Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

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.

So who’s pretty much everyone? So… why don’t you read up on the history of the movement? Maybe some original sources? Check out Ralph Martin’s “Spirit and the Church”, that’s got a lot of original sources. Or here ctkcc.libsyn.com/holy_spirit_dave_mangan He was on the retreat. Like here: Actually the movement was born on a Catholic retreat. Also research the “Cursillo Movement”.

The non-Catholics implanted nothing into the Catholic faith. They simply may have helped recall aspects of our own Catholic faith. Which they received from the Church.

 

[guanophore]

So I’m afraid your statement is just wrong.

What is the purpose of an encyclical?

why do you give it more credence than Scripture?

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

While I am willing to concede this point, this does not invalidate what the Church has always believed and taught about charismatic gifts.

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?

This has been the case in many geographical areas over the 2 millenia of the Church. Sometimes instruction in the purpose of the sacraments is neglected. More recently parishes are requiring proof that Catholics are in good standing, and have appropriate intentions before their babies are baptized, or children confirmed. There are some catholics on CAF who are very angry about having to go through pre-Cana. This catechesis has been put in place to correct the neglect of crucial aspects of the Church teaching.

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

Certainly none you are willing to accept, since you reject the Scriptures and the Catechism as authorative documents, as well as the documents of Vat. 2.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Do you mean to say it is not possible to grow in grace, service, and virtue?

I am listening to the Rule of St. Benedict in an audio book, and I find this statement of yours to be quite contrary to the Rule. He is clear that the disciplines of the order are designed to help the undisciplined soul to grow in the fullness of the Spirit.

 

[jmj1984]

So who’s pretty much everyone? So… why don’t you read up on the history of the movement? Maybe some original sources? Check out Ralph Martin’s “Spirit and the Church”, that’s got a lot of original sources. Or here ctkcc.libsyn.com/holy_spirit_dave_mangan He was on the retreat. Like here: Actually the movement was born on a Catholic retreat. Also research the “Cursillo Movement”.

The non-Catholics implanted nothing into the Catholic faith. They simply may have helped recall aspects of our own Catholic faith. Which they received from the Church.

ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

ccr.org.uk/ccrstart.htm

ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/zcathpente.htm

spiritwatch.org/firecath.htm

 

[jmj1984]

Do you mean to say it is not possible to grow in grace, service, and virtue?

I am listening to the Rule of St. Benedict in an audio book, and I find this statement of yours to be quite contrary to the Rule. He is clear that the disciplines of the order are designed to help the undisciplined soul to grow in the fullness of the Spirit.

I too have read the rule and I cannot see any mention of this

Perhaps he meant obedience to it or adherence to it? He certainly cannot be claimed for the charasmatic movement that is a laughable absurdity

 

[jmj1984]

What is the purpose of an encyclical?

why do you give it more credence than Scripture?

Are you honestely telling me you do not know what an encyclical is?

Because it is not for me to interpret scripture, something the ‘reformers’ failed to realise and something you also apparently fail to realise.

While I am willing to concede this point, this does not invalidate what the Church has always believed and taught about charismatic gifts.

Well thats the end of that then, the movement has no authority

This has been the case in many geographical areas over the 2 millenia of the Church. Sometimes instruction in the purpose of the sacraments is neglected. More recently parishes are requiring proof that Catholics are in good standing, and have appropriate intentions before their babies are baptized, or children confirmed. There are some catholics on CAF who are very angry about having to go through pre-Cana. This catechesis has been put in place to correct the neglect of crucial aspects of the Church teaching.

Ah but you are making quite a different claim, you are claiming that the catholic church, the indefectible bride of christ ‘the pillar and bulwark of the truth’ negelected its own teaching, that is different from individual dioceses, or even whole countries or popes doing this. It is a fundamentally uncatholic and unsubstantiated claim

Certainly none you are willing to accept, since you reject the Scriptures and the Catechism as authorative documents, as well as the documents of Vat. 2.

Scripture must be interpreted you are not its genuine interpreter the church is, the catechism doesnt explicitily or even implicitly support you and neither does V2.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

Why? I don’t follow that at all. At their time, the Benedictines were entirely new. And they didn’t receive absolute full support in an infallible exercise of the Pope’s authority as far as I know… So I guess to suggest that they’re mission and vocation were authentic would be entirely foolish, according to your logic.

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

I don’t recall their being an encyclical on traditionalists. Or on the overwhelming crushing majority of any movement or order or group or organization within the Catholic Church, however controversial they were. In any case, such a matter is generally not one of faith and morals. And thus is not a matter of infallibility. Whether the charismatic renewal is heretical or not is not a matter of faith and morals. No one is obligated even to acknowledge the existence of such a movement, because the movement itself is not part of Revelation. Now, what the movement itself is actually professing and teaching and putting forth is another matter. That is a matter of faith and morals, and we can back up what we’re saying there.

Why do you disagree? Just “because”?

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

We cannot supply any infallible statements, no.

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

Was that book infallible? Well, anyway, ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium works like this: when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past the teaching is infallible. “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

Now actually, there’s debate on whether a few statements were considered infallible because they were stated so forcefully, but none of those statements have any bearing on the discussion.

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

(Of course, that doesn’t help matters, given that it’s from Vatican II… )

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.

Then as the charismatic movement consists of practicing the charismatic dimension of the faith, which is an aspect of our teaching found in encyclicals, doctors and fathers of the church, saints, catechisms, councils, theologians, the popes, and most importantly Sacred Scripture… then your statement that we have no authoritative support is also false. (

 

[guanophore]

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

When I was growing up in Catholic schools, traditionallly it was the nuns that led these things.

After Vat. 2, I think the laity became more active in the faith (no longer spectators). This is consistent with the Scripture:

Eph 4:11-13
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

The Apostle teaches that the gifts and role of the ministers is to “equip the saints” who are then to do the work of the ministry. Clarifying the nature of that ministry is what Luman Gentium did.

At the Benedictine Monastery I frequent. the Abbot is often travelling and one of the community members leads the prayer, both Rosary and Liturgy of the Hours. There are very few priests in this monastery, but even when there is one in residence the prayers are lead by a brother.

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.

Yes, I have seen people healed on many levels. How do we know it is the HolySpirit? because the fruit of the spirit will always follow. Such persons are reconciled to the Church, and return to the Sacraments. They stop drinking, smoking, committing adultery, start reading their Bibles and their lives manifest Love instead of selfishness.

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.

I agree. Because of the prayers of the Saints and the Popes we see things happening in our day that have not been seen since the early days of the Church.

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.

I agree that an obsession with gifts is unhealthy. I also agree that there are some, both in Pentecostal and catholic communities that reflect this imbalance. However, I have met and had dinner with some of these founders, read their books, prayed with them, and listened to their talks. They have been continually seeking a deeper spiritual life since they learned a way to do so. And you have to admit, when they developed this interest, there were no “catholic” prayer meetings. It is difficult even today to find Catholic prayer meetings and bible studies. Back then, they were unheard of.

Because it isnst the teaching of either.

I accept that it does not seem that way to you.

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

I agree. However, I think this might be more of a problem for you than it is for Catholic Charismatics. You are the one that seems to have the obsession. For us, the gifts are only a reflection or outgrowth of the Spirit filled life. We have no such obsession.

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

It is always healthy to question. The Church questions all apparitions for that reason.

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

It is not necessary to be involved in the Charismatic Renewal to have an authentic healing experience from contacting Christ. I think saying this is “the movement” is a heresy. People encounter Christ in the Sacraments and are healed who have never heard of the Charismatic Renewal.

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

Yet, you have failed to provide an alternative. You don’t want to deal with any of the Scriptures about this, because they say things you don’t want to hear.

Myths? No. Facts yes.

I am sure they seem like facts to you. This is your experience, your perception. Other people have had different experience, and different perceptions. For many Catholic Charismatics, the Spirit filled life is completely commplimentary with the sacramental life of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I have no value for your interpretation of scripture.

Well, you are right, we understand what we are reading differently. And, I have not given an “interpretation of scripture”. I just find that you are unable to respond to the scriptures that are posted here.

In fact, you seem to espouse a position that Scripture does not support, which is that the gifts are no longer active in the Church (not needed). This is a position espoused by dispensationalist anti-Catholics.

I will ask you again, since you have avoided the question. Are the popes giving erroneous direction to the flock? When they affirm the Charismatic Renewal, are they acting along with “evil”?

I can stipulate that their communications on this level are not as authoritative as other levels, but what you are saying is :

movement originating in Protestantism =evil
Popes supporting movement = evil

No idea what this is meant to prove

It is not a proof. It is an illustration to reinforce the point that a person who has been given a gift can fail to open it, and use it. This does not mean they were not given the gift of the HS, just that the fullness is not being lived out.

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

Yes, but most of those disobedient Catholics also justify their disobedience.

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

If you are getting your "facts’ from “google and numerous anecdotes”, then that explains why they are not entirely accurate.

 

[vardaquinn]

Because it is not for me to interpret scripture, something the ‘reformers’ failed to realise and something you also apparently fail to realise.

You can interpret Scripture! If you can’t, then you shouldn’t read it and then it shouldn’t be read to you every time you go to Mass. You have no guarantee that you are correct in your interpretations, and you must conform them to the Church’s interpretation. Try reading what the Church has to say on the subject of Sacred Scripture: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html It’s short! The shortest of the constitutions!

The Sacred Scripture certainly trumps everything, since it is the word of GOD. We ourselves, through our own study and common sense and thorough reading and through the Holy Spirit, come to understand the Scripture. It’s written for us!

To totally discount Scripture is just a cop out. You suggest we can misinterpret it. Sure. We can also misinterpret anything said in any encyclical. That doesn’t mean we have misinterpreted it, since we have backed up our interpretation with Church teaching. Show that we have! (with encyclicals if you like).

 

[jmj1984]

Why? I don’t follow that at all. At their time, the Benedictines were entirely new. And they didn’t receive absolute full support in an infallible exercise of the Pope’s authority as far as I know… So I guess to suggest that they’re mission and vocation were authentic would be entirely foolish, according to your logic.

No because the church had a long history of monastic orders and a long history of the mortification central to his order. Besides which it was approved of by the pope in documents equivalent in authority to an encyclical something that you cannot provide for the charasmatic movement.

I don’t recall their being an encyclical on traditionalists. Or on the overwhelming crushing majority of any movement or order or group or organization within the Catholic Church, however controversial they were. In any case, such a matter is generally not one of faith and morals. And thus is not a matter of infallibility. Whether the charismatic renewal is heretical or not is not a matter of faith and morals. No one is obligated even to acknowledge the existence of such a movement, because the movement itself is not part of Revelation. Now, what the movement itself is actually professing and teaching and putting forth is another matter. That is a matter of faith and morals, and we can back up what we’re saying there.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13augus.htm

On the confraternity of the holy rosary

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro3.htm

Same as the above

papalencyclicals.net/Clem14/c14decet.htm

Again mentions confraternities

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro2.htm

Approves the confraternity of the Holy Family

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SERTU.HTM

The confraternity of christian doctrine and the Holy Name society

The Order of Preachers, The Order of Friars Minor and the Society of Jesus to name but a few all had documents equivalent in authority to encyclicals approving them and on them.

Why do you disagree? Just “because”?

Because of the novelties of the movement and its total lack of authority or precedence.

We cannot supply any infallible statements, no.

Actually you can’t supply any documents with any authority whatsoever.

Was that book infallible?

The book was the standard catechitical text for 60 years, is universally lauded and frankly well written and cites numerous authorities.

Well, anyway, ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium works like this: when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past the teaching is infallible. “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

It’s more complicated than that, but even allowing your statement the council still isnt infallible

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

(Of course, that doesn’t help matters, given that it’s from Vatican II… )

Well theres actually the slightly more problematic issue of it not supporting the doctrines of the charasmatic movement.

Then as the charismatic movement consists of practicing the charismatic dimension of the faith, which is an aspect of our teaching found in encyclicals, doctors and fathers of the church, saints, catechisms, councils, theologians, the popes, and most importantly Sacred Scripture… then your statement that we have no authoritative support is also false. (

Nope, seeing as none of these sources agree with its doctrines. That being why you cant cite any

 

[jmj1984]

You can interpret Scripture! If you can’t, then you shouldn’t read it and then it shouldn’t be read to you every time you go to Mass. You have no guarantee that you are correct in your interpretations, and you must conform them to the Church’s interpretation. Try reading what the Church has to say on the subject of Sacred Scripture: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html It’s short! The shortest of the constitutions!

The Sacred Scripture certainly trumps everything, since it is the word of GOD. We ourselves, through our own study and common sense and thorough reading and through the Holy Spirit, come to understand the Scripture. It’s written for us!

To totally discount Scripture is just a cop out. You suggest we can misinterpret it. Sure. We can also misinterpret anything said in any encyclical. That doesn’t mean we have misinterpreted it, since we have backed up our interpretation with Church teaching. Show that we have! (with encyclicals if you like).

Why? You havent provided any authoritative interpretation from the church on sacred scripture supporting your doctrines, not a single one.

 

[jmj1984]

Well, you are right, we understand what we are reading differently. And, I have not given an “interpretation of scripture”. I just find that you are unable to respond to the scriptures that are posted here.

I don’t respond because you cant show me any interpretation of the church that supports your point of view.

In fact, you seem to espouse a position that Scripture does not support, which is that the gifts are no longer active in the Church (not needed). This is a position espoused by dispensationalist anti-Catholics.

And you seem to espouse a view similar to that of several heretical movements.

I will ask you again, since you have avoided the question. Are the popes giving erroneous direction to the flock? When they affirm the Charismatic Renewal, are they acting along with “evil”?

I can stipulate that their communications on this level are not as authoritative as other levels, but what you are saying is :

movement originating in Protestantism =evil
Popes supporting movement = evil

Pope John XXII denying beatific vision = bad
Pope Honorius appearing to embrace heresy = bad
Pope Liberius likewise appearing to embrace heresy = bad

Papal statements = no authority and cant be claimed as the pope embracing anything

If you are getting your "facts’ from “google and numerous anecdotes”, then that explains why they are not entirely accurate.

Seeing as the sources all reference extensively, No. Nice try though but no.

 

[guanophore]

So pretty much everyone says the movement was born when catholics visited non-catholic services and implanted this into the catholic faith.

Not that this part of the story is inaccurate, but they may not have the rest of the story, which is the prayers of the Holy Fathers to “renew the church in our day, as with a new Pentecost”.

If it so happens that the members of the Church who were most ready, willing, and able to be Pentecostally renewed were at a non-Catholic prayer meeting at the time, so be it. God is not constrained by the physical boundaries of the Church. What we know about all those people is that they have grown in virture and in service to the One faith for the last 40 years. They have helped countless thousands of Catholics to come alive in their faith, and return to the sacramental life of the Church. To say this is “evil” just seems to indicate a person blind to the work of God.

So your pointing to the bible and the church and this is *irrelevant*,

This says a lot. I guess this is where we shall leave the discussion. If the Bible and the Teachings of the Church found in the Catechism are “irrelevant” to you, then I don’t think there is any “authority” that will pursuade.

I want to say, though, this discussion has been very helpful for me. I understand better now why there are Catholics who reject this part of the Catholic faith.

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.

No, it is not, but I understand why you think this.

Peace.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

Right. So look and see if they footnote 1 Cor 12. Lumen gentium 12 does. Cool. That means they’re referring to the charisms in 1 Cor 12. According to Bl. JP2, what they had in mind was: “The epistles of St. Paul, among other sources, tell us of charisms in the early Church. Vatican II recalls this teaching of the Apostle and applies it to the Church’s daily life. In the people of God, both the hierarchy and the laity share in charismatic gifts that enable them to perform ‘different works and offices’ for the good of mankind and of all Christians.” Wojtla, Karol. Sources of Renewal The Implementation of Vatican II. 342-343.

"Whenever the Spirit intervenes, he leaves people astonished. He brings about events of amazing newness; he radically changes persons and history. This was the unforgettable experience of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council during which, under the guidance of the same Spirit, the Church rediscovered the charismatic dimension as one of her constitutive elements: “It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the people, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank… He makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church” (Lumen gentium, n.12). " vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980530_riflessioni_en.html

Originally, they were going to leave out all mention. Someone said the charisms weren’t for today. Then Cardinal Leo Josef Suenens, one of the key coordinators of the Council, stepped in after having done some research, and claimed that they were. From what I have heard, a discussion ensued. For instance, they debated whether in the context of the charismatic gifts in Paul, they should consider tongues and prophecy extraordinary gifts because they seemed meant to be so common. Really, this seems to me to be pure grace, given that there was relatively no sort of charismatic movement in the Church at that point.

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.

Some bishops do, I’m sure. Some bishops and cardinals have been great leaders in the movement. I think originally, they had the Gamaliel position: if it’s not from God, it’ll die out. In the meantime, let’s do nothing to hinder it.

 

[vardaquinn]

Why? You havent provided any authoritative interpretation from the church on sacred scripture supporting your doctrines, not a single one.

We did. You obviously missed that.

 

[jmj1984]

Not that this part of the story is inaccurate, but they may not have the rest of the story, which is the prayers of the Holy Fathers to “renew the church in our day, as with a new Pentecost”.

If it so happens that the members of the Church who were most ready, willing, and able to be Pentecostally renewed were at a non-Catholic prayer meeting at the time, so be it. God is not constrained by the physical boundaries of the Church. What we know about all those people is that they have grown in virture and in service to the One faith for the last 40 years. They have helped countless thousands of Catholics to come alive in their faith, and return to the sacramental life of the Church. To say this is “evil” just seems to indicate a person blind to the work of God.

So you now accept that this movement was born outside of the catholic church? Astonishing. Whats even more astonishing is you seem that God would choose to ‘inspire’ catholics at a non-catholic prayer meeting, that God would in fact reward disobedience (it was a breach of canon law and thus canonical discipline) and praying with heretics. Your argument of miracles, fruits etc… is totally refuted by St Thomas Aquinas who clearly says that heretics and magicians can work miracles but it proves nothing. It is also the opinion of the church that the devil can masquerade as a good angel and produce good works if only to entrap more souls

Even more absurdaly you think that God would answer the supposed prayers of the fathers through non-catholics who are outside the church of christ, we may discover that individually in the next life they are not but certainly the majority and the body coporate are.

In short a total absurdity.

This says a lot. I guess this is where we shall leave the discussion. If the Bible and the Teachings of the Church found in the Catechism are “irrelevant” to you, then I don’t think there is any “authority” that will pursuade.

I want to say, though, this discussion has been very helpful for me. I understand better now why there are Catholics who reject this part of the Catholic faith.

And now you use a misquoted, out of context, to cop out of the discussion. I take objection to being part of the catholic faith, I’m afraid its not and no authority you can provide says otherwise.

No, it is not, but I understand why you think this.

Peace.

Lets examine the facts, you’ve admitted it was born out of non-catholics prayer meetings, this was forbidden by the church. Hence it was born out of disobedience.

 

[jmj1984]

We did. You obviously missed that.

Now you are just being obstinate, papal speeches arent authoritative. As you would know if you had a sound grasp of the magisterium

 

[vardaquinn]

No because the church had a long history of monastic orders and a long history of the mortification central to his order. Besides which it was approved of by the pope in documents equivalent in authority to an encyclical something that you cannot provide for the charasmatic movement.

Not before the Benedictines. Fransiscans might be a better example. Not many precedents for that. And they were heavily criticized for that one. Show me these documents.

In any case, the charismatic movement is not a religious order and along rather different lines. Since you obviously discount the personal approval of three Popes, and many many bishops… I guess then, there’s no approval.

Because of the novelties of the movement and its total lack of authority or precedence.

Which you know more about than three Popes and most of the college of bishops. Right.

The book was the standard catechitical text for 60 years, is universally lauded and frankly well written and cites numerous authorities.

Too bad. Not infallible. I won’t accept it. No precedent for such a thing.

Well theres actually the slightly more problematic issue of it not supporting the doctrines of the charasmatic movement.

Lumen gentium 12. Read.

 

[vardaquinn]

Now you are just being obstinate, papal speeches arent authoritative. As you would know if you had a sound grasp of the magisterium

No but… the writings of Vatican II, Scripture, and the Catechism ARE.