Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

What does this mean?

The laity actively participating in the liturgy, besides just sitting/standing/kneeling and going to communion. Saying responses, knowing what’s going on, etc.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

I am praying in tongues, right now, as I am typing this. I am a bit fatigued, and hungry, but otherwise not emotional at all. Not immensely hyper and excited, and not emotionally moved. I don’t control the words, only when I start and stop.

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.

Well, you know, it really shouldn’t be unusual. Aspects of how they experienced Pentecost may be unique, but Pentecost itself is for all of us. Not just for the Apostles. Yes it was miraculous. It was written down not so much because it was unusual, but rather because it was one of the most important events that ever happened in the entire history of the world.

In fact, you never notice St. Luke say in Acts: LOOK!!! GOD ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING!!! or LOOK!!! GOD ACTUALLY SPOKE TO SOMEONE!!! No. He describes all the events in Acts as though they are perfectly normal in the experience of the disciples. Which they were. Which they should be in ours.

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.

I agree with you there.

f 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 have not been addressing tongues specifically, but all the charisms (of which tongues is a part). Speaking in tongues may not be a fundamental aspect of the Church’s life, but the charisms in general and their use certainly are.

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.

Well, especially given that the Bible says “Do not forbid speaking in tongues”… yeah. Give it some time. I will bet you a substantial amount of money that the charisms (especially tongues and prophecy) will be reincorporated into the liturgy on a large scale. Though it might not be in our life time.

Thank you for your articulate and reasonable comments.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

Ah, now that’s perhaps not the best way of putting it, but it is not apostasy. Fr. Cantelamessa is using his head. In a perfect world, the only Christians would be Catholics. And the Catholics would fully live up to their religion. But… this isn’t a perfect world. So God has to make do with human failings.

Which would God prefer, do you think. Someone to be Catholic, but because of the state of affairs of where he is, to really not have any faith beyond an intellectual assent to various ideas, and not to have a relationship with Him? Or someone to be non-Catholic, but to have a genuine faith and real relationship with Him - though not the full truth of doctrine.

Be assured: God brings a better good out of a bad. God’s power is made perfect in weakness. Our weakness provide the opportunity for the incredible mercy of God. God is bigger than human failure. The failure of Christendom to stay united, in the long run, will work better to God’s advantage than if it hadn’t. Because that’s how He works.

Fr. Cantalemessa’s statement shows that God ultimately has a plan, and is not simply sitting by while we make a mess of things. He incorporates human failure into His plan.

Obviously Pope Benedict doesn’t considered him to be a heretical apostate. And statements have been made by Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI on ecumenism that have led to immense conflict to which some (particularly schismatic traditionalists) have accused them of outright heresy.

That article cleverly plays the game of “Oh look, he said this - HERETIC so it’s all bad, evil, demonic and from the anti-Christ!!!” without even really examining what he says in the light of sound reasoning. Rather like the Fundamentalists, most ironically.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

Except… the Church says:

It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, "allotting his gifts to everyone according as He wills,(114) He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit”.(115) These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. (Lumen gentium 12).

It is both gifts that sancity. Whether the more outstanding, or the more simple and widely diffused. If they are not given to make us holier, than what is the point? Why would God give them?

And, I’ll have you know, I am now 17. And don’t make an ad hominem attack. My age is of no importance. Either what I am saying is true, or it is not.

I should hope they do know a thing or two! But unfortunately there’s such immense ignorance on the charisms.

 

[vardaquinn]

n 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.

This is untrue. The Catholic in Pittsburgh attended a Catholic retreat. Some were prayed over by other Catholics, and it is true that a charismatic Anglican couple gave a talk there. This author’s information is flawed, and he is trying to be reactionary.

His claim that Protestants are members of a heretical religion that possess to sacramental power is false. Protestants have a valid baptism (given that it is with water, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). That’s sacramental power.

This author I think would like to believe that Protestants are not even Christian. Though, it is unfortunate, I am sure many Protestants are more Christian in their daily lives than he is.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

No you haven’t, primarily because there is no authoratative document supporting the movement.

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.

Let us see what The Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas says before pronouncing that I’m not reading it shall we?

'**Objection 3. Further, miracles are divine attestations, according to Hebrews 2:4, “God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles”: wherefore in the Church the canonization of certain persons is based on the attestation of miracles. Now God cannot bear witness to a falsehood. Therefore it would seem that wicked men cannot work miracles. ** and then in reply to the objection '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."

Now heresy is falsehood, so what St Thomas Aquias is saying clearly applies to heretics, indeed it is meant to apply to heretics.

 

[jmj1984]

This is untrue. The Catholic in Pittsburgh attended a Catholic retreat. Some were prayed over by other Catholics, and it is true that a charismatic Anglican couple gave a talk there. This author’s information is flawed, and he is trying to be reactionary.

His claim that Protestants are members of a heretical religion that possess to sacramental power is false. Protestants have a valid baptism (given that it is with water, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). That’s sacramental power.

This author I think would like to believe that Protestants are not even Christian. Though, it is unfortunate, I am sure many Protestants are more Christian in their daily lives than he is.

Seeing as protestants themselves have repeated this claim ad hominem attacks against the author aren’t going to cut it.

 

[vardaquinn]

No you haven’t, primarily because there is no authoratative document supporting the movement.

Isn’t there? catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/nonattributed/US_Bishops_001.html

I have already dealt with your Aquinas quotes. You are making a straw man argument.

Now heresy is falsehood, so what St Thomas Aquias is saying clearly applies to heretics, indeed it is meant to apply to heretics.

That doesn’t bode so well for certain traditionalists…

 

[vardaquinn]

I think it would be fruitful for people to listen to this. It is short, only a minute or so.

peterkreeft.com/audio/misc/peter-kreeft_charismatic.mp3

Dr. Peter Kreeft, for those who don’t know, is a phenomenal Catholic writer and apologist, who is also charismatic. He has written and said a lot on the subject of ecumenism. I would recommend his books and talks on the subject.

He strongly urges that this encyclical is read by all Christians: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html Which I also strongly urge.

 

[jmj1984]

Isn’t there? catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/nonattributed/US_Bishops_001.html

I have already dealt with your Aquinas quotes. You are making a straw man argument.

:tsktsk: No you didn’t you ignored it and then misread it and then ignored it again.

And sorry a statement from the US bishops isn’t authoritative, why? Because it is for The Holy See to approve these movements not bishops conferences, it is ultra vires for them to do so, beyond their powers. And of course their statements only apply to the US not anywhere else in the world, whereas the charasmatic movement is worldwide.

That doesn’t bode so well for certain traditionalists…

Now lets stick to the topic at hand shall we?

 

[jmj1984]

I think it would be fruitful for people to listen to this. It is short, only a minute or so.

peterkreeft.com/audio/misc/peter-kreeft_charismatic.mp3

Dr. Peter Kreeft, for those who don’t know, is a phenomenal Catholic writer and apologist, who is also charismatic. He has written and said a lot on the subject of ecumenism. I would recommend his books and talks on the subject.

He strongly urges that this encyclical is read by all Christians: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html Which I also strongly urge.

Of course he would, he wouldn’t of course urge that people read the other 500 which say the opposite and allow it to be properly interpreted or the clarifications from the CDF on the subject.

 

[Melchior_1]

Of course he would, he wouldn’t of course urge that people read the other 500 which say the opposite and allow it to be properly interpreted or the clarifications from the CDF on the subject.

The CDF? The current head of the CDF is on the Board of Directors for OCP. I believe OCP has a division called “Spirit and Song”, filled with charismatic style songs.

Thoughts?

 

[jmj1984]

The CDF? The current head of the CDF is on the Board of Directors for OCP. I believe OCP has a division called “Spirit and Song”, filled with charismatic style songs.

Thoughts?

So now we’re reduced to trying to ply approval from the least authoratative sources I mentioned by saying that because the head is on a board of directors of an organisation which in turn has a division that has charasmatic style songs, he approves of it.

What an absurdity.

 

[Melchior_1]

So now we’re reduced to trying to ply approval from the least authoratative sources I mentioned by saying that because the head is on a board of directors of an organisation which in turn has a division that has charasmatic style songs, he approves of it.

What an absurdity.

I was asking for your opinion, that’s all. But while we’re talking about it:

The CDF is “to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines”. The Prefect of the CDF is largely in charge of defending the faith and fighting heresy. If the charismatic renewal is as bad as people say, you’d think they’d put a stop to it.

Meanwhile, the last head of the CDF retained a charismatic to be his preacher. That should tell you something as well.

Here are some questions for you;

• Are you a better Catholic than I am because I’m a charismatic?
• Am I inferior to others?
• Am I a heretic?
• Am I in danger of going to Hell due to beliefs that the papal preacher holds?

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Ah rood screens, I wish I was around when they were common place

 

[jmj1984]

I was asking for your opinion, that’s all. But while we’re talking about it:

The CDF is “to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines”. The Prefect of the CDF is largely in charge of defending the faith and fighting heresy. If the charismatic renewal is as bad as people say, you’d think they’d put a stop to it.

Argument Ab Absurdam, repeating things 20 times won’t make it true.

Meanwhile, the last head of the CDF retained a charismatic to be his preacher. That should tell you something as well.

And it said nothing on the Assisi conferences despite the fact they’ve condemned by many theologians and even Cardinal Ratzinger himself.

Here are some questions for you;

• Are you a better Catholic than I am because I’m a charismatic?

The short answer to this is no. There are some protestants who are better christians than I am, why? Because they are more patient, more kind and more generous than I. Does that mean that I believe what they are saying is true? No. Does it mean that I don’t believe that their beliefs endanger their salvation and that of others? No.
The long answer is no, I cannot judge whether I am better or worse, I am probably worse. That has not bearing on the truth however and the truth remains that the charasmatic movement is completely unsupported by Catholic Tradition.

• Am I inferior to others?

No, but even if I wanted to say yes I could not because you do not define the terms inferior or others. Is your interpretation of the truth inferior to that of others? Yes, but you personally or your spiritual life, how am I to know? The church has not pronounced on that subject.

• Am I a heretic?

I wouldn’t know if you hold beliefs that the church has condemned as heretical then you would be, but I do not know if you hold such beliefs. Certainly the charasmatic movement appears to embrace several heresies, but I and others have no way of knowing whether individual charasmatics are heretics or not.

• Am I in danger of going to Hell due to beliefs that the papal preacher holds?

This is a loaded question and one which I will not answer. I will say that being a papal preacher or bishop or any level of the clergy bar the papacy does not prevent one from holding erroneous views and even Pope Honorius erred. All I will say is that if you hold views that are heretical then the church (not I) says you endanger your salvation.

 

[Melchior_1]

I want to know if I’m a heretic for partaking in charismatic beliefs and practices. I also want to know if I’m going Hell or less of a Catholic.

You’ve done nothing but slam the movement and tried to discredit all who are a part of it. So I honestly want to know, as a member of the movement, if I’m going to Hell or if I am a heretic.

Ditto with the Companions. A whole Society of Apostolic Life based around the charismatic.

I’d appreciate a straight answer, please. I don’t want “that’s not for me to say” because you’ve said plenty on the record already about the movement. Time to start saying some things about those who are a part of it

 

[Denise1957]

Except… the Church says:

It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, "allotting his gifts to everyone according as He wills,(114) He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit”.(115) These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. (Lumen gentium 12).

It is both gifts that sancity. Whether the more outstanding, or the more simple and widely diffused. If they are not given to make us holier, than what is the point? Why would God give them?

And, I’ll have you know, I am now 17. And don’t make an ad hominem attack. My age is of no importance. Either what I am saying is true, or it is not.

I should hope they do know a thing or two! But unfortunately there’s such immense ignorance on the charisms.

Please point out where in the above quote from Lumen Gentium where it says that the extraordinary gifts sanctify.

Also, the next and second paragraph of #12 of Lumen Gentium states:

“Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use…”

Lumen Gentium clearly states that the extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after.

 

[jmj1984]

I want to know if I’m a heretic for partaking in charismatic beliefs and practices. I also want to know if I’m going Hell or less of a Catholic.

You’ve done nothing but slam the movement and tried to discredit all who are a part of it. So I honestly want to know, as a member of the movement, if I’m going to Hell or if I am a heretic.

Ditto with the Companions. A whole Society of Apostolic Life based around the charismatic.

I’d appreciate a straight answer, please. I don’t want “that’s not for me to say” because you’ve said plenty on the record already about the movement. Time to start saying some things about those who are a part of it

:tsktsk: No. All I can say is that the movement is theologically suspect and appears to be borderline heretical if not outright heretical, I will make no judgement on individual members or even the body corporate.

 

[Melchior_1]

:tsktsk: No. All I can say is that the movement is theologically suspect and appears to be borderline heretical if not outright heretical, I will make no judgement on individual members or even the body corporate.

So as a member of the movement I appear to be borderline heretical (at best) and also theologically suspect. That’s nifty, I suppose.

Rome is also authorizing entire Societies of Apostolic Life which were founded on “borderline heretical if not outright heretical”.