Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

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

Lumen Gentium 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.”

Right there, they cite in a footnote 1 Cor. 12, making a reference to the part in Scripture about the charisms. Thus they are speaking about the charismatic gifts described there. Thus, through these charisms (gifts) the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues. Some of the charisms are extraordinary gifts - tongues, prophecy, miracles (“mighty deeds”), etc.

It says: "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. "

Thus, it both the more outstanding gifts and the more simply and widely diffused gifts they are speaking of that the Holy spirit using to sanctify and lead the people of God and enrich it with virtues. Both.

I have shown you the original Latin. I have shown you how they drop an important adverb. Every other translation I have seen of it states otherwise, including translations in other languages on the Vatican website. Thus, this English version is a mistranslation. You can check it yourself.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ jmj1984: I want to thank you for posting those quotes. You must be careful, when posting quotes, however that you do not make so many “straw man” arguments. I shall examine them more closely. Very few I have seen actually are in conflict with the encylical, or the teachings of Vatican II.

 

[jerry_joseph]

Charismatic renewal movement is a blessing to catholic church. It brought lot of persons back to church and religious life’s.

Some persons likes spiritual praise and worships (charismatic). Some persons like silent worships such as Eucharistic Adorations. Some likes Novena’s and Rosaries. Some are interested in studying lifes of saints and visiting shrines, some are interested in theological and philosophical studies. As a religion contains different persons having different tastes all should be allowed. All are good if it is helpful to them for growing in spiritual life. But all should be faithful and obedient to the church’s hierarchy and church’s teachings.

 

[vardaquinn]

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?

Watch how you word that. The Protestants didn’t found the charismatic renewal. A charismatic renewal began in Protestantism. A charismatic renewal began in Catholicism. A charismatic renewal began in Orthodoxy. It is something that is occurring among Protestants and Catholics. It did not come from outside the Church. The Catholic movement began in the Church.

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.

Ecumenism is about reuniting the Church and reconciling schismatics with the Church. Certainly we can “learn” from other faiths, but in the sense that the simply recall our attention to what is already part of our religion, since whatever is good in their religion came from the Church to begin with.

I am curious still about the involvement in non-Catholic services… I think there are other aspects to this you are ignoring, and are taking something out of context. That being said, I would agree that there can be a “too-easy” ecumenism in this movement, which Pope Benedict also highlighted in the Ratzinger Report. I do not support this, then.

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.

No, no. Vatican II was required to renew the Church, to refocus her attention on certain aspects of her teaching, to update her methods for the modern world, to fully address the problems of our current world. Bl. John Henry Newman puts it: “…to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often”. The Church must adapt her ways, not her teachings, to the current circumstances.

There were problems in the Church - not with her teaching, however. Errors were committed by individuals. Misunderstandings of Church teaching were prevalent on many subjects.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

You misunderstand the purpose of encyclical. The Pope doesn’t make encyclicals on things like church movements. You won’t find an encyclical written on the Charismatic Renewal, and I highly doubt there will ever be one. The Pope might write, and I hope he does, an encyclical on the charismatic dimension of the faith. He might, in an encyclical, mention the charismatic movement. But he’s not going to right an encyclical on the Charismatic Renewal.

I think you are making a cop out here. You’re acting as if our argument were merely just an appeal to authority. It’s not. Why don’t you actually look at what the Popes are saying on the subject, and try and determine whether or not they are right.

However, aspects of what we are dealing with are parts of Church teaching, made in some extremely authoritative documents from the Magisterium. The role of charisms, for instance.

What the charismatic movement is saying, and what the Church is teaching, on the subject of Pentecost, and charisms, are the same thing. The movement is simply calling attention to this unfortunately neglected but crucial aspect of Church teaching.

So… enough of the ad hominem attacks, the straw mans, and worming out of the real crux of the matter.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

The Church says that the sacraments aren’t the only ways the Holy Spirit gives grace. It says that the charisms give grace (it calls them “special graces”). There is an infinite amount of “grace” and “fullness of Spirit” we’re dealing with here. Until you get to heaven, there is always always always more that you can receive. Your daily prayers, outside of Mass, give you an increase of grace. Your daily activities, your work, gives you grace. In the last words of St. Teresa of Avila: everything is a grace. There’s always more of God to receive. Otherwise, it would be absolutely useless to go to communion and receive the sacraments more than once in your life.

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

This is simply untrue, unfounded, and insupportable. I have seen charismatic groups not commit these abuses. Therefore, they are not intrinsic to the movement.

It’s not about seeking virtue, and then seeking charisms. That’s not how it works. You seek charisms, and you seek virtue, as all part of growing in virtue and holiness. The charisms help you become more virtuous, and virtues help you become more “charismatic”.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Virtually all the Rosaries in every parish I have attended are led by lay persons. In one, it is said daily after Mass, and Father never stays. He dismisses the Mass, and after he processes out, a layperson leads the Rosary.

What is "unfitting"about this?

I have never heard a Catholic Charismatic claim to “heal people” (as if somehow by themselves they had done so). I have frequented the healing ministry within the Charismatic Renewas lince 1983, and I have seen many healings all of the accomlished by God.

Is there any way in which we all are NOT to be channels of the Holy Spirit? Is this not what it means to walk by the Spirit? God has saved us to do good works,a nd we cannot do these unless we are a channel of the HS. It is Him who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.

Just as Peter says at the Gate, “silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk”. And of this event Peter later testifies:

**Acts 3:11-13
12 And when Peter saw it he addressed the people, "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk? **

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.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, because I don’t see it. The theology that I have been taught is grounded in the sacraments of initiation, especially baptism and confirmation. I do agree, that learning to unwrap and use the gifts received at that time is intrinsic to the movement. What gives them power and purpose, though, emanates from the sacramental life of the Church. this is why I know it does not come from a Protestant source. Most Protestants that claim to be “pentecostal” (virtually all those I have met) do NOT believe that these are sacraments, or convey power.

I don’t see how the Church’s interpretation of baptism and confirmation exclude spiritual gifts.

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.

I agree that those that are called “saints” by the Church have already been united with their heavenly reward. The reason we are called upon to follow in their footsteps is because they know the way.

Why do you reject the Scripture and the teaching of the Church that laypeople are to be doing the work of the ministry?

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.

Is this not what should be happening today? Should not people come to Jesus, and be healed? You have already agreed that miracles in our day and age are valid, if rare. Perhaps they would not be so rare if people came with expectant faith?

Thats markedly different from putting up signs for a service whose sole purpose to heal people.

I don’t know of any Catholic Charismatic group that has ever done such a thing, but I am not sure I agree. Today, Jesus comes among us at the Eucharist, and His healing presence is available to all. Yet, there are set times for Liturgy, and they are published as such in the bulletin and on the Church.

We have a pre-arranged time when we come together to encounter Him at the foot of the cross. He never made appointments for that when he was here…

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.

Yes, He did, and He still does so today. Just as there were those who sought healing or bread from him as a sole purpose, so there are today. this selfishness of seekers does not invalidate those who are seeking to know and love Him more closely, and in doing so, encounter His healing presence.

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.

You are quite right there. If a person does not accept the Holy Scriptures as part of the Deposit of faith, then there is really no more authoritative source to show you.

The teachings of the Church are completely consistent with the holy scripture, because they both come from the same Source. That is whey there is nothing in the Church teaching that contradicts the Scriptures.

Ditto what I said above.

It seems that you think I have misuderstood the Teaching of the Church. Since I don’t believe all the myths you retain about the “movement” that are inconsistent with Church teaching, I do not understand how my understanding is deficient.

 

[jmj1984]

Watch how you word that. The Protestants didn’t found the charismatic renewal. A charismatic renewal began in Protestantism. A charismatic renewal began in Catholicism. A charismatic renewal began in Orthodoxy. It is something that is occurring among Protestants and Catholics. It did not come from outside the Church. The Catholic movement began in the Church.

And yet numerous sources catholic and protestant say it began and was based on the pentecostal movement.

Ecumenism is about reuniting the Church and reconciling schismatics with the Church. Certainly we can “learn” from other faiths, but in the sense that the simply recall our attention to what is already part of our religion, since whatever is good in their religion came from the Church to begin with.

I am curious still about the involvement in non-Catholic services… I think there are other aspects to this you are ignoring, and are taking something out of context. That being said, I would agree that there can be a “too-easy” ecumenism in this movement, which Pope Benedict also highlighted in the Ratzinger Report. I do not support this, then.

Believe what you want, the teaching is all there for you to read

No, no. Vatican II was required to renew the Church, to refocus her attention on certain aspects of her teaching, to update her methods for the modern world, to fully address the problems of our current world. Bl. John Henry Newman puts it: “…to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often”. The Church must adapt her ways, not her teachings, to the current circumstances.

There were problems in the Church - not with her teaching, however. Errors were committed by individuals. Misunderstandings of Church teaching were prevalent on many subjects.

Really? Curious that the only non-infallible ecumenical council in the entire history of the church was required to renew it. The council itself does not claim infallibility, neither did the council fathers or the pope and neither do numerous theologians in good standing with The Holy See.

 

[jmj1984]

You misunderstand the purpose of encyclical. The Pope doesn’t make encyclicals on things like church movements. You won’t find an encyclical written on the Charismatic Renewal, and I highly doubt there will ever be one. The Pope might write, and I hope he does, an encyclical on the charismatic dimension of the faith. He might, in an encyclical, mention the charismatic movement. But he’s not going to right an encyclical on the Charismatic Renewal.

And yet Popes over the years have written encyclicals on devotions such as The Holy Rosary and the way of the cross and confraternities such as The Rosary Confraternity and the Angelic War Confraternity to name but two of many. So I’m afraid your statement is just wrong.

I think you are making a cop out here. You’re acting as if our argument were merely just an appeal to authority. It’s not. Why don’t you actually look at what the Popes are saying on the subject, and try and determine whether or not they are right.

But I do and they have said nothing with authority.

However, aspects of what we are dealing with are parts of Church teaching, made in some extremely authoritative documents from the Magisterium. The role of charisms, for instance.

There is no authoritative document embracing the charasmatic movement or its interpretation of charasmatic gifts.

What the charismatic movement is saying, and what the Church is teaching, on the subject of Pentecost, and charisms, are the same thing. The movement is simply calling attention to this unfortunately neglected but crucial aspect of Church teaching.

And yet you cant cite a single authoritative document that supports it? Oh and now the church has been neglecting crucial aspects of its teaching?

So… enough of the ad hominem attacks, the straw mans, and worming out of the real crux of the matter.

But this is the crux of the issue, it has no authority or tradition to support it

 

[jmj1984]

The Church says that the sacraments aren’t the only ways the Holy Spirit gives grace. It says that the charisms give grace (it calls them “special graces”). There is an infinite amount of “grace” and “fullness of Spirit” we’re dealing with here. Until you get to heaven, there is always always always more that you can receive. Your daily prayers, outside of Mass, give you an increase of grace. Your daily activities, your work, gives you grace. In the last words of St. Teresa of Avila: everything is a grace. There’s always more of God to receive. Otherwise, it would be absolutely useless to go to communion and receive the sacraments more than once in your life.

And yet no one supports the idea that the charasmatic movement can do this nor does the idea of ‘increasing fullness of spirit’ appear anywhere in Catholic teaching.

This is simply untrue, unfounded, and insupportable. I have seen charismatic groups not commit these abuses. Therefore, they are not intrinsic to the movement.

It’s not about seeking virtue, and then seeking charisms. That’s not how it works. You seek charisms, and you seek virtue, as all part of growing in virtue and holiness. The charisms help you become more virtuous, and virtues help you become more “charismatic”.

I know lutherans who believe in authority hence the problem with the movement isnt a lack of authority and yet we know this to be true.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Or perhaps, does not fit your definition of “tradionalist”. I have been called a “rad trad” by Catholics here who have fallen away from the faith, because my values and practice are so traditional. But for me, there is no dichotomy between the sacramental life of the Church and walking by the Spirit each and every day, all day. They complement one another.

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

You are absolutely right. If a Catholic does not find the Holy Scripture, the Catechism, and the words of the Holy Fathers,authoritative, I have no other sources that I think would be better.

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,

This is a good question. I agree, it is not the Pentecostal movement. And, although I think charismatic gifts might be an outgrowth of such fulness, they are not the Source of it either. It is not sad at all that the fullness of the Spirit comes through the Sacraments. the Gifts are an outgrowth of them.

In any other case, I would show you from Scripture what “fulness of Spirit means”, but since you seem to have no use for the Scriptures, I will refrain.

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.

I can understand why it seems illogical. Again, this is what we find in Scripture, so it would be of little value to you. A person who has already been infused can expereince another inflling. It is more a matter of the person experiencing what was already given. A person can be given a gift, then not use it. When one decides to open and use it, one has a different experience. It is not like as if they never had the gift all along.

A person gave me some bath beads, but I don’t generally take baths so I did not use them. About a year later, I decided to take a bath, so I opened them and dissolved them in the bath. My experience of the gift was quite different when I used it than it was before I did so. I did’t “get” anything new.

  We all already have fullness of the holy spirit, though we are not of course all full of grace.

Yes. The problem is that most Catholics don’t walk according to that fulness. If they did, our country would be a very different place.

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.

Yes, this is consistent with the teaching of the renewal. The gifts are there to lead us into service in the Body, and into virtue. They are most certainly NOT the result of piety.

Facts don't 'seem' facts simply are.

I agree, but how you perceive the “facts” is not consistent with the Church teaching.

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

I can understand why it seems that way to you. You seem to have had a very warped experience, and I am sorry. The gifts and the virtues are entertwined and complimentary. One need not seek one to the exclusion of the other.

 

[jmj1984]

Virtually all the Rosaries in every parish I have attended are led by lay persons. In one, it is said daily after Mass, and Father never stays. He dismisses the Mass, and after he processes out, a layperson leads the Rosary.

What is "unfitting"about this?

Traditionally it is always priests that lead these things and again thats nowhere near the same of healing services.

I have never heard a Catholic Charismatic claim to “heal people” (as if somehow by themselves they had done so). I have frequented the healing ministry within the Charismatic Renewas lince 1983, and I have seen many healings all of the accomlished by God.

No you have seen people healed, but as we know miracles and healing can be performed by satan you cannot say they were healed with god with definite certainty.

Is there any way in which we all are NOT to be channels of the Holy Spirit? Is this not what it means to walk by the Spirit? God has saved us to do good works,a nd we cannot do these unless we are a channel of the HS. It is Him who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.

But there are certan things we cannot do and certainly mass healings done by numerous people who arent even priests or religious has very little precedent.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, because I don’t see it. The theology that I have been taught is grounded in the sacraments of initiation, especially baptism and confirmation. I do agree, that learning to unwrap and use the gifts received at that time is intrinsic to the movement. What gives them power and purpose, though, emanates from the sacramental life of the Church. this is why I know it does not come from a Protestant source. Most Protestants that claim to be “pentecostal” (virtually all those I have met) do NOT believe that these are sacraments, or convey power.

I don’t see how the Church’s interpretation of baptism and confirmation exclude spiritual gifts.

I didnt say it did, I did say that this kind of obsession with the gifts is unhealthy, if you cannot see that the very founders movement said that they wished to deepen their spiritual life, saw this deepening as including gifts and learnt it from non-catholics its clearly not orthodox.

Why do you reject the Scripture and the teaching of the Church that laypeople are to be doing the work of the ministry?

Because it isnst the teaching of either.

Is this not what should be happening today? Should not people come to Jesus, and be healed? You have already agreed that miracles in our day and age are valid, if rare. Perhaps they would not be so rare if people came with expectant faith?

It is not rarity or they’re being common I question, it is the obsession and focus on them.

I don’t know of any Catholic Charismatic group that has ever done such a thing, but I am not sure I agree. Today, Jesus comes among us at the Eucharist, and His healing presence is available to all. Yet, there are set times for Liturgy, and they are published as such in the bulletin and on the Church.

We have a pre-arranged time when we come together to encounter Him at the foot of the cross. He never made appointments for that when he was here…

I know of several. And I do question something that has no precedent and which numerous saints declined do due to humulity, heroic humulity.

Yes, He did, and He still does so today. Just as there were those who sought healing or bread from him as a sole purpose, so there are today. this selfishness of seekers does not invalidate those who are seeking to know and love Him more closely, and in doing so, encounter His healing presence.

It IS the movement as can be seen by its history.

You are quite right there. If a person does not accept the Holy Scriptures as part of the Deposit of faith, then there is really no more authoritative source to show you.

The teachings of the Church are completely consistent with the holy scripture, because they both come from the same Source. That is whey there is nothing in the Church teaching that contradicts the Scriptures.

I reject your interpretation and that is true, which is why I reject your interpretation.

It seems that you think I have misuderstood the Teaching of the Church. Since I don’t believe all the myths you retain about the “movement” that are inconsistent with Church teaching, I do not understand how my understanding is deficient.

Myths? No. Facts yes.

 

[jmj1984]

Or perhaps, does not fit your definition of “tradionalist”. I have been called a “rad trad” by Catholics here who have fallen away from the faith, because my values and practice are so traditional. But for me, there is no dichotomy between the sacramental life of the Church and walking by the Spirit each and every day, all day. They complement one another.

You are absolutely right. If a Catholic does not find the Holy Scripture, the Catechism, and the words of the Holy Fathers,authoritative, I have no other sources that I think would be better.

An interpretation of scripture, theres no mention of the movement in the catechism and a mere speech by a pope is not authoritative as any theologian would tell you.

This is a good question. I agree, it is not the Pentecostal movement. And, although I think charismatic gifts might be an outgrowth of such fulness, they are not the Source of it either. It is not sad at all that the fullness of the Spirit comes through the Sacraments. the Gifts are an outgrowth of them.

In any other case, I would show you from Scripture what “fulness of Spirit means”, but since you seem to have no use for the Scriptures, I will refrain.

I have no value for your interpretation of scripture.

I can understand why it seems illogical. Again, this is what we find in Scripture, so it would be of little value to you. A person who has already been infused can expereince another inflling. It is more a matter of the person experiencing what was already given. A person can be given a gift, then not use it. When one decides to open and use it, one has a different experience. It is not like as if they never had the gift all along.

A person gave me some bath beads, but I don’t generally take baths so I did not use them. About a year later, I decided to take a bath, so I opened them and dissolved them in the bath. My experience of the gift was quite different when I used it than it was before I did so. I did’t “get” anything new.

No idea what this is meant to prove

Yes. The problem is that most Catholics don’t walk according to that fulness. If they did, our country would be a very different place.

No most catholics just dont obey the church and none of us are perfect.

I agree, but how you perceive the “facts” is not consistent with the Church teaching.

I say the same to you

I can understand why it seems that way to you. You seem to have had a very warped experience, and I am sorry. The gifts and the virtues are entertwined and complimentary. One need not seek one to the exclusion of the other.

No Its not my experience, its a fact that can easily be verified by google or numerous anecdotes.

 

[guanophore]

And yet numerous sources catholic and protestant say it began and was based on the pentecostal movement. :shrug:

Yes, both Catholics and Protestants can make the same mistake.

But, the Bible is a Catholic book. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Since the gifts of Pentecost are included in it’s pages, we know that these are Catholic.

If Protestants came along 1900 years after the pages were written and discovered them, that does not make them the “source”. I am glad my separated brethren are reading this Catholic book, but they are not the source of anything contained in it.

Believe what you want, the teaching is all there for you to read

Indeed.

1 Cor 10:11
1 Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction,

 

[jmj1984]

Yes, both Catholics and Protestants can make the same mistake.

But, the Bible is a Catholic book. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Since the gifts of Pentecost are included in it’s pages, we know that these are Catholic.

If Protestants came along 1900 years after the pages were written and discovered them, that does not make them the “source”. I am glad my separated brethren are reading this Catholic book, but they are not the source of anything contained in it.

Indeed.

1 Cor 10:11
1 Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction,

So pretty much everyone says the movement was born when catholics visited non-catholic services and implanted this into the catholic faith. So your pointing to the bible and the church and this is irrelevant, the facts remain it was born out of disobedience to the catholic faith, frankly actions that are close to apostasy and adopts terms that are fundamentally non-catholic.

 

[vardaquinn]

Really? Curious that the only non-infallible ecumenical council in the entire history of the church was required to renew it. The council itself does not claim infallibility, neither did the council fathers or the pope and neither do numerous theologians in good standing with The Holy See.

All the Councils were used to renew the Church, in their own various ways. This one did so in a particular matter. Aspects of the Council’s teaching, particularly what is contained in the Constitutions, exercise the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

But I do and they have said nothing with authority.

Yes they have! They are exercising their authority in meeting with and supporting and approving movements. But WHY do you disagree with them? The charismatic movement does not require approval from the Holy See to not be heretical. You’re turning aside from the real issue: what the charismatic movement itself IS, and what it is saying. Which so far, you have portrayed an immense ignorance and misunderstanding of.

There is no authoritative document embracing the charasmatic movement or its interpretation of charasmatic gifts.

There are authoritative documents and statements, but you want an infallible, ex cathedra, full exercise of all the clout the Pope has as Vicar of Christ embracing the movement.

I was not referring to an authoritative document on the movement. I was referring to authoritative documents with information on the charismatic gifts, which coincide to the movement’s interpretation of the charismatic gifts. Again, you are ignoring the real meat of the matter. This is simply a cop out.

But this is the crux of the issue, it has no authority or tradition to support it

Yes there is. And you are simply ignoring that. Look at the Church teaching on charisms. It is loaded with authority and tradition.

And yet no one supports the idea that the charasmatic movement can do this nor does the idea of ‘increasing fullness of spirit’ appear anywhere in Catholic teaching.

Yes, the POPES have supported the idea that the charismatic movement can do this. But you haven’t, I’m sure, even bothered to read what they have said about it because it wasn’t an encyclical.

 

[jmj1984]

All the Councils were used to renew the Church, in their own various ways. This one did so in a particular matter. Aspects of the Council’s teaching, particularly what is contained in the Constitutions, exercise the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

Yes they have! They are exercising their authority in meeting with and supporting and approving movements. But WHY do you disagree with them? The charismatic movement does not require approval from the Holy See to not be heretical. You’re turning aside from the real issue: what the charismatic movement itself IS, and what it is saying. Which so far, you have portrayed an immense ignorance and misunderstanding of.

There are authoritative documents and statements, but you want an infallible, ex cathedra, full exercise of all the clout the Pope has as Vicar of Christ embracing the movement.

I was not referring to an authoritative document on the movement. I was referring to authoritative documents with information on the charismatic gifts, which coincide to the movement’s interpretation of the charismatic gifts. Again, you are ignoring the real meat of the matter. This is simply a cop out.

Yes there is. And you are simply ignoring that. Look at the Church teaching on charisms. It is loaded with authority and tradition.

Yes, the POPES have supported the idea that the charismatic movement can do this. But you haven’t, I’m sure, even bothered to read what they have said about it because it wasn’t an encyclical.

But the charasmatic movement in the church is entirely new, linking it to charisms and claiming that as they are supported it must be is entirely foolish.

And no I just want a few encyclicals, which of course you can’t provide. As for reading it, I have, I disagree and seeing as its encyclical I can perfectly well do so.

The point stands you cannot supply any authority to support the charasmatic movement

And no I have also criticised what the movement itself says, as even a cursory glance of my posts would tell you.

Oh and on the subject of Vatican II, actually the common opinion is that the constitutions are entirely non-infallible, read the book ‘Apologetics and catholic doctrine’ published by baronius press, originally published in the 1900’s revised numerous times and re-revised in 2008 by a diocesan priest. It states that they are merely ordinary and non-infallible

 

[vardaquinn]

Traditionally it is always priests that lead these things and again thats nowhere near the same of healing services.

Traditionally, the laity have pretty much been expected to warm the pews and pay the bills. Which is wrong, and totally contradicts Church teaching.

No you have seen people healed, but as we know miracles and healing can be performed by satan you cannot say they were healed with god with definite certainty.

Oh yes, certainly Satan really wanted to heal loads of people and bring about mass conversions and radical changes in people’s lives and have them encounter the grace and mercy of God, and certainly a whole bunch of totally enthused and orthodox Papists going around praying to God for miracles were actually demoniacs and magicians in disguise… Use some common sense.

But there are certan things we cannot do and certainly mass healings done by numerous people who arent even priests or religious has very little precedent.

Why should one need to be a priest or religious to perform miracles? Do priests or religious have access to any more grace than the laity? (aside from the grace particular to their state, such as a priest has the grace that enables him to say Mass, hear confessions, etc.) No. There are certain things we cannot do, because we have a different vocation: we cannot administer the sacraments (and neither can religious who are not priests).

It is quite a shame that this has little precedent. There definitely, for far too long, has been a mistaken idea of the role of the laity in the Church. This has gotten a lot better, especially thanks to the efforts of people like St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei, and of course the teaching of Vatican II. St. Josemaria was often called a heretic for his “unprecedented” ideas about the laity. How shocking it was to some people, even bishops, for him to suggest that a person could become a great saint outside of Holy Orders or without vows.

But in the Catholic Church, we don’t do things just because someone did them before. That’s not how things work. We do them because they are the will of God. God likes surprises, you know. Jesus was terribly criticized by the Pharisees for breaking all these traditions and precedents. So were nearly all of the saints by the Pharisees of their own times.

I didnt say it did, I did say that this kind of obsession with the gifts is unhealthy, if you cannot see that the very founders movement said that they wished to deepen their spiritual life, saw this deepening as including gifts and learnt it from non-catholics its clearly not orthodox.

This is another bare assertion, given that using the gifts is something central to the Christian life, according to… Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, the Popes…

Learning something about our own faith, aspects of which are possessed by non-Catholics, from non-Catholics does not mean it is not orthodox. That’s a ridiculous suggestion.

I reject your interpretation and that is true, which is why I reject your interpretation.

And you are also rejecting the Church’s interpretation as well.

Myths? No. Facts yes.

Or rather… a million bare assertions.

An interpretation of scripture, theres no mention of the movement in the catechism and a mere speech by a pope is not authoritative as any theologian would tell you.

Don’t recall any mention of traditionalism in the catechism either. Or any encyclicals on it. Or anything remotely authoritative… Guess all us traddies are heretics.

I have no value for your interpretation of scripture.

You just claim “I disagree because you are misinterpreting it” but you offer no evidence to suggest we are misinterpreting it. So that’s… another… bare assertion.

 

[Warrenton]

But the charasmatic movement in the church is entirely new, linking it to charisms and claiming that as they are supported it must be is entirely foolish.

As I wrote earlier, the use of the term “charism” is problematic. It covers so much ground, it’s hard to know what the writers of the V2 documents had in mind. Personally, I don’t think they had anything particular in mind, or they could not agree. It’s vexing.

The use of the term “charism” in V2 led to a sort of fetishism, in which “charisms” are perceived as a sort of mystical power, a la Green Lantern’s ability to disappear.

Varda said he thinks the vagueness was deliberate also - the Church has been cautious in outright endorsement, and cautious in forbidding it. I agree with him, but think that this indicates the bishops perceive speaking in tongues as a new thing.

It is possible for a new thing to be suggested by an old thing. It is also possible for a new thing to be an attempt to copy an old thing. Sometimes this has a very positive result, like renaissance church building, sometimes it leads to disaster: trying to get congregants to sing the psalms.

 

[jmj1984]

Traditionally, the laity have pretty much been expected to warm the pews and pay the bills. Which is wrong, and totally contradicts Church teaching.

Oh yes, certainly Satan really wanted to heal loads of people and bring about mass conversions and radical changes in people’s lives and have them encounter the grace and mercy of God, and certainly a whole bunch of totally enthused and orthodox Papists going around praying to God for miracles were actually demoniacs and magicians in disguise… Use some common sense.

Why should one need to be a priest or religious to perform miracles? Do priests or religious have access to any more grace than the laity? (aside from the grace particular to their state, such as a priest has the grace that enables him to say Mass, hear confessions, etc.) No. There are certain things we cannot do, because we have a different vocation: we cannot administer the sacraments (and neither can religious who are not priests).

It is quite a shame that this has little precedent. There definitely, for far too long, has been a mistaken idea of the role of the laity in the Church. This has gotten a lot better, especially thanks to the efforts of people like St. Josemaria Escriva and Opus Dei, and of course the teaching of Vatican II. St. Josemaria was often called a heretic for his “unprecedented” ideas about the laity. How shocking it was to some people, even bishops, for him to suggest that a person could become a great saint outside of Holy Orders or without vows.

But in the Catholic Church, we don’t do things just because someone did them before. That’s not how things work. We do them because they are the will of God. God likes surprises, you know. Jesus was terribly criticized by the Pharisees for breaking all these traditions and precedents. So were nearly all of the saints by the Pharisees of their own times.

This is another bare assertion, given that using the gifts is something central to the Christian life, according to… Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium, the Popes…

Learning something about our own faith, aspects of which are possessed by non-Catholics, from non-Catholics does not mean it is not orthodox. That’s a ridiculous suggestion.

And you are also rejecting the Church’s interpretation as well.

Or rather… a million bare assertions.

Don’t recall any mention of traditionalism in the catechism either. Or any encyclicals on it. Or anything remotely authoritative… Guess all us traddies are heretics.

You just claim “I disagree because you are misinterpreting it” but you offer no evidence to suggest we are misinterpreting it. So that’s… another… bare assertion.

Still waiting for authoritative documents

And as traditionalism consists of practicing traditional catholic devotions and believing catholic beliefs both of which are supported by dozens of encyclicals, doctors of the church, saints and catechisms your statement is **false. **