Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

Seems the CCR is bearing many good fruits to be of the devil!

EVANGELISATION
ALSO KNOWN AS ICPE Mission
ESTABLISHED 1985
HISTORY ICPE Mission was founded in Malta by Mario and Anna Cappello, supported by the leaders and members of the Glory of God International Covenant Community, a Catholic Charismatic Renewal community, of which it aims to be the missionary outreach. After receiving canonical recognition from the Archbishop of Malta in 1992, across the years the Institute has set up community centres in various countries, made up of missionaries of varying nationalities who have given up their own professional commitments and, by trusting themselves to Providence, dedicate themselves to a life of prayer and evangelisation. On 19 May 2002, the Pontifical Council for the Laity decreed recognition of the Institute for World Evangelisation-ICPE Mission to be an international association of the faithful of Pontifical Right.

As St Thomas Aquinas says

'**Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (Question 83, Article 16) when we were treating of prayer, the prayer of impetration relies not on merit but on God’s mercy, which extends even to the wicked, wherefore the prayers even of sinners are sometimes granted by God. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xliv in Joan.) that “the blind man spoke these words before he was anointed,” that is, before he was perfectly enlightened; “since God does hear sinners.” When it is said that the prayer of one who hears not the law is an abomination, this must be understood so far as the sinner’s merit is concerned; yet it is sometimes granted, either for the spiritual welfare of the one who prays–as the publican was heard (Luke 18:1)4)–or for the good of others and for God’s glory.

Reply to Objection 2. Faith without works is said to be dead, as regards the believer, who lives not, by faith, with the life of grace. But nothing hinders a living thing from working through a dead instrument, as a man through a stick. It is thus that God works while employing instrumentally the faith of a sinner.

Reply to Objection 3. Miracles are always true witnesses to the purpose for which they are wrought. Hence wicked men who teach a false doctrine never work true miracles in confirmation of their teaching, although sometimes they may do so in praise of Christ’s name which they invoke, and by the power of the sacraments which they administer. If they teach a true doctrine, sometimes they work true miracles as confirming their teaching, but not as an attestation of holiness. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 79): “Magicians work miracles in one way, good Christians in another, wicked Christians in another. Magicians by private compact with the demons, good Christians by their manifest righteousness, evil Christians by the outward signs of righteousness.”**

 

[Warrenton]

We can discuss the scriptural antecedents for tongues. What do you think the modern form of tongues is?

 

[Warrenton]

And? That could mean any number of things, they were too busy to deal with it, they saw prudentially it was alright to let it grow for a while. Besides the fundamental criticism remains, a lack of support of catholic tradition and for this reason the movement will always be suspect.

Good morning, J. This is correct, and I strongly expect that the tolerance afforded Charismatic action was prompted in large part by the realization that large numbers of Latin Americans, particularly in strongly Indian areas, enjoy this kind of worship alot. They like enough to leave the Catholic Church if its not offered.

Which is better - to lose them entirely, or permit the practice and maintain them in the larger embrace of the faith? Clearly, in the modern age, the latter, which is what they did.

As one who is “attached to some previous liturgical discipline,” I don’t think for a New York minute that most of the bishops and clergy actually believe that the TLM is better, or even good. They probably believe the opposite, and wish people like you and me would fall into line with their thinking. But, armed with proper permission from Rome, we merrily attend the old mass, clad in black suits and carrying our missals. If some don’t like it, tough. They can gripe about it here!

The sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and determining what remains in the mainstream of Catholicism is ultimately decided by what the faithful desire, which in turn is determined by the faith shown by the practitioners, and of course the quality of the debate.

Cheers!

 

[jmj1984]

Good morning, J. This is correct, and I strongly expect that the tolerance afforded Charismatic action was prompted in large part by the realization that large numbers of Latin Americans, particularly in strongly Indian areas, enjoy this kind of worship alot. They like enough to leave the Catholic Church if its not offered.

Which is better - to lose them entirely, or permit the practice and maintain them in the larger embrace of the faith? Clearly, in the modern age, the latter, which is what they did.

As one who is “attached to some previous liturgical discipline,” I don’t think for a New York minute that most of the bishops and clergy actually believe that the TLM is better, or even good. They probably believe the opposite, and wish people like you and me would fall into line with their thinking. But, armed with proper permission from Rome, we merrily attend the old mass, clad in black suits and carrying our missals. If some don’t like it, tough. They can gripe about it here!

The sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and determining what remains in the mainstream of Catholicism is ultimately decided by what the faithful desire, which in turn is determined by the faith shown by the practitioners, and of course the quality of the debate.

Cheers!

This is partly true, there was a massive growth in the pentecostal movement in the 70’s and 80’s and the church responded by approving the charasmatic movement, of course this hasn’t had the effect they expected and re-catholicised latin america.

As for what remains in the mainstream, I think to a large part its down to the sensus fidem (i.e the faith of the laity) but its also down to what the catholic tradition is, separating oneself from the Tradition of the church and even at times from its traditions is suicide.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ AntiqueCatholic: I think you are going off of many misconceptions. I hope, if I can achieve anything in this thread, I can at least break many misconceptions.

You claim that the charismatic movement is:

After nearly 2000 years the Church now needs a movement which began in Protestantism: the non-sacramental seeking after mystical effects in a group setting, by amateurs?

Which is not what the charismatic movement is. There have been many charismatic movements throughout church history. Unfortunately, many of them have indeed been Protestant or heretical. But a good number have occurred within the Catholic Church, such as the early beginnings of the Fransiscans and Dominicans, and in fact many religious orders. This movement does not come from Protestantism. It is part of the Catholic faith, and that is where the Protestants get it. The Protestant movement came from us.

It is not a “non-sacramental seeking after mystical effects”. It is based off of at least the two sacraments of baptism and confirmation, and seeking to live up to the grace given in those sacraments. It is not seeking after mystical effects. It is seeking after charisms, which through out church history have unfortunately been simply lumped in and confused with mystical effects. Mystical effects are often extraordinary, but they certainly do occur. The charisms, however, are meant to be part of the ordinary Christian life.

There has been a false attitude that not all are called to be saints. This was one of the major things corrected by Vatican II. All are called to sanctity - all. Not just the clergy, or religious, or contemplatives - all the baptized have a vocation to be a saint. The fact that the saints through history manifested these charisms shows us that this is indeed part of the traditional ordinary Christian life.

The phrase “Be still, and know” actually is something that has resounded in my own prayer life when it has been associated with the charismatic movement. At all charismatic events I have gone to, which are admittedly limited, God has given me this special grace of “being still, and simply knowing that He is God.”

 

[jmj1984]

Which is not what the charismatic movement is. There have been many charismatic movements throughout church history. Unfortunately, many of them have indeed been Protestant or heretical. But a good number have occurred within the Catholic Church, such as the early beginnings of the Fransiscans and Dominicans, and in fact many religious orders. This movement does not come from Protestantism. It is part of the Catholic faith, and that is where the Protestants get it. The Protestant movement came from us.

And yet the parallels between the charasmatic movement and those religious orders is… non existent, in fact the only thing it has paralells with are several heretical movements.

 

[vardaquinn]

The jesuits openly tout that the point of ecumenicism is not to convert people, they’re approved by The Holy See and yet that view has been condemned by numerous popes. Approval from The Holy See means merely an approval of a groups constitutions or in ther older days the rule. It in no way constitutes an approval of their actions.

Ecumenism would be an interesting discussion to have. I am sure your views would be in conflict with the current attitude of the Magisterium. I have found that most with a “traditionalist” mentality don’t use their common sense when it comes to Protestants. Or charity.

As I said above approval means nothing more than an approval of the constitutions, not an approval of the movement as a whole. Besides which the movement still lacks support from catholic tradition and always will do, so no matter how many popes approve it this criticism will remain true.

Your claim is unfounded that it lacks support from catholic tradition. It certainly has immense support from Catholic Tradition. It may lack support from human traditions in the Church. But human traditions are not necessarily a good thing. It does have a lot of support from Tradition, one of the means through which Revelation is transmitted. As I have already shown you. Enough of the bare assertions, my friend.

No, its a tongue of man not some weird tongue that someone can decipher, a tongue of man, a human language

Yes, speaking in tongues is, for all we know, generally a human language. It is likely that Paul’s “If I speak in the tongues of men or angels” is a literary device, but Catholic charismatics consider what they are speaking to be some real genuine language.

From a quote from Aquinas you posted:

Miracles are always true witnesses to the purpose for which they are wrought. Hence wicked men who teach a false doctrine never work true miracles in confirmation of their teaching, although sometimes they may do so in praise of Christ’s name which they invoke, and by the power of the sacraments which they administer.

Precisely. Pentecostals, by invoking the name of Jesus, and by the sacraments they administer (i.e. baptism) may work miracles.

 

[jmj1984]

For the last time, it did not come from Protestantism. Yes, it may be that many charismatics do not practice proper discernment. But in any case, your argument remains a straw man.

Are you disputing the historical facts? Because I quoted a source that clearly shows the movement comes from protestants and no sorry if many charasmatics don’t practice proper discernment -as is well known- its hardly a strawman argument.

I am not calling him stupid, and I am simply casting a dubious light on your source there, since St. Vincent Ferrer himself was such a renowned miracle worker. Tongues does not mean talking gibberish, and nobody here except you are claiming that.

So we’re all agreed its the tongues of men? And yes that is what makes his claim all the more striking, you can call it dubious all you want it doesn’t change the facts.

What do you think the sacrament of anointing of the sick is supposed to do? There’s a whole sacrament, which has a partial role of miraculously healing the sick person if it is the will of God.

The sacrament of Holy Unction is applied by a priest when a person falls seriously ill, it is further an individual thing and a sacrament. Healing services on the other hand are often not for serious illnesses at all, applied en masse as part of a service and often not by priests nor is it a sacrament. So comparing the two is absurd.

These gifts aren’t required, but they’re certainly helpful, and the cases of some individuals, they simply will not believe until they see a miracle. coughSt.Thomascough*.

Again you just don’t seem to get it. No one is disputing that miracles occur, what people are disputing is whether people should en masses be performing miracles, organising services for the sheer point of miracles, believing that they are only saved if they can speak on tongues or perform miracles or believing what someone says because of miracles, as well as actively seeking after the power to perform miracles.

Whereas the Angelic Doctor, The Doctor of the Universal Church, St Thomas Aquinas, clearly condemns this as you would know if you had read his section on it which I posted earlier and in which he says inter alia '**Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (Question 83, Article 16) when we were treating of prayer, the prayer of impetration relies not on merit but on God’s mercy, which extends even to the wicked, wherefore the prayers even of sinners are sometimes granted by God. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xliv in Joan.) that “the blind man spoke these words before he was anointed,” that is, before he was perfectly enlightened; “since God does hear sinners.” When it is said that the prayer of one who hears not the law is an abomination, this must be understood so far as the sinner’s merit is concerned; yet it is sometimes granted, either for the spiritual welfare of the one who prays–as the publican was heard (Luke 18:1)4)–or for the good of others and for God’s glory.

Reply to Objection 2. Faith without works is said to be dead, as regards the believer, who lives not, by faith, with the life of grace. But nothing hinders a living thing from working through a dead instrument, as a man through a stick. It is thus that God works while employing instrumentally the faith of a sinner.

Reply to Objection 3. Miracles are always true witnesses to the purpose for which they are wrought. Hence wicked men who teach a false doctrine never work true miracles in confirmation of their teaching, although sometimes they may do so in praise of Christ’s name which they invoke, and by the power of the sacraments which they administer. If they teach a true doctrine, sometimes they work true miracles as confirming their teaching, but not as an attestation of holiness. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 79): “Magicians work miracles in one way, good Christians in another, wicked Christians in another. Magicians by private compact with the demons, good Christians by their manifest righteousness, evil Christians by the outward signs of righteousness.”
Reply With Quote**’

 

[vardaquinn]

I expect that the modern form of tongues is an emotional response to the power of suggestion. Rather like girls passing out at Beatles concerts, although the analogy trivializes the experience, which I do not intend to do. My point is that the modern form of tongues is a psychological thing, not a miracle.

That’s not very descriptive. “It’s a psychological thing”. My experience of tongues has never been in the least emotional. When I received tongues, I was not emotionally hyped up. It was not at a loud “concert”. It was not a consequence of being hyped up. It was myself, and two other boys, praying quietly outside at night under the stars.

That being said, then the Apostles’ were simply hyped up on Pentecost. After all, they were considered “drunk”.

I am leery of drawing parallels to the religious experiences of the great saints. What happened to St. Catherine, or St. Francis was unique, because they were unique. St. Francis Xavier was said to have spoken in a tongue that was understood by certain Asian people, even though he did not know how to speak their language. St. Anthony was said to be intelligible by the fish of the sea. These were miracles, flowing from their sanctity.

You misunderstand the point of tongues, then. Or how things work in the kingdom of God. Saints aren’t given extraordinary miracles because they were already so holy, and God was “rewarding their holiness”. They weren’t unique. They were common, ordinary people with the same extraordinary call as you have: holiness. They were unique, because they responded to that call. They were open to whatever God wanted to do in them. The miracles were performed by God, not by the saints. They were simply his instruments. Their sanctity helped matters, but the miracles themselves are not always a sign of great personal sanctity. That is firmly established in the spiritual tradition of the Church.

Tongues, and the charisms, are meant to be tools for achieving greater sanctity. Not awards for outstanding holiness. That’s not how God works.

I’m not protesting anything. The Reformers refused to assent to fundamental aspects of doctrine regarding the sacraments, and they moved against the institutional framework of the Church by dispossessing her of property, persons, chattels. Modern Protestants either agree with the Reformers doctrinal positions, or assent to their political acts in a greater or lesser degree.

But according to the Church, the charismatic dimension is a fundamental aspect of the Church’s life.

But this is a fruitless argument. I have shown you what the Popes have said. You disagree. Whether or not you have grounds to disagree with them, let us instead try and establish whether or not the Popes were right.

Which is better - to lose them entirely, or permit the practice and maintain them in the larger embrace of the faith? Clearly, in the modern age, the latter, which is what they did.

I believe it is the other way around.

The sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and determining what remains in the mainstream of Catholicism is ultimately decided by what the faithful desire, which in turn is determined by the faith shown by the practitioners, and of course the quality of the debate.

In which case, the charismatic movement has a lot of hope, given that it is already something that is fast becoming a gigantic part of mainstream Catholicism.

 

[jmj1984]

Ecumenism would be an interesting discussion to have. I am sure your views would be in conflict with the current attitude of the Magisterium. I have found that most with a “traditionalist” mentality don’t use their common sense when it comes to Protestants. Or charity.

And I am sure your views would be in conflict with the last 1,900 years of church Tradition and tradition, as for your other comment I’m going to ignore it because anyone who has read anything the saints have said on non-catholic could not make such a statement without realising how utterly absurd it is. Besides seeing as half my friends are protestants and my family, your argument and comment is frankly foolish.

Your claim is unfounded that it lacks support from catholic tradition. It certainly has immense support from Catholic Tradition. It may lack support from human traditions in the Church. But human traditions are not necessarily a good thing. It does have a lot of support from Tradition, one of the means through which Revelation is transmitted. As I have already shown you. Enough of the bare assertions, my friend.

Actually you havent shown any support from Catholic Tradition, so where you got that idea from I don’t know

As for using the bible, that doesn’t cut it, it can be interpreted and indeed has been any which way, it is how the church interprets it that matters and as the Tradition does this and you can’t find any support for it in this tradition, thats a problem.

Yes, speaking in tongues is, for all we know, generally a human language. It is likely that Paul’s “If I speak in the tongues of men or angels” is a literary device, but Catholic charismatics consider what they are speaking to be some real genuine language.

From a quote from Aquinas you posted:

Precisely. Pentecostals, by invoking the name of Jesus, and by the sacraments they administer (i.e. baptism) may work miracles.

And you conveniantly ignore the rest where St thomas Aquinas states clearly that these are nothing but the miracles of demons or delusions and rather than proving the veracity of the message they speak, condemn them. Please read statements in context and full when dealing with the intelectual and theological genius of St Thomas Aquinas this isn’t optional, its compulsory.

 

[Warrenton]

This is partly true, there was a massive growth in the pentecostal movement in the 70’s and 80’s and the church responded by approving the charasmatic movement, of course this hasn’t had the effect they expected and re-catholicised latin america.

That, sadly, has proved to be the case. I am not really qualified to say whether permitting Charismatic activity has helped or hindered the cause in Latin America. My sense is that it has perhaps retarded the loss of faithful somewhat, judging from the Latin American immigrants who live where I do.

As for what remains in the mainstream, I think to a large part its down to the sensus fidem (i.e the faith of the laity) but its also down to what the catholic tradition is, separating oneself from the Tradition of the church and even at times from its traditions is suicide

I agree with this position. I will give an example. It was the tradition of the Church for a thousand years to erect a rood between the nave and the apse of the church. This tradition has been suppressed, in my view wrongfully. The laity know, and have always known, that what happens at the altar is sacred. The rood reinforces the faith and the understanding of the laity, thus it remained in the mainstream for century after century. Eventually, I think it will return. Other things are permissible, but not traditions. An example are patriotic rosary recitations. Nothing wrong with it, but the practice does not reinforce any particularly Catholic understanding, and thus will not survive the passage of time and become a tradition.

 

[vardaquinn]

The sacrament of Holy Unction is applied by a priest when a person falls seriously ill, it is further an individual thing and a sacrament. Healing services on the other hand are often not for serious illnesses at all, applied en masse as part of a service and often not by priests nor is it a sacrament. So comparing the two is absurd.

I have seen times when the sacrament of annointing of the sick was given to a large group of people, in a non-charismatic setting.

Are you seriously against having the sick come together to be prayed with for healing? I am absolutely boggled why you should be against this. If it’s because “it’s against tradition” because “nothing like this has ever been done before”, then you really are operating under a very wrong mentality. We don’t do things just because someone (preferably someone canonized) did them before. Use some common sense. What is WRONG with a healing service? Nothing at all.

Again you just don’t seem to get it. No one is disputing that miracles occur, what people are disputing is whether people should en masses be performing miracles, organising services for the sheer point of miracles, believing that they are only saved if they can speak on tongues or perform miracles or believing what someone says because of miracles, as well as actively seeking after the power to perform miracles.

This is something for you to take up with the Holy Spirit. He is the worker of miracles, not men. If you believe sincerely that working miracles in assemblies of people is wrong, then take it up with Him. He calls the shots, not us.

I think you are ignoring something very important. The communal aspect of our religion. Remember “where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am present in their midst”?

Use some common sense.

Nobody, except perhaps Pentecostals, are saying you must speak in tongues and work miracles to be saved. Another straw man.

None of those quotes from Aquinas condemn the charismatic movement in any way, shape or form. Another straw man. Did you actually even read those quotes?

As stated above (Question 83, Article 16) when we were treating of prayer, the prayer of impetration relies not on merit but on God’s mercy, which extends even to the wicked, wherefore the prayers even of sinners are sometimes granted by God.

I should hope the prayers of sinners are sometimes granted by God. Because otherwise, only Mary, Jesus, and the angels would have their prayers answered. We’re all sinners here. That’s the point.

Faith without works is said to be dead, as regards the believer, who lives not, by faith, with the life of grace. But nothing hinders a living thing from working through a dead instrument, as a man through a stick. It is thus that God works while employing instrumentally the faith of a sinner.

God is bigger than our own failings. If He wants to work miracles, He’s not going to wait until someone who has reached the highest degree of perfection comes along. He’ll use what’s there.

although sometimes they may do so in praise of Christ’s name which they invoke, and by the power of the sacraments which they administer

Hence, Protestants can be instruments for miracles, through the name of Jesus, and the power of their baptism.

These quotes from Aquinas damage your own argument.

 

[vardaquinn]

As for using the bible, that doesn’t cut it, it can be interpreted and indeed has been any which way, it is how the church interprets it that matters and as the Tradition does this and you can’t find any support for it in this tradition, thats a problem.

Most fortunately, we have a Church which interprets the Bible. And I have shown you their interpretation. That’s not to say individuals, through using their own common sense, can possibly come to understanding of what it says. If that weren’t the case, then I hardly see why there is a Bible in the first place.

And you conveniantly ignore the rest where St thomas Aquinas states clearly that these are nothing but the miracles of demons or delusions and rather than proving the veracity of the message they speak, condemn them. Please read statements in context and full when dealing with the intelectual and theological genius of St Thomas Aquinas this isn’t optional, its compulsory.

He does not say that, or even imply it. He says magicians may work miracles through demons.

Newsflash: we are all “wicked Christians”. There were only two Christians who weren’t sinners: Mary and Jesus.

You’re not even reading what Aquinas is saying yourself.

 

[vardaquinn]

The laity know, and have always known, that what happens at the altar is sacred. The rood reinforces the faith and the understanding of the laity, thus it remained in the mainstream for century after century. Eventually, I think it will return. Other things are permissible, but not traditions.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don’t have anything against the rood, but it wasn’t really in church tradition for a very long time. It is rather, a custom that serves as a symbol of the reality of the sacrament. But I see other reasons against the use as well - such as the full, active, conscious participation of the laity there.

 

[Warrenton]

That’s not very descriptive. “It’s a psychological thing”. My experience of tongues has never been in the least emotional. When I received tongues, I was not emotionally hyped up. It was not at a loud “concert”. It was not a consequence of being hyped up. It was myself, and two other boys, praying quietly outside at night under the stars.

There is a difference between being excited and being emotional. Someone in a trance is reacts to emotional suggestion, but appears sedate. I am not saying that speaking in tongues is a type of hyperactivity.

the Apostles’ were simply hyped up on Pentecost. After all, they were considered “drunk”.

What happened to the Apostles was a miracle. They spoke in languages that they had never previously learned and the sojourners in Jerusalem were able to understand them. As to their excitement, that was a product of the unusual event that they had experienced. It was written down because it was unusual.

Saints aren’t given extraordinary miracles because they were already so holy, and God was “rewarding their holiness”. They weren’t unique. They were common, ordinary people with the same extraordinary call as you have: holiness. They were unique, because they responded to that call.

I don’t disagree with this statement, but question whether miracles can be reduced to an “if, then” kind of analysis. There are many kinds.

But according to the Church, the charismatic dimension is a fundamental aspect of the Church’s life.

If we are addressing speaking in tongues specifically, then I am not sure this is accurate.
“Charism” is a word that has been forced to carry a lot of baggage over the past 40 years. I thought we were limiting our discussion to tongues in particular. I am not sure that we can say speaking in tongues is a fundamental aspect of the Church’s life. If we did, we would be blurring the distinction between a pious practice and a sacrament.

I believe it is the other way around.

Latter = the last one. What I meant was it was probably better to permit speaking in tongues, to prevent people from leaving the Church for communities where they could speak in tongues without censure.

In which case, the charismatic movement has a lot of hope, given that it is already something that is fast becoming a gigantic part of mainstream Catholicism.

Time will tell. It may, or it may not. This is a conclusion that I do not make because I do not have to make it.

 

[Warrenton]

such as the full, active, conscious participation of the laity there.

What does this mean?

 

[stevusmagnus]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm

**From Pentecostalism to Apostasy **

by John Vennari

The Council of Trent defined dogmatically that without the Catholic Faith, “it is impossible to please God.” [1] The Catholic Church also defined ex cathedra that there is only one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. [2]

Pope Leo XIII, elaborating on this point, taught, “since no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God . . . we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will . . . It cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion if it only be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking . . . From all these [proofs] it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and propagate.” [3]

From these sources, and from countless other magisterial teachings, it is clear that the only religion positively willed by God is the religion established by Christ Himself, the Catholic
Church.

Yet, at the Vatican’s Good Friday Liturgy, 2002, the Preacher to the Papal Household, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, said the other religions “are not merely tolerated by God-----but positively willed by Him as an expression of the inexhaustible richness of His grace and His will for everyone to be saved.” [4]

This, in short, is apostasy.

Saint John, the Apostle of Love, said, “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” [1 John 1: 22] Thus, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, any religion that rejects Christ, according to Scripture, is an Antichrist religion.

Regarding heretical religions, for example, “Orthodoxy” and Protestantism, Saint Paul tells us that false creeds are the “doctrines of devils.” [1 Tim. 4: 1]

How, then, can Antichrist religions, and false creeds of heretics which are “doctrines of devils,” be regarded as “not merely tolerated by God but positively willed by Him . . .”? This would mean that God positively wills religions to exist that teach Jesus Christ is not God and the Savior of mankind [as do non-Christian religions]. It means that God positively wills religions to exist, such as Protestantism, that teach Christ did not establish the Church, did not establish the Holy Eucharist, did not establish the Sacraments. It also means that those Protestant sects that hold devotion to Our Blessed Mother in abhorrence are positively willed by God. This, despite the fact that Our Lady of Fatima asked for the Five First Saturdays of reparation for the blasphemies against her Immaculate Heart that are the fruit of these false religions.

In short, Father Cantalamessa’s sermon means that God positively wills error. God positively wills lies. God positively wills evil. Our Lord certainly permits evil, for He does not interfere with the free will of man. But it is blasphemy to claim that God wills it, since God cannot will that which is not good.

Is Jesus Full of Pride?

Father Cantalamessa’s blasphemy does not end here. He also claimed that God is “humble in saving,” and the Church should follow suit. “Christ is more concerned that all people should be saved than that they should know who is their Savior,” he told a large congregation at Saint Peter’s Basilica, which included Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials.

It might sound sweet, but Father Cantalamessa is indirectly accusing Jesus Christ of pride. When he says, “Christ is more concerned that all people should be saved than that they should know who is their Savior,” this is a pious snub to the pre-Vatican II teaching of 2000 years that holds it necessary for the soul to KNOW, love and serve Christ in this world if he wishes to be happy with Him forever in the next. Father Cantalamessa is thus advocating the heterodox teaching of Father Karl Rahner on the’ “anonymous Christian.”

In fact, only 50 years ago, if a 7-year-old student in Catholic school mouthed Father Cantalamessa’s novel doctrine, he would have been deemed unfit to receive First Holy Communion. Now, 40 years into Vatican II’s “New Springtime,” this apostasy is preached on Good Friday at the Vatican by the Preacher to the Papal Household.

This episode also reveals one of the many disadvantages of the Internet. News of Father Cantalamessa’s homily was broadcast around the world via the Internet to thousands of Catholics who would have never otherwise heard it. The result is that many Catholics assume the Capuchin’s words delivered in Saint Peter’s somehow approach the level of magisterial teaching. This is not true. Father Cantalamessa’s Good Friday address is simply another homily filled with errors delivered by a Charismatic. It is that and nothing more.

Pentecostal Papal Preacher

Who is Father Raniero Cantalamessa?

To learn his story, we must go back to the 1977 pan-denominational Charismatic Conference held at a football stadium in Kansas City, Missouri. This conference was attended by 50,000 people from at least 10 different denominations including: Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Messianic Jews, non-denominational “Christians,” Pentecostals and United Methodists. [5]

At one point, Protestant Bob Mumford was preaching to the 50,000. Mumford lifted up his Bible and said, “And if you sneak a peak at the end of the book, JESUS WINS!” This sent the crowd into pandemonium. The entire football stadium suddenly erupted into an extended cheering, “praise-frenzy” that lasted about 17 minutes.

 

[Denise1957]

That’s not very descriptive. “It’s a psychological thing”. My experience of tongues has never been in the least emotional. When I received tongues, I was not emotionally hyped up. It was not at a loud “concert”. It was not a consequence of being hyped up. It was myself, and two other boys, praying quietly outside at night under the stars.

That being said, then the Apostles’ were simply hyped up on Pentecost. After all, they were considered “drunk”.

You misunderstand the point of tongues, then. Or how things work in the kingdom of God. Saints aren’t given extraordinary miracles because they were already so holy, and God was “rewarding their holiness”. They weren’t unique. They were common, ordinary people with the same extraordinary call as you have: holiness. They were unique, because they responded to that call. They were open to whatever God wanted to do in them. The miracles were performed by God, not by the saints. They were simply his instruments. Their sanctity helped matters, but the miracles themselves are not always a sign of great personal sanctity. That is firmly established in the spiritual tradition of the Church.

Tongues, and the charisms, are meant to be tools for achieving greater sanctity. Not awards for outstanding holiness. That’s not how God works.

But according to the Church, the charismatic dimension is a fundamental aspect of the Church’s life.

But this is a fruitless argument. I have shown you what the Popes have said. You disagree. Whether or not you have grounds to disagree with them, let us instead try and establish whether or not the Popes were right.

I believe it is the other way around.

In which case, the charismatic movement has a lot of hope, given that it is already something that is fast becoming a gigantic part of mainstream Catholicism.

Vardaquinn, you mention above that tongues and charisms are meant to be tools for achieving greater sanctity. But it’s been pointed out to you many times that the extraordinary gifts do not sanctify, according to Church teaching. It is the ordinary gifts that sanctify. But I’m chalking up your inability to understand this to your extreme youth (given that you’re only sixteen years old).

I hope that you will try to understand that Catholics here who have been practicing the faith for many decades do know a thing or two about Catholicism. I’m fairly new to Catholicism. But most of the Catholics here are not.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Charismatics call this “The Holy Ghost Breakdown.” They interpret this ,natural, pep-rally enthusiasm as the Holy Spirit moving through the crowd, uniting the crowd [containing Catholics and members of various denominations] and inspiring this raving jubilation. This, according to them, is the “breaking down of denominational walls” that is positively willed by the Holy Spirit, even though it defies 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the one true Church of Christ. It also defies the traditional Catholic teaching that forbids Catholics to engage in positive religious camaraderie with false religions. [6]

Nevertheless, at the Kansas City conference, there was a Capuchin priest named Father Raniero Cantalamessa who had come from Milan to investigate the Charismatic Movement. He was so impressed with this rootin’ tootin’ praise frenzy that he became, in charismatic lingo, an “anointed preacher of the Charismatic Renewal.” [7]

In 1980, this same Father Cantalamessa was appointed by Pope John Paul II as Preacher to the Papal Household. Now, this “anointed preacher” is given a pulpit in St. Peter’s basilica on Good Friday to tell the world that God positively wills false religions.

No wonder another Papal theologian, Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who had access to the complete Third Secret of Fatima, said, “In the Third Secret is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” [8]

Error is not a Gift of the Holy Ghost

Father Cantalamessa’s Good Friday sermon is one of many powerful illustrations that the Charismatic Movement is not truly of God. Charismatics claim, either directly or indirectly, that they have a special hotline to the Holy Ghost that other Christians do not possess. They claim to be especially filled with the Spirit! But if a Catholic is “filled with the Spirit,” it should be evident from his words and actions that he is filled with the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

One of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost is The Gift of Understanding, which gives the soul a deeper understanding of revealed truths. Father Adolph Tanquerey defines it as “a gift which, under the enlightening action of the Holy Ghost, gives us a deep insight into revealed truths, without however giving a comprehension of the mysteries themselves.” [9]

The effect of the Gift of Understanding is that it enables us to penetrate into the very core of revealed truths and gives us a deeper grasp of them. Yet Charismatics, who continually boast of being “filled to overflowing with the spirit,” constantly spout religious errors. [10] Far from possessing the Gift of Understanding, they appear to be bereft of even the most fundamental truths of the Catholic Faith.

In fact, as has been mentioned previously in CFN, the entire Charismatic Movement in the Catholic Church was founded on an objective mortal sin against Faith.

In 1967, a group of Catholics in Pittsburgh attended a Protestant Pentecostal gathering. The Protestants, who as members of a heretical religion possess no Sacramental power, laid hands on the Catholics. These Catholics began babbling in “tongues” and claimed to be “filled to overflowing with the Spirit” as a result.

The actions of these Catholics defy the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was in force until 1983. Canon 1258 states, “It is absolutely not licit for the faithful either to actively assist at or to take part in non-Catholic ceremonies.” Yet according to Charismatics, Catholics will be rewarded with a special influx of Holy Spirit if they thus violate Church law.

Further, seeking holiness from members of non-Catholic sects defies Catholic teaching that neither salvation nor sanctity [holiness] is found in non-Catholic religions. Pope Pius XII restated this doctrine within the context of a prayer to the Blessed Virgin:

“O Mary, Mother of Mercy and Seat of Wisdom! Enlighten the minds enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found.” [11]

By contrast, “Catholic Pentecostalism,” in the words of its prize preacher, claims that non-Catholic religions wherein “neither sanctity nor salvation can be found,” are posItively willed by God.

Here we see one of the many ways in which “Catholic Pentecostalism” leads to apostasy.

 

[Melchior_1]

“who had access to the complete Third Secret of Fatima”

I see, the author is one of “those” people. One of the “remnant”, perhaps?

So the papal preacher is a heretic. Good to know!