Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[Denise1957]

I did. It said that the charisms are a means of sanctification. It includes extraordinary gifts in with that. As well as simple, humble and more widely diffused ones. And think about it. If the gift isn’t there for your sanctification (or more primarily, someone else’s sanctification) why would God give it at all?

Haven’t I already been through this with you? Hmm. I’ll do it again then. On the Vatican website, there’s a mistranslation there. In other translations I’ve seen, you don’t usually find that one. Hopefully they will change it, since it’s extremely misleading and contradicts scripture (you know where Paul says “seek eagerly the highest spiritual gifts, especially prophecy” at the very least).

So here’s what’s wrong with it. The original Latin says: Dona autem extraordinaria non sunt temere expetenda (you can find it here, if you’re interested ewtn.com/library/councils/v2lumlat.htm).

That word temere is an adverb, and it means “by chance, randomly, without cause, rashly, thoughtlessly”. This is totally dropped from English translation.

So what is this really saying?

Dona = “gifts”, neuter second declension noun, accusative plural.

autem = “but, on the other hand, however”.

extraordinaria = “extraordinary” adjective, modifying “dona”

non sunt = are not

temere = “rashly, thoughtlessly, without cause” adverb

expetenda = “demand, ask for, exact (as a penalty)” third conjugation verb, and it’s a gerund, going with “dona” again.

Alright, so this reads something more like “Extraordinary gifts, however, are not to be rashly demanded/exacted.”

VERY VERY different matter.

I’m not seeing where Lumen Gentium 12 says that the extraordinary gifts are of a sanctifiying nature. You’ll need to be more specific. I don’t recall that we have discussed Lumen Gentium before now, so no, you haven’t “been through this with me” before now.

I’m not going to assume that the Vatican’s website’s translation is wrong. I’m going to assume that they are competent with the Latin language. I’m going to assume that it’s correct. It absolutely states that the extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after. The term “rashly” isn’t there. As Catholics we can assume that the Vatican source is correct. Perhaps you can find a Vatican source which says that they translated it wrong?

Link to Vatican’s Lumen Gentium:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Denise1957]

Fr. William Most writes on EWTN about the differences between the sanctifying category of grace (actual and habitual grace - the seven gifts fall into the habitual category), and the charismatic category, which includes both ordinary and extraordinary. He says that the ordinary charismatic gifts are “widely given,” and the extraordinary gifts (of healing, or tongues, or miracles) are given when and to whom the Spirit wills, and that they are not routine today.

He writes:

"Grace is a gift from God to us. There are two great categories or groups of graces: sanctifying, and charismatic.

Sanctifying graces are aimed at making the recipient holy. They include: actual grace, a grace He sent me at this moment, to lead me and enable me to do a particular good thing here and now, and habitual grace (also called sanctifying) which actually does make the recipient holy. It gives the soul the radical ability to take in the face to face vision of God in the next life. Increase in sanctifying grace means an increase in that capacity - for since the vision is infinite, our capacity can never reach the limit of growth.

The other category is called charismatic. These graces are not aimed directly at making the recipient holy. They are for some other sort of benefit to the individual or the community. There are two kinds again: ordinary and extraordinary.

Where do the gifts of the Holy Spirit fit in? There are two groups of them, one in sanctifying, the other one in the charismatic category.

In the sanctifying category we find the seven gifts, which are given along with sanctifying (habitual) grace.

In the charismatic category we find both the ordinary gifts - e.g., the gift to be a good parent or a good teacher - and the extraordinary gifts, those which are or seen as miraculous, such as the gifts of healing, of tongues, or miracles. The ordinary charismatic gifts are widely given. The extraordinary gifts are given when and to whom the spirit wills, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 12. 11. They are not routine today, though they were in the first generation Church, as we see from 1 Cor 12-14."

 

[jmj1984]

The bolded part is interesting to me. If jmj1984 is making the claim that Charismatic Renewal started outside the Catholic Church with Protestants, and was then brought into the Catholic Church by means of Catholics paticipating in CR with Protestants, Does that make it a renewal inside the church? If its origins were outside?

Just curious.
Thank you

And this is why I have a problem with the movement. Oh and not to play semantics but honestly its not a claim its a fact attested to by both catholics and protestants.

 

[jmj1984]

In many of your above quotes, you are hitting on a very relevant piece of Catholic doctrine. IT IS VERY TRUE that as Catholics we cannot compromise in our beliefs. We cannot believe that “all religions are the same” or that “all paths lead to Heaven”.

However, that is not what the Church means when it refers to Ecumenism. Ecumenism and Indiffrentism are NOT the same. Ecumenism is about finding common ground and nurturing in other religions those aspects of genuine truth we find in them. Its root is objective truth. Indifferentism is about claiming that all religions or all forms of Christianity are equal; its root is in subjective truth.

But the fundamental problem is that the ecumenicism encouraged and practiced by the charasmatic movement encourages and leads to this indifferentism, what else could a movement that was founded outside the church by heretics do?

I appreciate what you are saying, jmj1984, but I think you are fighting a straw man right now. We would agree with all that you are saying. The fact that we believe that the Catholic faith is the one true faith does not prevent us from making charitable outreach to our separate brethren or finding commonality.

No, nor has it ever prevented the church. Ecumenicsm, at least how it is interpreted by many today, is not about reconciling people to the church and converting them. It is about -as the jesuits openly admit on their UK website on the subject and others have said- learning from other sects or churches and faiths as if the one true church of christ could ever learn anything from heretics or pagans. Further the movement by its very nature of being born outside the church and by its members frequent involvement in non-catholic services fails to live up to the clear teaching of the popes.

This also applies to your use of the encyclical against “renewal” by Pope Gregory XVI. It is clear from the text that what he is referring to is a secular or humanistic kind of renewal. He forbids any renewal whose “foundation may be laid of a new human institution”. He is writing in reaction to modernism. He does NOT forbid renewal from WITHIN the Church or from the Holy Spirit. If he forbid all ideas of “renewal/reformation”, that would forbid all Church Councils, the Counter-Reformation, all religious reforms, and any other attempts to beautify Christ’s bride. The Church’s history is not a static history. It is a history of constant sojourn toward her final wedding feast. Christ always wants His bride to be more beautiful and to share more fully in His divine life.

Actually Pope Gregory XVI comments are very much applicable to the idea of some that Vatican II was required to renew the church and correct errors that had occured in it as he himself says in the enyclical, it is as applicable to religious errors as to secular and humanistic ideas. And seeing as Modernism was a doctrine embraced by many catholics both laity and clergy as St Pius X makes clear your argument that because it is against modernism it doesnt apply to religious renewal is absurd. Church councils and reformation deal with discipline and errors in non-infallible teaching, not a renewal of the church’s infallible teaching or act as if the church has committed errors which many interpretations of VII and charasmatics do say.

 

[jmj1984]

I just counted them. There are 22. .iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr/

I apologise I was wrong.

And yet there isn’t a single encyclical amongst them, not a single authoritative, as I have said before papal addresses and speeches are not even part of the magisterium.

 

[TrueLight]

as if the one true church of christ could ever learn anything from heretics or pagans.

If heretics refer to Protestants, then yes the Catholic Church can in fact learn from Protestants. After all, Protestants originally came from the Catholic church and veered into error. That doesn’t mean everything Protestants do are wrong.

For example, as have been discussed many times on this board, the whole fellowship factor and making people feel welcome to a Church. Also, the evangelizing to others about their faith.

Anyway, I do feel that the whole charismatic movement came from Pentecostalism and I don’t really support it,.

I also don’t believe we should act like it is fine to be Protestant. We should pray for the scales to fall off their eyes, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn anything from them.

 

[jmj1984]

If heretics refer to Protestants, then yes the Catholic Church can in fact learn from Protestants. After all, Protestants originally came from the Catholic church and veered into error. That doesn’t mean everything Protestants do are wrong.

For example, as have been discussed many times on this board, the whole fellowship factor and making people feel welcome to a Church. Also, the evangelizing to others about their faith.

Anyway, I do feel that the whole charismatic movement came from Pentecostalism and I don’t really support it,.

I also don’t believe we should act like it is fine to be Protestant. We should pray for the scales to fall off their eyes, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn anything from them.

I mean doctrine or spirituality wise, obviously we can learn from individual protestants just like I learn from my protestant parents

 

[Fink]

You’re calling the kettle black, Mr. Pot. I lost track of the amount of times traditionalists essentially claimed to be the sole heirs of Tradition and true Catholicism.

Sorry, but ive never been one of them. You must be thinking of someone else. :D Actually, ive been involved in more than one brawl with extremist Traditionalists. Sorry!

Good thing you aren’t the last two Popes (one of whom is a Blessed and apparently spoke in tongues) or*** the Papal Preacher***.

“apparently”: a crucial word.
The Papal Peacher does/did. Hes the one who was going to Medjugorje to give some lectures; and then had to call it off. Hes been the Household Preacher since 1980; so maybe his position is a life-long one.

Your own personal conviction sounds pretty Protestant, by the way. Especially when the Catholic Church has recognized the Charismatic Renewal as being authentic.

Of course the Church would say the things authentic! Thats her way of trying to have some control over it.

Flip this around; lets credit traditionalists for the rise of fringe Sedevacantism, shall we? Maybe blame traditionalists for the whole SSPX fiasco?

Sorry: but im a*** post-Vatican II Traditionalist.*** Theres a difference, don`t you think?

Seriously though Fink, it’s like you decided to not read the entire thread and instead decided it’d be prudent to post sweeping generalizations.

Its not too difficult to post sweeping generalizations about the Charismatic Movement, considering some of the things it gets up to. Actually, youve been pretty good at throwing sweeping generalizations at Traditionalists, and at me, personally.
Your namesake was a wise man…

Having said that:
Thanks for your response, because:
You`ve reinforced my convictions about the Charismatic Movement.
The air of superiority is unmistakable; but, i guess a group which has Friends in such high places is entitled to that attitude.

 

[guanophore]

… everything to do with looking at the tradition of the Catholic Church, within this tradition there is no supplier from the movement.

I agree. The gifts of the HS have always been active in the CC, long before Protestantism ever was invented.

Again when you speak of approval you refer to the popes addressing charasmatic meetings, no encyclical has been written on the matter and no definitive authoritative document on the subject exists. Of all the forms of authority a papal speech is the lowest. Further you exagerate there are not 20+ statements.

Apparently what you are saying is that the HOly Fathers are giving wrong instruction to the faithful?

I dont’ think there is a more authoritative document than Holy Scripture. To ignore what is stated there, and what is written in the Catechism, because you have not been given an encyclical seems rather disingenuous.

And no, when a movement has been condemned it is condemned both because of the movements doctrines and its actions, if another movement comes along espousing much the same doctrine and doing much the same things it is equally likely to be erroneous and false.

I think you lost me here. The gifts of the HS is a doctrine of the faith. I will agree that there has been wrong doctrine (like if you don’t speak in tongues you don’t have the HS) and wrong practices, but none of these invalidate the gifts of God, which are irrevocable.

 

[guanophore]

Seeing as the movements encourage people to seek these gifts, people often do and then behave exactly as St John of the Cross described the quote is very relevant.

I agree that there are many abuses. There are groups that erroneously encourage people to exclusively focus on gift(ignoring the scriptural injunctions around how and what is to be sought).

The gifts almost always involve sensational experiences and I don't think anyone is going to be silly enough to argue that speaking in a tongue supposedly given to you by God is not a consolation...

I agree that it is certainly great consolations, but I am not sure what you mean by
" sensational experiences". Do you mean that they involve human senses?

You’ll note that the statement you’ve posted does not mention tongues at all, merely miracles which no one says don’t or can’t happen in this time. St Augustine’s quote does therefore still apply.

why do you suppose St. Auggie retracted this?

Is this merely a quote from a statement he made in Pentecost? Because I see no reference to the charismatic movement in it at all, rather I see reference to sound Catholic Theology

Exactly! The Charismatic experience it part of sound Catholic Theology.

I’m pretty sure they’re obsessed enough by it all on their own

Perhaps you don’t realize that Catholics who are grounded in sound Catholic Theology are not obsessed with the gifts?

I am not going to engage in some protestant distortion of scriptures, it is enough for me that the church has never approved an obsession with prophecy and doctors of the church and saints have warned against seeking for it.

Good. I don’t think bringing Protestant distortions into this discussion is helpful. In fact, I am curious why Catholics cite these distortions as evidence that God’s gifts are not valid for Catholics.

So, what does the Apostle mean? We are in agreement that obsession is wrong, so how does one follow the Apostolic command to “earnestly seek that you may prophesy”? How is a Catholic to do this?

Canon 1258 of the 1917 code of Canon Law which was in force until 1983 listed it as something to be punished with a ‘just penalty’, asides from this numerous popes have condemned it.

“It” being what? Pentecostal abuses?

If popes want to make exceptions for themselves they may do so, the fact remains however that prior to 1983 is was legally a crime according to canon law.
“… this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in
the assemblies of non-Catholics…" Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
'They [the faithful] should
totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence
which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They
should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings
or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the
duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction
’ Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae

We are not talking about being involved in an illegitimate liturgy!

The reason this canon law was lifted is because there are many good works with which we are encourged to participate with our separated brethren. A Catholic who has a non-Catholic spouse can attend the spouse’s service as well as Mass until conversion of the spouse has occurred.

That suffices to show it is not in the catholic tradition to do such things.

I think you are mistaking using the charismatic gifts with participating in non-catholic pentecostal ecclesial communities. It is better not to mix the two.

 

[jmj1984]

I agree. The gifts of the HS have always been active in the CC, long before Protestantism ever was invented.

Apparently what you are saying is that the HOly Fathers are giving wrong instruction to the faithful?

I dont’ think there is a more authoritative document than Holy Scripture. To ignore what is stated there, and what is written in the Catechism, because you have not been given an encyclical seems rather disingenuous.

I think you lost me here. The gifts of the HS is a doctrine of the faith. I will agree that there has been wrong doctrine (like if you don’t speak in tongues you don’t have the HS) and wrong practices, but none of these invalidate the gifts of God, which are irrevocable.

The private interpretation of scripture is a protestant tendency, a tendency I knew the movement already engaged in but one you’ve just confirmed to me. I await an authoritative interpretation of scripture from the church such as an encyclical and until then no one can pretend The Tradition of the church has approved it and depending on what the encyclical says probably stll wont be able to.

As for papal speeches, yes the Pope can err, consider the case of Pope Honorius or Liberus or even Pope John XXII who denied the beatific vision as a private opinion and whose position was directly contradicted by his successor, who declared the beatific vision as ex cathedra and labelled all who disagreed heretics.

 

[jmj1984]

I agree that there are many abuses. There are groups that erroneously encourage people to exclusively focus on gift(ignoring the scriptural injunctions around how and what is to be sought).

And yet the movement was born out of focusing on these gifts and its hallmark continues to be the seeking of and complete focusing on these gifts.

I agree that it is certainly great consolations, but I am not sure what you mean by
" sensational experiences". Do you mean that they involve human senses?

why do you suppose St. Auggie retracted this?

St Auggie?.. No. St Augustine, I mean I am assuming you are deliberately shortening his name which is just a no no. And as I’ve said oh 4 times, his supposed retraction isnt a retraction at all. It points out that miracles still happen (which he didnt deny) but that we shouldnt expect them, that an absence would and does prove nothing and he maintains his opinion on the Glossolia, namely that it is no longer needed.

Exactly! The Charismatic experience it part of sound Catholic Theology.

No, selective quotes arent going to get you anywhere.

Perhaps you don’t realize that Catholics who are grounded in sound Catholic Theology are not obsessed with the gifts?

I do, which is why I reject the charasmatic movement which isnt based on an obsession with these gifts

Good. I don’t think bringing Protestant distortions into this discussion is helpful. In fact, I am curious why Catholics cite these distortions as evidence that God’s gifts are not valid for Catholics.

Perhaps because its a historical fact that the charasmatic movement was born from these distortions and continues them within the catholic church to the modern day?

So, what does the Apostle mean? We are in agreement that obsession is wrong, so how does one follow the Apostolic command to “earnestly seek that you may prophesy”? How is a Catholic to do this?

Perhaps by reading it in context and as The Church has, namely seek the virtues above everything else.

“It” being what? Pentecostal abuses?

Attending and actively participating in non-catholic services.

We are not talking about being involved in an illegitimate liturgy!

But as the movement was born out of the pentecostal movement and continues to have as its hallmarks false ecumenicism we very much are.

The reason this canon law was lifted is because there are many good works with which we are encourged to participate with our separated brethren. A Catholic who has a non-Catholic spouse can attend the spouse’s service as well as Mass until conversion of the spouse has occurred.

Lacks any support from anything authoritative pre 1962.

I think you are mistaking using the charismatic gifts with participating in non-catholic pentecostal ecclesial communities. It is better not to mix the two.

Nope, seeing as the movement was born out of this participation and its hallmark remains this participation i’m not mixing anything.

 

[guanophore]

And yes if something is done by those outside the church which the church itself does not do it can be assumed to  be evil.

This is reminiscent of fundamentalisim. It is this kind of fundamentalism that led people to react to Galileo and Copernicus as they did. Why should this basis be used for something be assumed evil"?

That aside, since the Church carries the infallible deposit of faith, and this Pentecostal experience is part of that once for all deposit of faith, it is a moot point about the source of the gifts. They are Catholic. they were given to the Catholic Church by the HS for the building up of the body of Christ. The wrongful ursurpation and misuse of them by people does not negate the valid gifts.

They came to the conclusion that there was something direly needed in the life of the Church as well, and that it had to be an experience with the Holy Spirit – which would “fill the void left by human effort” (3)

If this is true, then clearly their perceptions were based upon faulty theology. There is no part of **Ithere is no part of our expereince with God that is based in “human effort”. As has been noted above in the thread, we are saved by grace, through faith. It is not of human effort, lest we find reason to boast.

The only “void” one might experience in walking by the Spirit would, on the contrary, be a RESULT of “human effort” rather than exposing the concept that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being”.

 , as well as the compelling promise of a vitally defined and practiced faith.

ARe you suggesting there is something “uncatholic” about such an idea?

 .. religious experiences were openly shared and open prayer was made for this "baptism of the Holy Spirit" by the laying on of hands in prayer groups. Most of the individuals involved in these events left them profoundly changed by these "infillings of the Spirit" - the change in their lives and their own testimonies began to spread word of the happenings.

You seem to be saying that this expereince is “uncatholic”.

Do you think it is wrong to be profoundly changed by an encounter with God?

 As Pope Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos '**But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

1. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?
   **

’

This is certainly true, and the catechism is clear that the HS works through these ecclesial communities for the purpose of bringing participants to Himself, which would, by definition, bring them into unity with the One Church. It is equally wrong, however, to claim that the HS is not at work in persons who are not visible Catholics.**

 

[guanophore]

Read what I’ve said above on V II or what any number of traditionalists in good standing with the holy see have said. It is certainly not the the place of laity to be leading these meetings.

Do you mean to say you believe it is wrong for a lay person to lead a prayer meeting? If Grandpa insists that the whole family gather to say the Rosary before bed, he is out of order?

What else can we say about a movement that is based around the receving of extraordinary gifts, baptism in the spirit and so on. One never hears about suffering or humulity being the hallmarks of the movement.

I could say much. So far as I can tell this description has nothing to do with the Catholic Charismatic expereince. The Charismatic Renewal in the CC is based around responding to the gifts of the HS that were infused in us at baptism. I would question any “movement” that does not encompass suffering, humility, and all the fruits of the spirit. It seems that you have a very warped perception of what living the Pentecostal life is like. The Apostles certainly have a very different description than yours.

Regardless Jesus was jesus, lay people are neither Jesus nor acting in his place nor saints.

I think Mother Angelica is right when she says we are all called to be saints. We are called to walk in the power and purpose of the Holy Spirit according to our confirmation.

And of course **jesus never held healing services, people came to him, often when he wanted to be left in peace and on occassion he only healed them after they persistently asked him so lets not misrepresent the gospel**

LOL. this is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? People flocked to Him because they heard he was healing the sick. He laid hands on them, or spoke a word, and they were healed. What is there in the gospel account that makes you think this should not happen today?

Heresy is the obstinate denial of something De Fide, something as nothing the charasmatic movement does is supported by De Fide dogmas I cannot be a heretic.

I agree. The Gifts of Pentecost, however, are certainly part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

Denial of the the doctrine of the faith that we are to walk in the power of Pentecost every day would certainly be problematic.

 

[guanophore]

So no one has to leave because they don’t like, though judging by how little the movement has in common with catholic tradtion maybe they should leave instead.

So to support your view you have

I agree. There are plenty of forms/lifetyles/disciplines that are valid within the Catholic Church. There is room for all. One can practice a way of life empowered by the Gifts of Pentecost and still practice traditional faith.

What we are disputing is whether these gifts are needed today. Some of your quotes in fact prove nothing, no one says the church shouldnt have prophetic gifts because the church has always had mystics in every age but no one says we need people running around talking gibberish either

On what basis would someone claim that these gifts are not needed today? Is there something in the Church teachings that indicate this is the case?

I agree, “people running around talking gibberish” benefits no one. Neither the running around, or the gibberish, are part of the Charismatic Gifts. Instead I think you are referring to abuses that seemed to be rampant in the Corinthian Church about which he sent rebukes. None of those rebukes devalued the authentic use of the gifts.

You have yet to explain why the Apostle wrote to them that he desired that they “all prophesy”. If this gift was meant only for occasional mystics, why would he write that? He was writing to laypeople.

 

[jmj1984]

This is reminiscent of fundamentalisim. It is this kind of fundamentalism that led people to react to Galileo and Copernicus as they did. Why should this basis be used for something be assumed evil"?

Nope, its been the position of the church for millenia. As for Galileo I suggest you read the book Apologetics and Catholoc Doctrine, both were punished not for their theories but for their arrogance, they concluded that one had to modify scripture instead of believing perhaps that we had misunderstood. Further they refused to wait for more proof for their theories whilst the church prudently insisted that they wait, regardless Galileo was not tortured but enjoyed a fairly comfortable imprisonment and later had gifts showered on him by the Pope. These are therefore straw men.

That aside, since the Church carries the infallible deposit of faith, and this Pentecostal experience is part of that once for all deposit of faith, it is a moot point about the source of the gifts. They are Catholic. they were given to the Catholic Church by the HS for the building up of the body of Christ. The wrongful ursurpation and misuse of them by people does not negate the valid gifts.

1. The gifts are not a doctrine or dogma or tradition or teaching, how they can be part of the deposit of faith is therefore beyond me Besides I doubt any authoritative document has said this
   2)No, but when a movement is born out of a protestant movement and these gifts only reappeared in the way charasmatics use them due to the pentecostal moveemnt is is a rather pressing issue.

If this is true, then clearly their perceptions were based upon faulty theology. There is no part of **Ithere is no part of our expereince with God that is based in “human effort”. As has been noted above in the thread, we are saved by grace, through faith. It is not of human effort, lest we find reason to boast.

The only “void” one might experience in walking by the Spirit would, on the contrary, be a RESULT of “human effort” rather than exposing the concept that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being”.
**

So you admit the founders of your movement were based on faulty theology? Thats a little concerning
guanophore;8351826:

ARe you suggesting there is something “uncatholic” about such an idea?

Read the quote in context and as a whole

You seem to be saying that this expereince is “uncatholic”.

It is, there is no such thing as ‘Baptism of the spirit’ rather there is baptism which in its three forms, water, blood and desire are the true baptism and involve the holy spirit. Baptism of the spirit is a protestant idea that seperates water baptism from sanctifying grace and being ‘born again’, these are very much uncatholic ideas

Do you think it is wrong to be profoundly changed by an encounter with God?

When this supposed encounter took place by participating in a non-catholic service full of numerous heresies and errors, then theres a problem.

This is certainly true, and the catechism is clear that the HS works through these ecclesial communities for the purpose of bringing participants to Himself, which would, by definition, bring them into unity with the One Church. It is equally wrong, however, to claim that the HS is not at work in persons who are not visible Catholics.

No, seeing as even magicians and demons can perform miracles it would be wrong, what that proves however is beyond me

 

[guanophore]

And yet the movement was born out of focusing on these gifts and its hallmark continues to be the seeking of and complete focusing on these gifts.

I think you are suffering from a false (misperception) idea about “the movement”. It was not born out of focusing on Gifts, but on desiring to have a full and powerful expereince of God in one’s life. People were praying to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit, as the Pope prayed “like at Pentecost”. Desiring and wanting the power of the HS to work in one’s life is not “focus on gifts”. I do agree that it can be for people who misunderstand, or have poor catechesis, or poor shepherding, but there is nothing inherintly wrong or “off base” about wanting the fullness of the HS in one’s life.

I do agree that the seeking and focusing on gifts is an abherrancy and an abuse, but to confuse the authentic seeking of deeper walk with God for this is inaccurate. The lay people that were seking the transformaiton in their lives by the power of the HS were not seeking “gifts”, but rather, transformation. The fact that gifts accompany this transformation is actually secondary.

Rom 12:1-2
12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

They presented their bodies to God in prayer, and sought the renewal of their minds.

No, selective quotes arent going to get you anywhere.

What I am wondering is where they get YOU. They are not “selective quotes” from my perspective, because I believe that God wants us all to live spirit filled lives. What I want to know is what you think the Apostle was saying about seeking the prophetic gift. You seem to disagree with what I think it means, so I am asking your perspective. To say that the Pentecostal gifts are not part of sound Catholic theology is like throwing out the Spirit with the “movement” bathwater.

I do, which is why I reject the charasmatic movement which isnt based on an obsession with these gifts

I am sorry, you lost me here.

Perhaps because its a historical fact that the charasmatic movement was born from these distortions and continues them within the catholic church to the modern day?

I understand that it seems that way to you. The fact that distortions and abuses exist does not negate what is True and from God.

Perhaps by reading it in context and as The Church has, namely seek the virtues above everything else.

Yes, you will get no arguement from me on this point. As far as I can see, the failure to do this is why so many abuses exist. However, it is not taught that one should seek virtues to the EXCLUSION of gifts.

 

[jmj1984]

Do you mean to say you believe it is wrong for a lay person to lead a prayer meeting? If Grandpa insists that the whole family gather to say the Rosary before bed, he is out of order?

Is grandpa doing it in a church or a church hall in front of potentially hundreds of people when others who would be more fitting to lead such as priests are present? Or is grandpa claiming to heal people or be a channel of the holy spirit?

I could say much. So far as I can tell this description has nothing to do with the Catholic Charismatic expereince. The Charismatic Renewal in the CC is based around responding to the gifts of the HS that were infused in us at baptism. I would question any “movement” that does not encompass suffering, humility, and all the fruits of the spirit. It seems that you have a very warped perception of what living the Pentecostal life is like. The Apostles certainly have a very different description than yours.

Really? Thats quite surprising seeing as the theology of the movement embraces and espouses this and it is indeed intrinsic to the movement. As for your interpretation of the apostles teaching, I’ll take the Church’s interpretation over yours.

I think Mother Angelica is right when she says we are all called to be saints. We are called to walk in the power and purpose of the Holy Spirit according to our confirmation.

But we are not all Saints in the terms used by the church and it is not the place of the lay people to be doing such things.

LOL. this is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? People flocked to Him because they heard he was healing the sick. He laid hands on them, or spoke a word, and they were healed. What is there in the gospel account that makes you think this should not happen today?

Indeed but he never performed healing services, indeed he never said he would heal anyone people came to him to be healed and he healed them. Thats markedly different from putting up signs for a service whose sole purpose to heal people. Besides he worked the miracles to prove that he was the son of God and further his message not as an ends in and of itself which healing services are.

I agree. The Gifts of Pentecost, however, are certainly part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

And yet you cannot show me a single authoritative source that says that the gifts as your interpret them are part of the deposit of faith.

Denial of the the doctrine of the faith that we are to walk in the power of Pentecost every day would certainly be problematic.

Ditto what I said above.

 

[jmj1984]

I agree. There are plenty of forms/lifetyles/disciplines that are valid within the Catholic Church. There is room for all. One can practice a way of life empowered by the Gifts of Pentecost and still practice traditional faith.

On what basis would someone claim that these gifts are not needed today? Is there something in the Church teachings that indicate this is the case?

I agree, “people running around talking gibberish” benefits no one. Neither the running around, or the gibberish, are part of the Charismatic Gifts. Instead I think you are referring to abuses that seemed to be rampant in the Corinthian Church about which he sent rebukes. None of those rebukes devalued the authentic use of the gifts.

You have yet to explain why the Apostle wrote to them that he desired that they “all prophesy”. If this gift was meant only for occasional mystics, why would he write that? He was writing to laypeople.

One can only be involved in the charasmatic movement and practice the traditional faith, that is be a traditionalist, if one is completely ignorant of said faith.

And you have yet to show many authority for the movement whatsoever.

 

[jmj1984]

I think you are suffering from a false (misperception) idea about “the movement”. It was not born out of focusing on Gifts, but on desiring to have a full and powerful expereince of God in one’s life. People were praying to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit, as the Pope prayed “like at Pentecost”. Desiring and wanting the power of the HS to work in one’s life is not “focus on gifts”. I do agree that it can be for people who misunderstand, or have poor catechesis, or poor shepherding, but there is nothing inherintly wrong or “off base” about wanting the fullness of the HS in one’s life.

What does the term fulness of spirit even mean? It certainly does not mean what the pentecostal movement says namely that it is shown by pentecostal gifts. Sadly fulness of spirit comes to us through the sacraments not charasmatic gifts, church theology clearly teaches that the sacraments increse gace, baptism gives us grace, confirmation strengthens it, holy orders and matrimony again gives us both an increase of grace and specific graces likewise does holy communion. What the church does not teach anywhere however is that ‘baptism of the spirit’ or being a charasmatic will increase your fullness of spirit, indeed the term is illogical. We all already have fullness of the holy spirit, though we are not of course all full of grace.

I do agree that the seeking and focusing on gifts is an abherrancy and an abuse, but to confuse the authentic seeking of deeper walk with God for this is inaccurate. The lay people that were seking the transformaiton in their lives by the power of the HS were not seeking “gifts”, but rather, transformation. The fact that gifts accompany this transformation is actually secondary.

Deeper walk with God = the virtues, it does not mean charasmatic gifts nor are they a result of this as St Aquinas and others clearly teach.

I am sorry, you lost me here.

Sorry grammer error, is not isnt.

I understand that it seems that way to you. The fact that distortions and abuses exist does not negate what is True and from God.

Facts don’t ‘seem’ facts simply are.

Yes, you will get no arguement from me on this point. As far as I can see, the failure to do this is why so many abuses exist. However, it is not taught that one should seek virtues to the EXCLUSION of gifts.

The problem is that these abuses are intrinsic to the charasmatic movement and no but one is always taught to seek the virtues first.