We can see that St John Of the Cross condemns those who do not properly discern spirits and believes that more often than not internal locutions are nothing more than a delusion, a self-generated delusion

You seem to think this is in opposition to what we are saying. This is a straw man argument. Of course, absolutely, discernment is 100% necessary. But the charismatic gifts are not interior locutions, though that may be a vehicle by which they are given.

St Vincent Ferrer condemns focusing on such gifts as inevitably these gifts will mislead many and says that they should rather seek the virtues.

That’s stupid. They’re not in opposition. These are tools to seeking virtues. Why do you Paul’s whole section on love is smack dab in the middle of his section on charisms?

St. Vincent Ferrer is then being hypocritical, since he was quite the miracle worker himself, and is known to have had the gift of tongues.

St Augustine again explains that these extraordinary gifts like glossolia, which is different from miracles wrought by God through individuals, no longer occur and no longer will occur. Further it condemns the idea prevelant amogst charasmatics that if you do not have these gifts you are not saved or do not truly have the holy spirit or do not have it in full.

He does not say they will no longer occur. If he does, he is wrong. It is occurring now. St. Augustine recanted his position, as we have shown, on claiming the “age of miracles” and extraordinary gifts were over. Nice of you to quote him, but ignore his retractions.

Plenty of other saints have encouraged the seeking of miracles, and being open to them, and God using you for them. But more importantly: The Bible says this.

Your quotes are merely straw man arguments.

 

[vardaquinn]

.
This seems a bit reductionist. There is, for instance, such a thing as subjective truth. “St. Mary answered his prayer,” is completely subjective, but also can also be completely true. One could easily be accused of irony in contending that charismatic activity is anything but intrinsically subjective. Indeed, I would argue that its basic subjectivity is what alienates some Catholics. But, I do not go as far as you seem to go, and accuse the practitioners of either Protestantism or subjectivism.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that charismatic activity illustrates just the limitations of the view you advanced against mine, don’t you think?

Moreover, which “Truth” are we talking about? To say “Christ rose from the dead” expresses an entirely different truth than saying “Pentacostalism is a Catholic thing.” Going farther, it is different than saying “during mass, bread is turned into Christ’s body.” To say “the Pope permits people to speak in tongues,” is as true as saying that “the Pope wears red slippers.” Both are true facts. But neither are doctrinal in the way that assenting to Christ’s divinity is doctrinal.

It is either true or not true that Mary answered my prayer.

What I am talking about is this: the charismatic dimension is essential to the very nature of the church (along with the institutional dimension). That’s really how the Mystical Body works. If you disagree with this, you disagree with an aspect of Church teaching found in Scripture and the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[vardaquinn]

.

Varda, this is not correct. Protestants are not Catholics at all. They are not Catholic because they do not wish to be Catholic. We must respect their choice.

I was speaking facetiously there, noting how connected to Protestants those who pick and choose what Catholic doctrine to believe are. Which is most ironic, in the light of their fierce and uncharitable hatred of Protestants!

 

[vardaquinn]

Ah, those things of course aren’t essential and whilst they may outwardly dominate the movement, they’re not what make up its innards.

What does make up its innards? Please, explain. What is a “traditionalist”.

 

[vardaquinn]

Hey now back up a little bit. You said the catechism is wrong? Is there a authoritative Church document stating that this passage was incorrect in the Baltimore Catechism?

No but there are authoritative Church documents, more authoritative then the Baltimore Catechism, that state things to the contrary. And it is simply an indefensible claim. Signs and wonders occur all the time, and have through out history.

 

[jmj1984]

You seem to think this is in opposition to what we are saying. This is a straw man argument. Of course, absolutely, discernment is 100% necessary. But the charismatic gifts are not interior locutions, though that may be a vehicle by which they are given.

And yet the charasmatic movement is renowned for its failure to discern spirits and is born out of a protestant movement likewise renowned for its failure to discern spirits.

That’s stupid. They’re not in opposition. These are tools to seeking virtues. Why do you Paul’s whole section on love is smack dab in the middle of his section on charisms?

St. Vincent Ferrer is then being hypocritical, since he was quite the miracle worker himself, and is known to have had the gift of tongues.

So now you’re calling saints stupid and a hypocrite And no, the gift of tongues as its known today hasnt been displayed by Catholic saints probably since the age of the apostles if ever. Its arguable if tongues means talking gibberish or whether it means talking in the tongues of men.

He does not say they will no longer occur. If he does, he is wrong. It is occurring now. St. Augustine recanted his position, as we have shown, on claiming the “age of miracles” and extraordinary gifts were over. Nice of you to quote him, but ignore his retractions.

Yep, another doctor of the church is wrong as well and now you see why I have a problem with the charasmatic movement. And no you haven’t shown it whereas Augustine mentions miracles in his later recantation he makes no explicit mention of Glossolia as he did before so its stretching it to say he recanted this as well. His argument is also as a whole sound, whereas he does not oppose individual miracles being performed he does believe that these extraordinary gifts are no longer required.

Plenty of other saints have encouraged the seeking of miracles, and being open to them, and God using you for them. But more importantly: The Bible says this.

Your quotes are merely straw man arguments.

Actually no saints have encouraged them in the way the charasmatic movement has, certainly no saint has encouraged healing services they were all too humble. So they’re only straw man arguments if your mind is so ‘lost’ in the charasmatic doctrine that you can longer even understand clear writings against it.

 

[jmj1984]

No but there are authoritative Church documents, more authoritative then the Baltimore Catechism, that state things to the contrary. And it is simply an indefensible claim. Signs and wonders occur all the time, and have through out history.

These documents being?