Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

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.

What? None of the sources you cited from eyewitnesses contradicted what she said.

Resting in the Spirit, baptism in the Spirit, may be terms foreign to traditional Catholic theology, but their realities certainly are not. I wouldn’t call them absurd.

So to you, it seems the most offensive thing you can find about the movement is that it began with associations with Protestants. I’m not sure how that should prove the movement is fake, heretical, evil, demonic, or bad in anyway. You’ve also made the bare assertion that what occurs within the movement is foreign to Catholic tradition, which we have already begun to show otherwise. I’m not sure what your real beef with the movement is, but…

 

[jmj1984]

What? None of the sources you cited from eyewitnesses contradicted what she said.

Resting in the Spirit, baptism in the Spirit, may be terms foreign to traditional Catholic theology, but their realities certainly are not. I wouldn’t call them absurd.

So to you, it seems the most offensive thing you can find about the movement is that it began with associations with Protestants. I’m not sure how that should prove the movement is fake, heretical, evil, demonic, or bad in anyway. You’ve also made the bare assertion that what occurs within the movement is foreign to Catholic tradition, which we have already begun to show otherwise. I’m not sure what your real beef with the movement is, but…

1)It was born outside of the catholic church, essentially by attempting to transfuse what they had found and experience through and with non-catholics into the catholic church
2)The movement is based around an obsession around the charasmatic gifts, this can hardly be disputed seeing as its the hallmark and identifying trait of the movement and what inspired the founders of the movement to found it
3)The movement is to this day embroiled in false ecumenicism, prayer meetings with non-catholics, the use of non catholic theology and literature and so on
4)The movement has no basis in the tradition of the church

Frankly I’m surprised you don’t see how the association being born out of protestant prayer meetings is problematic, it puts forward the absurdity that God chose to use heretics to renew the supposed spiritual gifts of the catholic church.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

None of that requires any help from non-catholics a cursory glance at the Church Doctors or mystics of the church would have established this, ignorance of this is no excuse to run off to protestants.

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

Perhaps a non bias source? Though I suppose the growth in South America might explain it.

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.

I have provided several encyclicals on the matter, you can find excerpts of the 1917 code online or even google it on papalencyclicals.net

As an example: I ran on a homeschoolers Cross Country team, with a bunch of different Christian homeschoolers in the area. 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?

Originally ambigous situations such as this would have been dealt with by a persons spiritual director. Personally todays society being what it is, that is with many different sects and religons, I can’t see a problem with it.

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.

Very well but again I never advocated against spiritual gifts, I advocated against the continous seeking of these types of spiritual gifts, the obsession with them and the belief that they somehow validate beliefs or practices.

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.

There is no such thing as baptism in the spirit, it simply doesn’t exist. As for experiencing the grace of pentecost, we all need to experience its grace, the grace of the nativity, the passion and death of our Blessed Lord, the ressurection and the ascension amongst other graces

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.

'**I answer that, Some miracles are not true but imaginary deeds, because they delude man by the appearance of that which is not; while others are true deeds, yet they have not the character of a true miracle, because they are done by the power of some natural cause. Both of these can be done by the demons, as stated above (1, ad 2).

True miracles cannot be wrought save by the power of God, because God works them for man’s benefit, and this in two ways: in one way for the confirmation of truth declared, in another way in proof of a person’s holiness, which God desires to propose as an example of virtue. On the first way miracles can be wrought by any one who preaches the true faith and calls upon Christ’s name, as even the wicked do sometimes. On this way even the wicked can work miracles. Hence Jerome commenting on Matthew 7:22, “Have not we prophesied in Thy name?” says: “Sometimes prophesying, the working of miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not to the merit of those who do these things, but to the invoking of Christ’s name, that men may honor God, by invoking Whom such great miracles are wrought.”

In the second way miracles are not wrought except by the saints, since it is in proof of their holiness that miracles are wrought during their lifetime or after death, either by themselves or by others. For we read (Acts 19:11-12) that “God wrought by the hand of Paul . . . miracles” and “even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs . . . and the diseases departed from them.” On this way indeed there is nothing to prevent a sinner from working miracles by invoking a saint; but the miracle is ascribed not to him, but to the one in proof of whose holiness such things are done. **

 

[jmj1984]

**Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (Question 83, Article 16) when we were treating of prayer, the prayer of impetration relies not on merit but on God’s mercy, which extends even to the wicked, wherefore the prayers even of sinners are sometimes granted by God. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xliv in Joan.) that “the blind man spoke these words before he was anointed,” that is, before he was perfectly enlightened; “since God does hear sinners.” When it is said that the prayer of one who hears not the law is an abomination, this must be understood so far as the sinner’s merit is concerned; yet it is sometimes granted, either for the spiritual welfare of the one who prays–as the publican was heard (Luke 18:1)4)–or for the good of others and for God’s glory.

Reply to Objection 2. Faith without works is said to be dead, as regards the believer, who lives not, by faith, with the life of grace. But nothing hinders a living thing from working through a dead instrument, as a man through a stick. It is thus that God works while employing instrumentally the faith of a sinner.

Reply to Objection 3. Miracles are always true witnesses to the purpose for which they are wrought. Hence wicked men who teach a false doctrine never work true miracles in confirmation of their teaching, although sometimes they may do so in praise of Christ’s name which they invoke, and by the power of the sacraments which they administer. If they teach a true doctrine, sometimes they work true miracles as confirming their teaching, but not as an attestation of holiness. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 79): “Magicians work miracles in one way, good Christians in another, wicked Christians in another. Magicians by private compact with the demons, good Christians by their manifest righteousness, evil Christians by the outward signs of righteousness.”

Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 79), “the reason why these are not granted to all holy men is lest by a most baneful error the weak be deceived into thinking such deeds to imply greater gifts than the deeds of righteousness whereby eternal life is obtained.” **’ St Thomas Aquinas

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.

And would any of these authors be Doctors of The Church? I cannot believe you would dismiss The Doctor of Charity and the most lauded and universally praised book of spiritual direction in the history of The Church with a ‘ha ha other authors say otherwise’

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.

And yet charasmatics do desire these things… It’s an absurdity to claim that a movement born out of desire to seek these gifts, whos founders validated their experiences due to these gifts and indeed founded the movement because of it and of which the hallmark is these gifts and an obsession with them does not rely on them.

 

[Warrenton]

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

Naturally they obtained the term from somewhere.

I agree that the results of Vatican 2 were new and astonishing! LOL.

Saying people are not only made holy by sacraments and ministrations could mean literally anything, or nothing. People can be “made holy” by going to a holy place on a pilgramage, or by saying holy things, like prayers, or doing holy things, like feeding the hungry. Who ever claimed otherwise?

Taken in context, St. Paul’s teaching on charism ties in with his teaching on grace. What he is saying, broadly is that we don’t “do” anything to merit salvation - we can’t. Instead, we receive the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ.

Once this postition was stated, St. Paul had to explain it further, in order to avoid the pitfalls that would later be re-articulated forcefully by Calvin. If we don’t “do” anything, what is piety? St. Paul explained that our ability to be pious, or “holy” if you prefer that turn of phrase, is like saving grace, a function of the Holy Spirit: we teach, prophesy, speak in tongues, understand, etc. because the Holy Ghost enables us to do this in a way that is pleasing to God. St. Paul is not using “charism” in a limited way: he was teaching that good works or pious practices are pleasing to God through grace, not in themselves. Recall, St. Paul was at pains to ensure that people did not develop a totemistic approach to Christ, like some Jewish authorities of his time.

The modern explanation of Charismatic gifts is flawed (as shown in the excerpt you quoted) in that it implies that Charisms are a kind of special ability that gets conferred by magic. Earlier, I used the analogy of a superhero’s special powers, like Spiderman’s “charism” of climbing up skyscrapers. This is exactly the opposite understanding obtained from a comprehensive reading of St. Paul.

Clearly, pagans-moreover, devils - teach, prophesy, understand, and if Voodoo is any indication, speak in tongues. It’s just not pleasing to God when they do, and they remain as far from salvation as ever. Their “charism” does not translate into saving grace. But more to the point, their “charism” is not anything unique, rather, it is just “their ability” or “their action.”

One could say I have a “charism” for attending the old mass, or eating pretzels. But would it really be useful to describe what I do on Sunday afternoon? No. It would not convey anything useful about me, unless you happen to be missing a bag of Utz. It would be tantamount to saying “Warrenton got possessed by God, and began to do inexplicable things. Now, I can’t find my Latin dictionary or my snacks.” All of it may be true, but it is usable.

It is more useful to delve into why we do the things we do, and why we prefer them to doing other things. If we redux to “charism” to “magic power conferred by God” we end up at logger heads, just like Ann Hutchinson and the Bay Colony elders, because an interior appeal to inspiration is gnostic - untranslatable to the uninitiated and immune to any criticism from the outside.

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.

One can only wonder what research he did. Maybe he found a copy of Elmer Gantry, but who knows? As to the use of the term charism, I don’t dismiss the possibility that it was grace, but I don’t believe it, either. I am very reluctant to ascribe any particular contemporary event to divine intervention. If you have ever discussed Israel/Palestine with someone who thinks the settlement of 1948 was a divinely inspired event, you know what I mean. They may be right for all I know, or care, but it puts paid to a rational exchange of information. Who can argue against the eternal word of God? I think they just found a phrase that seemed suitably antique without being medieval, gave it the once over for any blatant error, and tossed it into the verbal pot.

But let’s leave Lumen Gentium, and agree that it is not going to shed much light for me. Here’s a thought: being forced to articulate exactly what speaking in tongues, or healing, or ecstacies are, how precisely they go about them, and why some people like them will be good for the Charismatic movement. It certainly has been helpful for the Traditional movement. The relentless questioning and proving of the Traditional tenets have made the argument for the resumption of Traditional practices stronger, not weaker. There has been way too much “fuzzy logic” in the Church for 40 years, which is not good for a group as rigorously rational as the RCC (I’m not saying Charismatic activity falls into that category).

Bring it into the light!

Cheers!

[/QUOTE]

 

[ClayPots47]

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. .

Your ‘sources’ back up everything I wrote. But feel free to point out anything I wrote that doesn’t agree with your alleged ‘sources’. As for the terms being ‘absurd’, well, you have to call the experiences something! Just like the terms ‘infused contemplation’ and ‘ecstasy’ were used to describe certain mystical phenomena. I’m sure that argument worked for things like bilocation, levitation, transverberation when they occurred to certain holy people. As for the “completely alien to catholic theology and tradition”. it’s a strawman fallacy and completely irrelevant to my post, since I wasn’t arguing that the terms were rooted in catholic theology and tradition. People usually are dismissive of others post contents, and/or erect strawmen, when they can’t objectively dismiss the post; which is exactly what you are doing, and have done to other posters.

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.

What an absurd response! Especially because you are the one who brought up the 1917 CoCL. I guess you’ll have to take that up with the folks who developed the Latin and English versions of the 1917 CoCL. So, you now claim that because you are an “ex-protestant”, you know better than the 1917 CoCL??? Oh, yeah, you know it all, more than the recent popes even (Who have praised the CCR, while at the same time urging caution with regard to the potential for abuses)… That persona is clear to many of us perusing this thread.

 

[jmj1984]

Your ‘sources’ back up everything I wrote. But feel free to point out anything I wrote that doesn’t agree with your alleged ‘sources’. As for the terms being ‘absurd’, well, you have to call the experiences something! Just like the terms ‘infused contemplation’ and ‘ecstasy’ were used to describe certain mystical phenomena. I’m sure that argument worked for things like bilocation, levitation, transverberation when they occurred to certain holy people. As for the “completely alien to catholic theology and tradition”. it’s a strawman fallacy and completely irrelevant to my post, since I wasn’t arguing that the terms were rooted in catholic theology and tradition. People usually are dismissive of others post contents, and/or erect strawmen, when they can’t objectively dismiss the post; which is exactly what you are doing, and have done to other posters.

'**In January 1967, four Catholics from Duquesne attended their first interdenominational charismatic prayer meeting – the Chapel Hill meeting – in the home of Miss Flo Dodge, a Spirit-filled Presbyterian. Interestingly enough, a few months before these Catholics came, the Lord led Flo to read Isaiah 48 where He announces that He is about to do “a new thing”.Indeed, God was about to do a new thing among Catholics as a result of the prayer meeting. The people from Duquesne were impressed with what they witnessed there. On January 20, two of the men returned. They received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and began to manifest charismatic gifts. They returned home to pray with the other two who had not attended that night. At this time I was a member of the Chi Rho Scripture Study group that met on the Duquesne campus. Two of these professors served as moderators of Chi Rho, and although they did not tell us outright about their charismatic experience, those who knew them well noticed that they radiated a new joy. We were planning for our retreat in February and the professors suggested a new theme: “The Holy Spirit.” In preparation for the retreat, they told us to pray expectantly, to read The Cross and the Switchblade, and to read the first four chapters of the Acts of the Apostles.

A few days before the retreat, I knelt in my room and prayed, “Lord, I believe I’ve already received your Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation. But if it’s possible for your Spirit to be more at work in my life than He’s been up until now, I WANT IT!” The dramatic answer to my prayer was soon to come. On February 17 about 25 of us left for The Ark and The Dove Retreat house on the outskirts of the city. As we gathered for each session, our professors told us to sing as a prayer the ancient hymn, Veni Creator Spiritus, “Come Creator Spirit”. On Friday night there was a meditation on Mary. Then we had a Penance Service. In John’s Gospel we read that when the Holy Spirit comes He will convict the world of sin. That’s what happened among us as we repented in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

On Saturday a member of the Chapel Hill Prayer Group came to speak on Acts, chapter 2. All we were told was that she was a Protestant friend of our professors. Although her presentation was very simple, it was filled with spiritual power. She spoke about surrendering to Jesus as Lord and Master. She described the Holy Spirit as a Person who empowered her daily. Here was someone who really seemed to know Jesus intimately and personally! She knew the power of the Holy Spirit like the Apostles did. I knew I wanted what she had and I wrote in my notes, “Jesus, be real for me.**”’

ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

So the movement was born from a prayer meeting with and led by non-catholics and those present wanted what a non-catholic had, wanted to feel the same way, felt they needed her instruction and worse still the eyewitness even seems to believe that jesus would not be real for him unless he felt the same way this non-catholic did. The two men who manifested charasmatic gifts after coming back from the weekend did so as a result of praying with non-catholics at a non-catholics home.

As for irrelevant to your post, I wasn’t just addressing your post.

The terms are absurd because they are an attempt to ‘transfuse’ the errors of a heresy into the catholic faith, something that none of the things you mention are and it is for this reason they are absurd.

What an absurd response! Especially because you are the one who brought up the 1917 CoCL. I guess you’ll have to take that up with the folks who developed the Latin and English versions of the 1917 CoCL. So, you now claim that because you are an “ex-protestant”, you know better than the 1917 CoCL??? Oh, yeah, you know it all, more than the recent popes even (Who have praised the CCR, while at the same time urging caution with regard to the potential for abuses)… That persona is clear to many of us perusing this thread.

No, I am explaining what it means by sacred rites in response to someone who believed that a prayer meeting was not a ‘sacred rite’.

As for your ad hominem attack, what is clear to me is that those supporting the movement are utterly incapable of supplying any authoritative support for the movement or refuting the saints and doctors of the church that condemn the traits endemic and indeed intrinsic to the movement. Again and again and again charasmatics desperately try and bring forth speeches from recent popes as support, some even try and claim this shows the magisterium supports them and yet this is nonsense. The movement has no authoritative support, no encyclical, no papal bull, no council document, nada. On the contrary numerous sources from the Magisterium condemn its practices.

 

[Warrenton]

'No, I am explaining what it means by sacred rites in response to someone who believed that a prayer meeting was not a ‘sacred rite’.

This is correct, Protestants, or at least not ones likely to engage in Charismatic activity, do not have “sacred rites” in the Catholic sense. Some, from an historical perspective, continue received Catholic rites (some have mass, marriage, etc.). But praying is not a “rite.” Speaking in tongues or prophesying are not rites.

 

[guanophore]

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

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

I was not aware that there WERE any “doctrines of the charismatic movement”. Can you tell me where I can read about these?

This is the first time I have heard any such thing existed. Maybe if I can study them it will help me understand your objections?

 

[guanophore]

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

Except for the handful of verses specifically defined by the Church, the faithful are encouraged to read and understand scripture in any way that does not conflict with the teachings of the Church.

You have not been able to provide any official church document that supports your claim that the gifts are not viable today, or that they are no longer authentic, or that the faithful are no longer moved by the spirit to manifest gifts for the service of the Church. Since scripture does teach all these things, we are free to understand the verses this way.

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

If you are referring to the statement I just made above, yes, there are many of my separated brethren that have embraced heresies that also espouse orthodox doctrines such as these are. For example, they accept the Catholic doctrine of Trinity, but deny the doctrine of Holy Orders.

Pope John XXII denying beatific vision = bad

Pope Honorius appearing to embrace heresy = bad
Pope Liberius likewise appearing to embrace heresy = bad

Are you offering these as examples of “heretical movements”?

Or perhaps you are offering them as examples of popes teaching error? None of these popes foisted their erroneous ideas upon the flock. This is an example of the Divine Gift of Infallibility at work. All the Popes who made errors were prevented from transmitting them to the faithful because Jesus promised to protect His Church from error.

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

This is a very interesting position. However, you did not answer my question. Are you saying that the Popes that have made supportive statements to members of the Charismatic Renewal are embracing or teaching error? Are they, by supporting the Renewal, supporting heresy and evil?

 

[vardaquinn]

1)It was born outside of the catholic church, essentially by attempting to transfuse what they had found and experience through and with non-catholics into the catholic church.

Which had been experienced by individuals and groups on a smaller example both in an out of the Catholic Church throughout Church history, but most especially during the time of the Apostles. I’m going to post this amazing story which ClayPots posted on another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8352836&postcount=154 Absolutely incredible!

2)The movement is based around an obsession around the charasmatic gifts, this can hardly be disputed seeing as its the hallmark and identifying trait of the movement and what inspired the founders of the movement to found it

Why is that wrong?

3)The movement is to this day embroiled in false ecumenicism, prayer meetings with non-catholics, the use of non catholic theology and literature and so on

Perhaps non-Catholic literature, but not non-Catholic theology. That’s another one of your bare assertions. Prove that it is using non-Catholic theology. Perhaps some terminology inspired by the theology of non-Catholics, but the theology itself is totally Catholic. I can’t understand how prayer with non-Catholics is evil.

4)The movement has no basis in the tradition of the church

Clarify. We proved that the theology, and the charisms, is part of the deposit of faith found in both Scripture and Tradition. What has no basis in tradition?

Frankly I’m surprised you don’t see how the association being born out of protestant prayer meetings is problematic, it puts forward the absurdity that God chose to use heretics to renew the supposed spiritual gifts of the catholic church.

I don’t think that’s absurd. God uses whatever He’s given. God used Samaritans and Gentiles and non-Jews both during and before the coming of Christ. That certainly ticked off a lot of the Pharisees, who couldn’t consider how God could use non-Jews. The fact is, God’s going to do whatever He pleases, with whomever he pleases, and nothing anybody says is going to stop him. To suggest that he would simply limit himself to Catholics because only they have the fully true beliefs about Him is just… totally insupportable.

Very well but again I never advocated against spiritual gifts, I advocated against the continous seeking of these types of spiritual gifts, the obsession with them and the belief that they somehow validate beliefs or practices.

Though an obsession that excludes other essential aspects of the faith is clearly wrong, I don’t understand why seeking more of the gifts of the Holy Spirit could be wrong. The more the better! He’s not stingy. I know I for one need all the help I can get! Anything He wants to give me!

“They somehow validate beliefs or practices…” Hmm. Again, not sure what exactly you’re referring to. The purpose of performing miracles generally is as a sign that “Yeah, the God I’m telling you about, the Jesus who died for us, the Holy Spirit whose divine indwelling makes me a child of God - well He can do this! He can make you walk again, make you see, and He is a God of wonder!”. That’s how the Apostles worked them.

I think Aquinas may be referring to miracles wrought by the saints in heaven. Who are already holy and in heaven. All the rest of us are still saints in the making. For instance, a saint works miracles which are then used to prove that he is in heaven, when they are beautified and canonized. We’re all supposed to be saints, remember.

There is no such thing as baptism in the spirit, it simply doesn’t exist. As for experiencing the grace of pentecost, we all need to experience its grace, the grace of the nativity, the passion and death of our Blessed Lord, the ressurection and the ascension amongst other graces

Yes it does. We experienced it. Therefore the experience exists. I hope you yourself have experienced it, though I doubt it. Remember what the Popes and bishops said about it! Especially what Pope Benedict said, which so succinctly summarizes what it is about: “Today I would like to extend the invitation to all:* let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.” Pope Benedict XVI, Regina Caeli Message, Pentecost, 2008, given in St. Peter’s Square, Rome.

Rediscovering the awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation. Though experiencing the grace of the nativity, and the passion of Our Lord, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension is all very important - it is the experience of Pentecost that is primary. It is through Pentecost, through the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit, that we are empowered to become true Christians. Without Pentecost, none of the other things you mentioned has any importance. It is simply something that happened to someone else. With Pentecost, that changes everything. Let us rediscover the awareness of the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit, and the gifts He delights to pour out on His people.

And would any of these authors be Doctors of The Church? I cannot believe you would dismiss The Doctor of Charity and the most lauded and universally praised book of spiritual direction in the history of The Church with a ‘ha ha other authors say otherwise’

Come now. Are you against dancing and playing games? I wouldn’t call it the most lauded book of spiritual direction in the history of the Church, but it’s certainly up there. You disagreed with three Popes, so I don’t see why I can’t disagree with St. Francis.

And yet charasmatics do desire these things…

That’s a broad statement. I’m sure some charismatics have, or did, probably due to ignorance. I don’t.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ Warrenton: We are not intent upon adopting “Protestant ways”, but rather adopting the ways of how Christians should genuinely be acting, according to the model of the Acts of the Apostles. Some Protestants perhaps have made better headway with aspects of this (in particular what we’re speaking of, the charismatic dimension) then many Catholics, but… I’d recommend Ronald Knox’s Enthusiasm then, for an in depth historical treatment of heretical movements along the lines of Pentecostals.

In terms of the history of Charismatic activity, what I personally find troubling is its intense subjectivity. If someone says that they are doing what they are doing because of the direct, proximate causation of the Holy Ghost, how can I respond? The thing transcends debate.

Well, the direct proximate activity of the Holy Ghost should be ordinary in our daily lives. But you touch on the importance of discernment. It is important to discern what is of God, what is of the person, and what may even be demonic. I liked an example someone used: if prophets are the “engine” that drives the vehicle, then the priests are the brakes. Proper discernment, especially led by the priests, is something very necessary. This is going to take time.

Taken in context, St. Paul’s teaching on charism ties in with his teaching on grace. What he is saying, broadly is that we don’t “do” anything to merit salvation - we can’t. Instead, we receive the free gift of salvation through faith in Christ.

Not exactly. St. Paul’s teaching on charism ties in more with his teaching on the Mystical Body (that’s one of the main places where he describes his analogy). Different people have different charisms to play different roles in the Body.

St. Paul explained that our ability to be pious, or “holy” if you prefer that turn of phrase, is like saving grace, a function of the Holy Spirit: we teach, prophesy, speak in tongues, understand, etc. because the Holy Ghost enables us to do this in a way that is pleasing to God. St. Paul is not using “charism” in a limited way: he was teaching that good works or pious practices are pleasing to God through grace, not in themselves. Recall, St. Paul was at pains to ensure that people did not develop a totemistic approach to Christ, like some Jewish authorities of his time.

Perhaps, but that’s really not what’s central in his examination of charisms in Corinthians. He’s describing how everyone has a role to play in the body, and to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit.

One could say I have a “charism” for attending the old mass, or eating pretzels. But would it really be useful to describe what I do on Sunday afternoon?

Let’s define charism then. It is a divinely inspired gift. It is not a natural talent or ability. It is a gift inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is “charism” used in a more vocational sense: Fransiscans have a charism of poverty. This is not what we are referring to when we speak of the charismata.

 

[guanophore]

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. **

No, Jmj, I accept nothing of the sort. The only authenticity that exists in Protestant communities comes from the Catholic Church. Our separated brethren become joined to the Catholic Church in Baptism. They are improperly joined, because they have embraced heresies, but are considered Christian, and members of the One Body.

The Holy Spirit inspired many people who are not visibly Catholic, some of them that have never been to prayer meetings. The canon law has to do with formal services, not personal prayer. The faithful have always been encouraged to pray at all times without ceasing, in their homes, and when away from home, at any chapel in a hospital or building where they are residing. These Catholics were engaged in such prayer. There was no violation of any canon law. There was no formal service, and they were not in a Protestant Church.

As I have said before, and you choose to disregard (wanting to blame Protestants) the Movement began with the Prayers of the Holy Father.
jmj1984;8352444:

 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

Of course I have no arguement with these points. In addition to these being true, God can, and does, work miracles and gives graces outside of the visible Catholic Church. The Catechism teaches He does this to draw people into unity with His One Body, the Church.

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.

I can’t claim to understand why the Holy Spirit works the way He does, but I know that there were Catholics seeking for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and they received it.

 In short a total absurdity.

People have always said this about the actions of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they thought the Aposltes were drunk, if I recall. Now that is a total absurdity, especially at 9 am.

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.

I agree with you that it cannot be proven to you that the charismatic gifts are an authentic expression of Catholic faith. You have stated several times that the messages from the Popes, the catechism, and the Scriptures have no authority for you on this topic. If a Catholic rejects all those authoritative sources, it is not possible to produce any other authentic source. It seems like you reject the statements of Vat. II because it is not an infallible council.

For others reading who are more open minded, here is an interesting address by the Holy Father.

 

[vardaquinn]

But let’s leave Lumen Gentium, and agree that it is not going to shed much light for me. Here’s a thought: being forced to articulate exactly what speaking in tongues, or healing, or ecstacies are, how precisely they go about them, and why some people like them will be good for the Charismatic movement. It certainly has been helpful for the Traditional movement. The relentless questioning and proving of the Traditional tenets have made the argument for the resumption of Traditional practices stronger, not weaker. There has been way too much “fuzzy logic” in the Church for 40 years, which is not good for a group as rigorously rational as the RCC (I’m not saying Charismatic activity falls into that category).

I’m sorry, could you be more clear? I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking.

 

[vardaquinn]

four Catholics from Duquesne attended their first interdenominational charismatic prayer meeting – the Chapel Hill meeting – in the home of Miss Flo Dodge, a Spirit-filled Presbyterian. Interestingly enough, a few months before these Catholics came, the Lord led Flo to read Isaiah 48 where He announces that He is about to do “a new thing”.Indeed, God was about to do a new thing among Catholics as a result of the prayer meeting. The people from Duquesne were impressed with what they witnessed there. On January 20, two of the men returned. They received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and began to manifest charismatic gifts. They returned home to pray with the other two who had not attended that night.

In a private home. Not a Protestant service in a Protestant Church.

 

[guanophore]

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

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

I can appreciate your point about the need for obedience. So what do you do with all those Charismatic Catholics who have been obedient? Are you suggesting that Father Cantalamessa is disobedient?

Do you believe the Holy Father would keep a disobedient priest in his house?

 

[guanophore]

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”.

I think jmj is grasping at straws to deny the validity of the movement. Straw men also appear to have been erected, including a claim that there are such things as “charismatic doctrines”. I am eager to learn more about those!

 

[guanophore]

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.

It seems that your experience of Protestantism is as limited as that with the charismatic renewal. On the contrary, the majority of Protestants are liturgical, especially Episcopalian/Anglican, Lutheran and there are specific orders of worship used by Methodists and many others.

Although the CC does not recognize their sacramental life as valid or licit. they practice it all the same, and it is sacred to them. These are the types of services in which the canon law used to discourage attendance.

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…

Yes, but they are still formal services. It is not the same as praying with friends in a hotel.

 

[guanophore]

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?

This is not a nitpick, jmj, it is one of the foundationstones of your denial that the movement is valid. I think your assertion is erroneous. Protestants don’t consider bible study and praying with friend “religious ceremonies”. While our separated brethren have a great love of the Word, and consider it sacred, they don’t think sitting at Starbucks sharing ideas about the verses they are reading a “sacred rite”.

And for those reading the thread who are willing to accept magesterial support for the charismatic movement, there is an interesting read on the synod of Bishops for Asia that references the Charismatic Renewal in that area.

 

[guanophore]

What? None of the sources you cited from eyewitnesses contradicted what she said.

Resting in the Spirit, baptism in the Spirit, may be terms foreign to traditional Catholic theology, but their realities certainly are not. I wouldn’t call them absurd.

So to you, it seems the most offensive thing you can find about the movement is that it began with associations with Protestants. I’m not sure how that should prove the movement is fake, heretical, evil, demonic, or bad in anyway. You’ve also made the bare assertion that what occurs within the movement is foreign to Catholic tradition, which we have already begun to show otherwise. I’m not sure what your real beef with the movement is, but…

Maybe jmj used to be Baptist, and has never gotten that “you will go straight to hell” theology out of the system?