Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

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.

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.

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.

Read the Gospels. Jesus broke tons of rules. God’s not a Pharisee.

LOL, your quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas BACKED UP what we were saying! Judge the tree by its fruits. If you think the devil wanted to inspire billions of Catholics worldwide to have mass conversions, encounter the Trinity, the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to be filled with gifts and charisms for the upbuilding of the Church, to have their vocations renewed, to be drawn back to the sacraments, to have a deeper devotion to Mary and the saints, to have physical, emotional, and spiritual healing, to inspire many many vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and to pretty much radically fire up billions of Catholics for living a life of sanctity and complete surrender to Jesus Christ… then… I want to cry. That is one of the saddest things I have ever heard.

We did not admit it was born out of non-Catholic prayer meetings.

I think God would answer prayers in the way He saw fit. He doesn’t limit Himself to Catholics.

 

[jmj1984]

Read the Gospels. Jesus broke tons of rules. God’s not a Pharisee.

LOL, your quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas BACKED UP what we were saying! Judge the tree by its fruits. If you think the devil wanted to inspire billions of Catholics worldwide to have mass conversions, encounter the Trinity, the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to be filled with gifts and charisms for the upbuilding of the Church, to have their vocations renewed, to be drawn back to the sacraments, to have a deeper devotion to Mary and the saints, to have physical, emotional, and spiritual healing, to inspire many many vocations to the priesthood and religious life, and to pretty much radically fire up billions of Catholics for living a life of sanctity and complete surrender to Jesus Christ… then… I want to cry. That is one of the saddest things I have ever heard.

We did not admit it was born out of non-Catholic prayer meetings.

I think God would answer prayers in the way He saw fit. He doesn’t limit Himself to Catholics.

Actually he did admit that, you may not, but ultimately its of no consequence facts are facts.

As for billions there are two problems here:

1)There are only 1 billion catholics in the world not billions and i dare say no more than a few million are affilated to the charasmatic movement so let us not exaggerate
2) The idea that an idea gains more or less authority or in other words is more or less true due to numbers is condemned by the church. Pope Pius IX says in his syllabus of errors ‘60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces’

St Thomas Aquinas says nothing other than that miracles can happen etc… he also states clearly that they do not prove anything if the doctrine preached is false, that the wicked can work miracles and have their prayers answered and that magicians and demons can work miracles. What you believe he has proven for the charasmatic movement I do not know

Oh and now its alright to break the rules of the church because jesus did it what do the saints say of this?

'On one occasion, the Sacred Heart of Jesus told St. Margaret Mary to do something, but her superior did not approve. When He came again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: " . . . not only do I desire that you should do what your superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I order without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me" . Autobiography of St. Margaret Mary

‘Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient’ Autobiography of St Margaret Mary

‘Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience’ St Mara Faustina, Divine Mercy in My Soul

This article clarifies matters
'Satan may really promote good things for a while, provided that he gains in the long run. The revelations of Necedah, Wisconsin, seemed to have good fruits, yet were false. Rosaries were said to change to gold.

Similarly for Bayside. But disobedience showed them to be false. ’ catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6602

 

[jmj1984]

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.

On the Franciscans Solet Annuere issued by Pope honorius III which can be read here

And yes LONG before the benedictines, ever heard of the desert fathers or St Basil?

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.

And since you appear to have fallen guilty to the sin of papism, namely that a pope is right in everything he says and does and can’t supply any authoritative documents that support the movement no, theres no approval.

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

Of course it isnt me saying the things, it is the authorities.

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

A caricature of my position, frankly it is clear that your youth both literally and in faith has prevented you from seriously looking into these matters.

Lumen gentium 12. Read.

Read, along with the rest of Vatican II, several times. Perhaps you should read the rest of the church councils, the 1983 code of canon law and the encyclicals and quotes supplied? Just for context

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

God brought me to Himself in His Catholic Church due to the evangelization efforts of faithful and faith-filled Catholic Charismatics. I am not the only one. My soul is worth a lot to the Lord. If you don’t approve of His methods in drawing me close, take it up with Him!

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

God brought me to Himself in His Catholic Church due to the evangelization efforts of faithful and faith-filled Charismatic Catholics. I am not the only one to be given the gift of faith through their efforts. My soul is worth a lot to the Lord. If you don’t approve of His methods in drawing me close, take it up with Him!

 

[vardaquinn]

Actually he did admit that, you may not, but ultimately its of no consequence facts are facts.

You can’t just claim “The charismatic movement was born out of non-Catholic prayer meetings.” That’s not what happened. A few individuals attended prayer meetings that were specifically Catholic (usually a mix of several religious groups). These individuals were influential in the movement, many were associated with the Cursillo movement, which is a Catholic ministry which began in Spain. The charismatic movement itself got kicked off during the course of a Catholic retreat. Aspects of the movement were inspired by the actions and writings of non-Catholics - that is not a bad thing. The non-Catholics simply recalled our attention to aspects of our own teaching which had been horribly neglected for much of the Church’s history.

1)There are only 1 billion catholics in the world not billions and i dare say no more than a few million are affilated to the charasmatic movement so let us not exaggerate
2) The idea that an idea gains more or less authority or in other words is more or less true due to numbers is condemned by the church. Pope Pius IX says in his syllabus of errors ‘60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces’

Forgive me, yes I was exaggerating. The number, as of the year 2000, was about 120,000,000 which has doubtless grown further in the last 11+ years. This is still a substantial number. In some countries, the only place where Catholicism is alive is among charismatic groups.

I’m not saying it gains more authority, I am saying that it has touched and changed the lives of a significantly large amount of people.

I am still extremely dubious of their being a rule that we can’t pray with non-Catholics, and I would like to know if that rule was in effect at the time of 1967 and if it is still inn effect now. I sincerely doubt this, given that the Popes themselves have prayed with non-Catholics. So it’s a bit of a stretch to call it an act of disobedience.

Similarly for Bayside. But disobedience showed them to be false.

And what Bayside was saying was either ludicrously stupid or heretical. I’m very amused by what Bayside claimed Our Lady said of the charismatic movement. Apparently a syndicate of evil cardinals killed Pope Paul VI and replaced him with a double, and that’s why he approved the movement.

And yes LONG before the benedictines, ever heard of the desert fathers or St Basil?

Sure, and the Augustinians, and many other hermetical groups. But it was not done along the same lines as Benedict was doing it.

Of course it isnt me saying the things, it is the authorities.

What authorities? St. Thomas Aquinas who claims that miracles can happen, but that magicians can do them, and thus charismatics are wrong?

A caricature of my position, frankly it is clear that your youth both literally and in faith has prevented you from seriously looking into these matters.

Please forgive my sarcasm. It was not very tasteful.

Right, well see 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 (1 Cor. 12:11) He distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts He makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit”.(115) These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly demanded, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Thus, all the faithful get charisms, such as are specifically listed in 1 Cor 12 and the charismatic dimension is complementary to the sacramental, ministerial, institutional of the Church.

The CCC says here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p2.htm in paragraphs 798 to 801…

This is what we’re going off of. The Holy Spirit gives different charisms, which are described in 1 Cor 12. We are anointed by the Holy Spirit and given different gifts such as he sees fit. According to St. Paul, we should strive to have an abundance of these. These gifts serve the needs of the Church, and are primarily orientated towards serving Her needs. For instance. That means: words of wisdom, knowledge, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, healing, discernment of spirits, faith, mighty deeds… all these are supposed to be part of our daily lives. This is the ordinary Christian life. This is something essential to how the Church works. This is what the charismatic movement is saying. If you disagree with what is being said, and think the “charisms are not for this age”, you contradict explicit Church teaching.

 

[vardaquinn]

Why don’t you explain what you really think about the movement, other than that it could very likely be either demonic or heretical. Be specific here. Most of what you’ve said portrays immense ignorance of the movement, and it seems you’re going mostly off of common misunderstandings and misinformation. In the meantime, we’ve been bogged down debating the authority of the statements made on the Renewal, all of which you say you disagree with, but refuse to elaborate further on. You’ve made a LOT of bare assertions, and you’ve really only made ad hominems or straw mans when it comes to refuting the movement.

 

[jmj1984]

You can’t just claim “The charismatic movement was born out of non-Catholic prayer meetings.” That’s not what happened. A few individuals attended prayer meetings that were specifically Catholic (usually a mix of several religious groups). These individuals were influential in the movement, many were associated with the Cursillo movement, which is a Catholic ministry which began in Spain. The charismatic movement itself got kicked off during the course of a Catholic retreat. Aspects of the movement were inspired by the actions and writings of non-Catholics - that is not a bad thing. The non-Catholics simply recalled our attention to aspects of our own teaching which had been horribly neglected for much of the Church’s history.

Actually I can, seeing as charasmatics and those present at the meeting themselves admit it, as you would know if you had read the links I posted. Your admission that aspects of the movement, by which I take it you mean spiritual apsects?, were inspired by non-catholics is highly troubling. Never before in the history of the church has a movement looked at heretics for inspiration as regards spiritual matters.

Forgive me, yes I was exaggerating. The number, as of the year 2000, was about 120,000,000 which has doubtless grown further in the last 11+ years. This is still a substantial number. In some countries, the only place where Catholicism is alive is among charismatic groups.

120 million? That still seems a little exagerrated, regardless the statement from the syllabus of errors still applies.

I am still extremely dubious of their being a rule that we can’t pray with non-Catholics, and I would like to know if that rule was in effect at the time of 1967 and if it is still inn effect now. I sincerely doubt this, given that the Popes themselves have prayed with non-Catholics. So it’s a bit of a stretch to call it an act of disobedience.

It was in the 1917 code of canon law which was repealed till 1983, its present in the tradition of the church and frankly its still not wise for catholics to regularly pray or actively participate in non-catholic worship as a cursory glance at several encyclicals will show.

And what Bayside was saying was either ludicrously stupid or heretical. I’m very amused by what Bayside claimed Our Lady said of the charismatic movement. Apparently a syndicate of evil cardinals killed Pope Paul VI and replaced him with a double, and that’s why he approved the movement.

Yes, indeed a crazy movement.

Sure, and the Augustinians, and many other hermetical groups. But it was not done along the same lines as Benedict was doing it.

Did I ever say innovation was wrong or impossible? No, I said questionable innovation without authority was wrong.

What authorities? St. Thomas Aquinas who claims that miracles can happen, but that magicians can do them, and thus charismatics are wrong?

I’ve pasted them no less than four times, feel free to go back and find them.

Thus, all the faithful get charisms, such as are specifically listed in 1 Cor 12 and the charismatic dimension is complementary to the sacramental, ministerial, institutional of the Church.

The CCC says here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p2.htm in paragraphs 798 to 801…

This is what we’re going off of. The Holy Spirit gives different charisms, which are described in 1 Cor 12. We are anointed by the Holy Spirit and given different gifts such as he sees fit. According to St. Paul, we should strive to have an abundance of these. These gifts serve the needs of the Church, and are primarily orientated towards serving Her needs. For instance. That means: words of wisdom, knowledge, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, healing, discernment of spirits, faith, mighty deeds… all these are supposed to be part of our daily lives. This is the ordinary Christian life. This is something essential to how the Church works. This is what the charismatic movement is saying. If you disagree with what is being said, and think the “charisms are not for this age”, you contradict explicit Church teaching.

So you go from V2 saying we have charisms, that is gifts, which could be anything from being good at sports to being able to teach to the virtues etc… misinterpret scripture and then claim thats explicit church teaching. Thats a patent absurdity.

As for me saying charisms are not for this age, that is just as wrong as the charasmatic movement itself, at the opposite end of the spectrum. What I denounce is the obsession with them, the belief that they somehow prove doctrines, the idea that ones spiritual life is not complete without glossolia or baptism in the spirit amongst several issues I have with the movement. As the Doctor of Charity St Francis De Sales says in his universally praised work ‘Introduction to the devout Life’ 'But I say to you Philothea, do not desire things that are dangerous to the soul such as dances, games and other such pastimes; nor honours and offices, nor visions and ecstasies, for there is much danger, vanity and deceit in all such things. Chapter XXXVII, Of Desires.

Likewise forgive my sarcasm, for I likely started it.

 

[jmj1984]

Why don’t you explain what you really think about the movement, other than that it could very likely be either demonic or heretical. Be specific here. Most of what you’ve said portrays immense ignorance of the movement, and it seems you’re going mostly off of common misunderstandings and misinformation. In the meantime, we’ve been bogged down debating the authority of the statements made on the Renewal, all of which you say you disagree with, but refuse to elaborate further on. You’ve made a LOT of bare assertions, and you’ve really only made ad hominems or straw mans when it comes to refuting the movement.

No I’ve asserted facts which I backed with several weighty authorities, my issues with the movement and what I think of it have been explicitly addressed in my earlier posts, I see no reason to repeat myself.

 

[Fink]

God brought me to Himself in His Catholic Church due to the evangelization efforts of faithful and faith-filled Charismatic Catholics. I am not the only one to be given the gift of faith through their efforts. My soul is worth a lot to the Lord. If you don’t approve of His methods in drawing me close, take it up with Him!

IF theres evil in the Charismatic Movement, God can still extract good out of it. In fact, He doesnt allow evil*** unless ***He can extract good out of it.

i was brought back to the Sacraments, after an absence of more than 20 years, by one of Wayne Weible`s Medjugorje books. My present convictions about that place can be summed up with a word which begins with “dem”, and ends with “onic”.

 

[ClayPots47]

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.

Not quite correct. It wasn’t that Father Cantalamessa was going to Medjugorje proper (though the pro-Medj folks would have you believe that in an attempt to authenticate the whole thing - from one such pro-Medj website - “There is a long media trail of negativity written by Peric and his verbal attacks against Medjugorje are many. Just a few days ago as an example, an important Vatican priest was denied permission to attend a special event in Medjugorje.” ), he was to be the keynote speaker at the 12th International Seminar for Priests held July 3-5 in Medjugorje, where he was expected to have given three lectures at the event, titled “With Mary, in Anticipation of the Holy Spirit,” When the bishop informed Cantalamessa that the organizers failed to follow the pro-scripts of canon law, and obtain the permission of the bishop, Father Cantalamessa withdrew his plans. “My principle is not to preach, especially not to the clergy, without the permission of the local bishop,” Father Cantalamessa wrote in a letter to Bishop Peric June 13. The Chancery Office of Mostar made Father Cantalamessa’s withdrawal pubic, as to end the confusion being spread by the pro-Medj faction.

The Preacher of the Papal Household is not a life-long position, he is appointed from the Capuchin Order by tradition, and serves for the life-time of the pope who appointed him (that being JPII). B16 chose to retain Father Cantalamessa, rather than appoint another Capuchin. His service will end when either he, or B16 passes away; upon which another Capuchin will be appointed to replace him

 

[Fink]

Not quite correct. It wasn’t that Father Cantalamessa was going to Medjugorje proper*** (though the pro-Medj folks would have you believe that in an attempt to authenticate the whole thing - from one such pro-Medj website…***

… The Chancery Office of Mostar made Father Cantalamessa’s withdrawal pubic, as*** to end the confusion being spread by the pro-Medj faction. ***

The Preacher of the Papal Household is not a life-long position, he is appointed from the Capuchin Order by tradition, and serves for the life-time of the pope who appointed him (that being JPII). B16 chose to retain Father Cantalamessa, rather than appoint another Capuchin. His service will end when either he, or B16 passes away; upon which another Capuchin will be appointed to replace him

Many thanks for clearing up both of those misconceptions!

 

[ClayPots47]

Actually I can, seeing as charasmatics and those present at the meeting themselves admit it, as you would know if you had read the links I posted. Your admission that aspects of the movement, by which I take it you mean spiritual apsects?, were inspired by non-catholics is highly troubling. Never before in the history of the church has a movement looked at heretics for inspiration as regards spiritual matters.

The Duquesne weekend was considered the birth of the movement. The students were attending a retreat. Two of the professors assisting in the retreat had earlier attended a prayer meeting held in a private home, with others who were mainline Protestants involved in Charismatic Renewal in their own church’s, not classical Pentecostalism. Those professors were prayed over by a Presbyterian present at the prayer group gathering. They received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit then, but that event was not considered the birth of the movement, the later retreat was. A mainline Protestant was a speaker at the retreat. The students who attended the retreat, were not prayed over by anyone. It was when they entered the Adoration Chapel, during the nightly Exposition, of the Blessed Sacrament, that each of them, one-by-one, fell to the floor, (Rested in the Spirit, Pentecostals term it Slain in the Spirit) and each experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic experience of Resting in the Spirit, is very different than the Pentecostal experience of being Slain in the Spirit (which is why the CCR gave it a different name). It is like a brief experience of Infused Contemplation or Ecstasy, once one yields, the faculties are fully suspended, and the person experiences the presence of God in a profound way. It is mostly a quiet, gentle resting; not the violent looking jerking, writhing and moaning seen among Pentecostals. This is what separates the birth of the CCR from Protestantism, that the actual experience of the students was during a very Catholic event (Exposition) and no direct contact with Protestants occurred.

It was in the 1917 code of canon law which was repealed till 1983, its present in the tradition of the church and frankly its still not wise for catholics to regularly pray or actively participate in non-catholic worship as a cursory glance at several encyclicals will show.

Canon 1258.1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics.”

The professors did not take part in any sacred rites, or liturgical rites or official worship service, they didn’t even enter a Protestant house of worship. They attended a prayer gathering held in a private home. Unless there is another provision in the earlier CoCL prohibiting praying for and with non-Catholic Christians; I don’t see how this would apply. A private prayer gathering in someone’s home hardly is a “sacred rite”.

 

[jmj1984]

The Duquesne weekend was considered the birth of the movement. The students were attending a retreat. Two of the professors assisting in the retreat had earlier attended a prayer meeting held in a private home, with others who were mainline Protestants involved in Charismatic Renewal in their own church’s, not classical Pentecostalism. Those professors were prayed over by a Presbyterian present at the prayer group gathering. They received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit then, but that event was not considered the birth of the movement, the later retreat was. A mainline Protestant was a speaker at the retreat. The students who attended the retreat, were not prayed over by anyone. It was when they entered the Adoration Chapel, during the nightly Exposition, of the Blessed Sacrament, that each of them, one-by-one, fell to the floor, (Rested in the Spirit, Pentecostals term it Slain in the Spirit) and each experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic experience of Resting in the Spirit, is very different than the Pentecostal experience of being Slain in the Spirit (which is why the CCR gave it a different name). It is like a brief experience of Infused Contemplation or Ecstasy, once one yields, the faculties are fully suspended, and the person experiences the presence of God in a profound way. It is mostly a quiet, gentle resting; not the violent looking jerking, writhing and moaning seen among Pentecostals. This is what separates the birth of the CCR from Protestantism, that the actual experience of the students was during a very Catholic event (Exposition) and no direct contact with Protestants occurred.
.

Hardly a convincing story or supported by the sources I’ve cited which comes from eyewitnesses at the weekend. ‘Resting in the spirit, Baptism in the spirit’ what absurd terms, completely alien to catholic theology and tradition.

The professors did not take part in any sacred rites, or liturgical rites or official worship service, they didn’t even enter a Protestant house of worship. They attended a prayer gathering held in a private home. Unless there is another provision in the earlier CoCL prohibiting praying for and with non-Catholic Christians; I don’t see how this would apply. A private prayer gathering in someone’s home hardly is a “sacred rite”.

Protestants don’t have sacred rites, something that I being an ex-protestant am more than aware of. Prayer meetings are probably as much a ‘sacred rite’ to them as anything else.

 

[jmj1984]

God brought me to Himself in His Catholic Church due to the evangelization efforts of faithful and faith-filled Charismatic Catholics. I am not the only one to be given the gift of faith through their efforts. My soul is worth a lot to the Lord. If you don’t approve of His methods in drawing me close, take it up with Him!

Deo Gratias!

But I was a protestant drawn to God through that movement, I then converted and became a catholic and subsequently a traditionalist, that hardly validates the protestant faith. As others and the church itself says God only allows evil (or wrong) when good can come out of it.

 

[Melchior_1]

Protestants don’t have sacred rites, something that I being an ex-protestant am more than aware of.

Anglicans do, as do Lutherans. Any other group with a recognized Baptism.

 

[jmj1984]

Anglicans do, as do Lutherans. Any other group with a recognized Baptism.

The two special cases out of about 30,000 different sects and baptism, one rite out of 7. What I mean is that their church services are no more sacred than anything else, they place no particular emphasis on holy communion and don’t see marriage as a sacrament, therefore a bible service on sunday is to them as important as a bible study in someones house etc…

 

[Melchior_1]

The two special cases out of about 30,000 different sects and baptism, one rite out of 7. What I mean is that their church services are no more sacred than anything else, they place no particular emphasis on holy communion and don’t see marriage as a sacrament, therefore a bible service on sunday is to them as important as a bible study in someones house etc…

You’re generalizing (again), because there’s a few others other than Anglicans and Lutherans. And also a bit inaccurate, as their marriages can be valid as well so it’s more 2/7 (still not ideal, mind you).

I know SEVERAL protestants who treat marriage as a HUGE deal, including the no sex before marriage business. Some of them don’t agree with divorce.

Some “Bible services” do place importance on “communion”, they just treat it symbolically. A big difference, yes, but they still place importance on it.

 

[jmj1984]

You’re generalizing (again), because there’s a few others other than Anglicans and Lutherans. And also a bit inaccurate, as their marriages can be valid as well so it’s more 2/7 (still not ideal, mind you).

I know SEVERAL protestants who treat marriage as a HUGE deal, including the no sex before marriage business. Some of them don’t agree with divorce.

Some “Bible services” do place importance on “communion”, they just treat it symbolically. A big difference, yes, but they still place importance on it.

If i’m generalising its only because the protestant movement has tens of thousands of sects and to deal with each individually would require several lifetimes of man and more pages than all the books of the world could provide.

The fact remains that protestants do in general treat a bible study as important as church, they certainly cannot name anything that makes church more important than bible study. The overwhelming majority of protestant sects have communion very infrequently, perhaps one service a month and there is always the alternative of another service.

Treating marriage as ‘important’ does not make it a sacrament, properly speaking protestants have only one sacred rite, as they have only sacrament, namely baptism. One can treat Lutherans -whose doctrines bear little resemblance either to some of Luthers doctrines or to the majority of protestants doctrines- and Anglicans -who often do not even regard themselves as protestants and some of whom on the other hand do not believe at all in the sacraments- seperately. Applying the term to the overwhelming majority of protestants, sacred rite simply means a religious ceremony that is sacred to protestants, this would include bible study, prayer groups and all such things.

Now rather than nitpicking on ultimately small and irrelevant matters perhaps you would actually like to address something I’ve said of some importance? Or are your contributions to be limited to nitpicking?

 

[vardaquinn]

Actually I can, seeing as charasmatics and those present at the meeting themselves admit it, as you would know if you had read the links I posted. Your admission that aspects of the movement, by which I take it you mean spiritual apsects?, were inspired by non-catholics is highly troubling. Never before in the history of the church has a movement looked at heretics for inspiration as regards spiritual matters.

It is a bit troubling. When the heretics are living the truth better than the majority of the ones who actually believe it. Troubling indeed. What I think was most inspired from non-Catholics was the fact that God is still around, still works with charisms and miracles, and we should live our lives in absolute dependence on him. That isn’t heretical, it’s actually very Catholic. It’s ironic, because the rest of the Protestants criticized the movement as “too Catholic!!”. The Baptists are of the opinion someone is instantly going to hell for speaking in tongues.

120 million? That still seems a little exagerrated, regardless the statement from the syllabus of errors still applies.

Check it out: iccrs.org/images/uploads/files/CCR_Stats.gif

It was in the 1917 code of canon law which was repealed till 1983, its present in the tradition of the church and frankly its still not wise for catholics to regularly pray or actively participate in non-catholic worship as a cursory glance at several encyclicals will show.

Thanks for clarifying. Still want to do some research before I say “Alright, they were being disobedient for praying with non-Catholics”, which I am still highly dubious of.

As an example: I ran on a homeschoolers Cross Country team, with a bunch of different Christian homeschoolers in the area. The coaches were Evangelical Protestants, as were many of the team members. Often we would say a quick prayer before running, something along the lines of “Lord Jesus, please help everyone run well, give you glory, and stay healthy and no injuries”. Would you frown on that? If I had done that before 1983, would I be being disobedient to canon law?

So you go from V2 saying we have charisms, that is gifts, which could be anything from being good at sports to being able to teach to the virtues etc… misinterpret scripture and then claim thats explicit church teaching. Thats a patent absurdity.

Which could be anything in the traditional list of charisms. Which you will find listed even by the Angelic Doctor: “[St. Paul] rightly divides charismata; for some belong to the perfection of knowledge, as faith, the word of wisdom, and the word of science; some belong to the confirmation of doctrine, or the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits; some belong to the faculty of expression, as kinds of tongues and interpretation of speeches.” St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, Q. cxi, a. 4

Charisms are, by definition, a supernaturally inspired gift. A natural talent, like being good at sports, is not a charism.

What I denounce is the obsession with them, the belief that they somehow prove doctrines, the idea that ones spiritual life is not complete without glossolia or baptism in the spirit amongst several issues I have with the movement. As the Doctor of Charity St Francis De Sales says in his universally praised work ‘Introduction to the devout Life’ 'But I say to you Philothea, do not desire things that are dangerous to the soul such as dances, games and other such pastimes; nor honours and offices, nor visions and ecstasies, for there is much danger, vanity and deceit in all such things. Chapter XXXVII, Of Desires.

Oh, than we really are more on the same page than you’d think. One’s spiritual life may certainly be complete without tongues, but I would say certainly not without baptism in the Holy Spirit. We all need to conform ourselves and experience the grace of Pentecost. Simply receiving the sacrament of Confirmation, but not doing anything with it, doesn’t cut it.

Somehow prove doctrines? Not sure what you’re referring to there. One of the main purpose for miracles, though, is a “sign”. They tend to demonstrate the truth in what someone is saying. That’s obvious from nearly the whole of Scripture.

Ha, I’ve seen that quote before. I love St. Francis de Sales, but if he’s honestly against dancing and games and having fun and wants you to avoid it, I have to openly disagree with him and I could provide plenty of back up from other authors. That’s not a very Catholic idea. Certainly, do not desire visions and ecstasies. Desiring visions and ecstasies may be the case with some of the more immature members of the movement, who have not received proper instruction on the matter. It is not the case with all charismatics. It is also the case with individuals who have no association with the movement. The movement itself does not rely on that. And it also does not mean visions and ecstasies are bad - not by any means at all! Only that they can be dangerous and lead to deceit, and that we should not go about seeking them. If God gives them, that’s great. He often does, especially to those with a weaker faith.

That doesn’t mean don’t desire the charisms. We are supposed to desire them, seek them, and be open to them, because they require our cooperation. That is clear in Church teaching.