Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[guanophore]

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

There is a logical disconnect here. It is the same as saying that Catholics who went to a non-Catholic bible study, then wanted to start their own bible study embraced something that was “born outside of the Catholic Church”. This is just not possible. The Catholic Church wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the Bible. If Protestants take it an use it (or misuse it, as often happens) how does that make the birth of it less Catholic?

The charismatic gifts of Pentecost were given to the Catholic Church, and the Apostles taught (in that Catholic bible) that they are for the building up of the Body of Christ. Now if non-Catholics take the gift and use, misuse, or abuse it, how does that make it less “born” of Catholicism?

The renewal occurred because the Holy Fathers asked for it. Pentecostals would strenuously deny that fact.

2)The movement is based around an obsession around the charasmatic gifts,

This is simply a false statement. Yes, there are communities that have this unhealthy, unbiblical, and erroneous obsession, but it is not Catholic, and it is not appropriate.

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is based around walking in the Spirit, so as not to fulfill the desires of the flesh.

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

It most certainly can be disputed. The fact that the gifts are present and identify the movement does NOT equate to any “obsession”. That is like saying the Apostles were “obsessed” by the gifts because they appeared at Pentecost.

 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

I would be interested to see some of this. I also look forward to reading the “charismatic doctrines” you have identified.

I am also against false ecumenism, but it is not possible to evangelize without communicating with those who have unwittingly embraced heresies.

What is it about praying with non-catholics that is problematic?

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

Especially for a person that does not recognize the New Testament as a product of the Sacred 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.

No, it does not, because the majority of them do not qualify for the term “heretic”. To earn that term, a person must have known, embraced, then willfully departed from the Truth. On the contrary, those who were born and raised in ecclesial communities that have been separated from the Sacred Tradition for 500+ years have never known the true faith.

You have demonstrated that you have no use for the current catechism, but for those reading the thread that do, I post the following:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree, but the vast majority of the Church does not live the life of mystics. If we were, then there would be no visible “movement”. We would see every Catholic living the spirit filled life of those in the NT, and the saints of the Church.

The Church does need the help of the Holy Spirit, and that is why the Spirit inspired Catholics to be filled with the Spirit. Protestants have nothing that did not come from the Catholic Church. Catholics need to reclaim the gifts that God has given to the Church. Catholics would not be going to Protestant bible studies if every parish had one of their own. Catholics are hungry for the authentic Christian life that they too often see in their separated brethren, but not in themselves.

Perhaps a non bias source?

It seems that you find the speeches of the Holy Fathers biased, or at best “nonauthoritative”. I am curious, jmj. If the Holy Father wrote you a personal letter, and said what has been said in several talks, would you consider that communication to have no value to you?

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.

This position is very consistent with those non-authorative “speeches” that have been made by the Holy Fathers.

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

The Gk. term “baptism” means to dip, or to submerge. This word is used to describe the experience of being “submerged” in the Spirit. Yes, we all need to experience the grace of Pentecost, as well as the other graces.

Acts 19:1-7
19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all.

The Early Church associated the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the spiritual gifts of tongues and prophesy that accompanied it.

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.

Indeed, and the Catechism states that these sometimes occur in Protestant ecclesial communities.

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.

One does not equate to the other. God’s miraculous work can manifest itself through the mouth of a donkey. It is true that miracles wrought through the saints bear witness to their holiness, but miracles can happen just the same through those who are not holy.

God used Naaman the Syrian, a leper (II Kings 5:1-14) to bitterly punish Israel for disobedience. Yet God healed him in the Jordan river. Not because he was holy, either.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree. Charismatic Catholics desire to know, love, and serve God in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. They wish to live an empowered life, to triumph over sin, and to be witnesses to His Gospel. In the course of seeking this dynamic and courageous walk with God, they encountered the spiritual gifts. They were catechized in them, and discovered that using them properly can strengthen themselves in faith, and serve the Body of Christ.

The foundation of the movement is seeking the Holy Spirit. The Spirit brings the gifts because they go together. The gifts do not include “obsession”, and the hallmark of the movement is a transformed life.

Acts 1:7-8
8 **But you shall receive power **when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth."

In order to be an effective witness to Christ, a person must be empowered by the Holy Spirit. One must demonstrate the transformation that the Spirit brings to the human heart.

 

[Denise1957]

I agree. Charismatic Catholics desire to know, love, and serve God in the fullness of the Holy Spirit. They wish to live an empowered life, to triumph over sin, and to be witnesses to His Gospel. In the course of seeking this dynamic and courageous walk with God, they encountered the spiritual gifts. They were catechized in them, and discovered that using them properly can strengthen themselves in faith, and serve the Body of Christ.

The foundation of the movement is seeking the Holy Spirit. The Spirit brings the gifts because they go together. The gifts do not include “obsession”, and the hallmark of the movement is a transformed life.

Acts 1:7-8
8 **But you shall receive power **when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth."

In order to be an effective witness to Christ, a person must be empowered by the Holy Spirit. One must demonstrate the transformation that the Spirit brings to the human heart.

Quote from the above post:

“In order to be an effective witness to Christ, a person must be empowered by the Holy Spirit. One must demonstrate the transformation that the Spirit brings to the human heart.”

Guanophore, to whom must this be demonstrated?

 

[ClayPots47]

‘In January 1967, (F)our Catholics from Duquesne attended their first interdenominational charismatic prayer meeting . I knew I wanted what she had and I wrote in my notes, “Jesus, be real for me”’.

'You can bold and underline to your hearts content, but you still haven’t shone precisely what I wrote that disagrees with your sources; because none of it does. Again, put up or concede you have nothing. Everything you bolded and underlined does not disagree with a thing I wrote either. You are the one who asserted, “Hardly a convincing story or supported by the sources I’ve cited which comes from eyewitnesses at the weekend”. I challenge your assertion and again ask you to point out what part of what I wrote disagrees with your sources. You haven’t shown that… because you simply can’t.

'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.

None of this disagrees with what I wrote, and it doesn’t show that what I wrote disagrees with your sources either. I mentioned that the two professors attended the prayer meeting with non-Catholics, and that it was in a private home, and that they were prayed over by a Presbyterian. I wrote:

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

Your quote from the above source says:

(F)our 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… On January 20, two of the men returned. They received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and began to manifest charismatic gifts.

I wrote:

A mainline Protestant was a speaker at the retreat.

Your source above states:

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

I don’t see anything that I wrote disagreeing with your quote.

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.

Well then, you should have either not posted it, or indicated that you were addressing others. You tacked it on my post, and stated it in your reply to me; you should have made yourself clear, or refrained from adding it, since it wasn’t relevant to my post. And, since you brought it up, a) please point to a single valid document that declares Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Resting in the Holy Spirit (as they are defined within the CCR, and not Protestant Pentecostalism, since they define these differently) to be heretical beliefs and b) If they are heresy, than the recent popes (P6, JP2 and B16) have all been allowing heresy to be spread in the Church (Not to mentioned the appointed a heretic as Papal Household Preacher). Add in the numerous bishops throughout the world, who have along with the popes; given support to the CCR, and that’s a lot of heresy being spread. 22 church documents have been authored regarding the renewal from P6 and JP2, more when you add in B16’s. So please explain how the popes and a large number of bishops could be promoting heresy, and encouraging the faithful to take part in heretical practices?

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’.

(Continued in next post)

 

[guanophore]

Quote from the above post:

“In order to be an effective witness to Christ, a person must be empowered by the Holy Spirit. One must demonstrate the transformation that the Spirit brings to the human heart.”

Guanophore, to whom must this be demonstrated?

I think it must be first demonstrated to the person in need of transformation, for example, Paul needed a radical intervention from God to turn his life around.

Then it must be demonstrated to the people to whom one is called to witness the Gospel. Paul was not received at first by the early Church because they only knew him as Saul of Tarsus, the persecuter. It was not until the work of the Spirit became evident in his transformed life that the disciples, and later the Apostles, accepted him as bona fide.

A person cannot authentically bear witness to the Gospel to their family, friends, and co-workers when they are living a life dominated by the flesh.

 

[ClayPots47]

(Continued from previous post)

a) A prayer meeting in a private home isn’t a “sacred rite”, b) respond then to the person who believed a prayer meeting wasn’t a “sacred rite” You brought up the 1917 CoCL, when someone later questioned what it said, you couldn’t bother to find and quote it, you told them to go find it. So, I found and posted it. Apparently that didn’t sit well with you, because you objected to the wording and exclaimed “Protestants don’t have sacred rites.” then further said, “something that I being an ex-protestant am more than aware of.”. So I asked you, “So, you now claim that because you are an “ex-protestant”, you know better than the 1917 CoCL???” and your answer is “no” but you’re explaining it? So, you know the mind of the Church in what she means by sacred rites? Interesting! Because she uses that terminology to refer to liturgical rites in various documents, such as referring to the Catholic Mass as a sacred rite. Here is one reference from Vatican II (christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html) : "It is through the active sharing in these sacred rites that the faithful, the People of God, “will drink deeply from the source of divine life.” Here is another from NOSTRA AETATE (vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html): “Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.” The Church even referred to the rituals and liturgies of non-Christians as “sacred rites”.

By who’s authority do you claim that the 1917 CoCL defined a prayer gathering in a private home as a “sacred rite”? Yours because protestants don’t have “sacred rites”, and you know that due to being an ex-protestant? Though the RCC may not recognize those liturgical services as being ‘sacred rites’ in the way that the RCC considers Mass to be a 'sacred rite", non-Catholics may consider them as sacred, and on par with RCC liturgy, and those drawn to them may see them as no different. The CoCL forbid us to engage in formal worship, for a good reason. Unless you believe all that that particular church taught, you didn’t have any business assisting in their liturgies. The common definitions I found for “Sacred Rite” are 1) Sacraments, 2) Liturgical Rites and 3) Formal Worship. As Catholics, Canon 1258.of the 1917 CoCL forbid us to take part in the Sacraments, Liturgical Rites and formal Worship of non-Catholics. Bit nowhere can I find the Church forbidding us to pray with a non-Catholic Christian in a private home, outside of a church worship environment. So it is a stretch to say that the 4 that attended the Chapel Hill prayer group meeting were disobedient to Canon law. You can state that as your opinion, but you cannot state that as a fact. It is really up to the proper authorities within the RCC to make that decision, and I haven’t heard that said by any of the competent authorities.

'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.

I based my comment on your posts. You have consistently rejected the content of the posts by others leading you to various writings and speeches of the popes. Ad hominem would be a false attack made on your character. I didn’t attack your character, I questioned your constant argument to many others.

#136 So we have approval from Pope John Paul II and an approval of sorts from Pope Paul VI. I’m going to go out on a limb and say (along with many traditionalist catholics and theologians) I disagree with them on this matter

 

[guanophore]

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

I was thinking about this statement while I was reading the pope’s speech.

It would seem that you are saying that the Holy Father is encouraging an “evil” because he is affirming that the charismata that are at work in non-Catholic ecclesial communities are of God, and consistent with the teachings of the Apostles.

For reasons I cannot understand, you do not deem the catechesis of the Popes to be part of the ordinary Magesterial authority of the Church, but for those that do give some credence to the teaching of the Popes, I wonder, do others of you that don’t support the Charismatic Movement believe that the Popes are embracing and supporting evil?

 

[Denise1957]

I think it must be first demonstrated to the person in need of transformation, for example, Paul needed a radical intervention from God to turn his life around.

Then it must be demonstrated to the people to whom one is called to witness the Gospel. Paul was not received at first by the early Church because they only knew him as Saul of Tarsus, the persecuter. It was not until the work of the Spirit became evident in his transformed life that the disciples, and later the Apostles, accepted him as bona fide.

A person cannot authentically bear witness to the Gospel to their family, friends, and co-workers when they are living a life dominated by the flesh.

Well, yes, I suppose it must be demonstrated to the person in need, and we all are in need, I think. Regarding St. Paul, I don’t know that he wasn’t accepted until he demonstrated the work of the spirit. The man who baptized him ( I can’t recall his name just now) was told by Our Lord to baptize him. Wasn’t Paul accepted after that? Wasn’t Our Lord’s word good enough?

I would agree that a person cannot authentically bear witness to the Gospel (don’t you mean the Catholic faith - the Catholic Church being the only lawful interpreter of the Gospel?) when they are living a life dominated by the flesh. We are, of course, always trying to rise above the pleasures of the world, and set our minds, hearts, and soul on things having to do with Heaven.

But what about those who are quiet and hidden in their faith? Such as those who are unknown to others - but who have a deep and profound faith anyway? Some of the saints had little contact with others, and yet they achieved holiness. Sometimes it’s not the big things that we do that matter, but the little things, unknown to anyone, except God.

 

[jmj1984]

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!

No one is disputing whether the gifts had been experienced in the catholic church before, what am I disputing is whether it is acceptable to draw the gifts into the church from a non-catholic movement. Water is essential to human life and yet if we had the choice between a clear stream of water and a poisoned well, which would we choose? It would be absurd to choose the poisoned well and that is my fundamental problem with the movement, rather than drawing from the clear stream of the church’s tradition it chose to draw from the poisoned well of a non-catholic movement.

Why is that wrong?

We’ve been over this quite a few times

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.

Not really you have not shown that the theology or the phrases were present in the church prior to the charasmatic movement, on the other hand equivalent theology and phrases were present in the movement the charasmatic movement is based on.

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?

But you have not shown that the continous seeking after them, that the idea that they somehow validate doctrines or make things true or that they increase the fullness of the holy spirit in a person.

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.

Then you have a serious issue with the last 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine and I suggest you read up on it.

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!

It’s not shown that these gifts are ‘more of the holy spirit’, a person who is virtuous and does not have these gifts is more in accord with Gods will than a person who does not and is not virtuous.

“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.

The idea that because someone experience these gifts, seeking them was valid and acceptable, the beliefs of the place they experienced them are perfectly valid and orthodox and so on. In short a total failure to discern spirits.

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.

Aquinas makes it clear that he is referring to miracles performed here on this earth as well, his teaching is clear on the need for discernment of spirits.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

You experienced something, whether it was a baptism of the holy spirit is not proven. There is no such term in the history or tradition of the church, there are three forms of baptism:

‘157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
39
and of the Holy Ghost.
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.’ Baltimore Catechism

As for Pope Benedicts comments the full paragraph says '**Thus Pentecost is in a special way the Baptism of the Church which carries out her universal mission starting from the roads of Jerusalem with the miraculous preaching in humanity’s different tongues. In this Baptism of the Holy Spirit the personal and community dimension, the “I” of the disciple and the “we” of the Church, are inseparable. The Holy Spirit consecrates the person and at the same time makes him or her a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ, sharing in the mission of witnessing to his love. And this takes place through the Sacraments of Christian initiation: Baptism and Confirmation. In my Message for the next World Youth Day 2008, I have proposed to the young people that they rediscover the Holy Spirit’s presence in their lives and thus the importance of these Sacraments. 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.

Let us ask the Virgin Mary to obtain also today a renewed Pentecost for the Church that will imbue in all, and especially in the young, the joy of living and witnessing to the Gospel. **’

It is clear that he does not mean some sort of ‘second baptism’ where we suddenly get charasmatic gifts, rather he means rediscovering the sacraments. Hardly what baptism of the spirit means in charasmatic circles.

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.

Really? Wow Guess SS Margaret Mary, Maria Faustina and Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich all disagree with you as they see the Passion and death of our Lord as being primary, in the sense that they wished to emulate it and his sufferings above all else.

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.

I disagree with the speech’s of three popes, have any of those popes re-declared their statements in an authoritative way? No. Have they been made Saints? No. Have they been made a doctor of the church? No. It’s pretty clear that the authority wielded by a doctor of the church surpasses that of a non-authoritative declaration by a Pope. And as for universally lauded, it is.

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

The very birth of the movement is born out of a desire to experience them.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Of course they could subsequently leave the one body

And really, looks like you have an issue with the eyewitnesses at the birth of the movement who all state that it was born outside of the catholic church.

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.

And a retreat organised and led by non-catholics isn’t at all formal is it? The faithful have indeed been encouraged to pray at all times, they certainly haven’t been encouraged to pray with non-catholics though. Stop grasping at straws.

I have made reference to both Pope Pius XI’s and Pop Pius IX’s encyclicals which clearly condemn prayer with non-catholics, meetings with them etc…

‘**But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith
**’ Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos

‘We think it is Our duty to repeat this public declaration now and to request you to preserve the unity of faith among your faithful by every possible means in accordance with your eminent zeal and your renowned virtue. For you have given notable examples of this virtue in bearing tribulations for the cause of God. You should remind them to beware of these treacherous enemies of the flock of Christ and their poisoned foods. They should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. They should shun their writings and all contact with them. They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction. They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church’s children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice.’ Pope Pius IX Graves Ac Diuturnae

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

We are dealing with facts here, not opinions. It is your opinion that the holy fathers prayers were answered through the birth of the charasmatic movement, ultimately only God knows how and whether his prayers were answered.

However what is a fact is that the movement was born at a meeting with non-catholics and through the prayer and action of non-catholics and indeed is based on their practices.

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.

I’ve already posted St Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on this matter.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

No you believe they received the holy spirit, you have no way of proving that statement.

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.

Lets go through this again:

1)The speeches or addresses of Popes are not authoritative, this is a basic tent of catholic theology
2)The catechism does not explicitly or implicitly approve your practices
3)Scripture can be interpreted any which way, no authoritative interpretation supports your view
4)No one said anything about rejecting the whole of VII, I merely said most of it wasnt infallible, something many theologians and clergy believe. You are avoiding the fact that it could not have approved of a movement that it knew nothing about it as it did not exist. It could approve of practices of course, but the practices it approves have little in common with the charasmatic faith.

 

[jmj1984]

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

Because of course a retreat led by non-catholics, attended by non-catholics and at a non-catholics home, who has no intention of converting, isn’t at all official.

 

[jmj1984]

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?

It was in response to something Vardaquin had posted regarding it being acceptable for people to disobey the church as Jesus disobeyed the pharisees. Reading things in context would be helpful, otherwise you are likely to make yourself look foolish by wrenching quotes out of context.

 

[jmj1984]

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!

No I think your grasping at straws in an attempt to prove the movement has authority behind it, something I’ve seen demonstrated throughout this thread.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

No, they can hardly be called liturgy so please stop engaging in these pathetic ad hominem attacks.

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.

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

And I’m pretty sure these private prayer meetings would be just as important to them as their ‘formal services’

 

[jmj1984]

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

:tsktsk:

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

No you believe they received the holy spirit, you have no way of proving that statement.

Lets go through this again:

1)The speeches or addresses of Popes are not authoritative, this is a basic tent of catholic theology
.

“Authoritative” or not- I am gonna take the speeches and addresses of our Holy Fathers well above your opinion. Has it ever occurred to you that they might have a better grasp on the whole situation than you do?

 

[jmj1984]

There is a logical disconnect here. It is the same as saying that Catholics who went to a non-Catholic bible study, then wanted to start their own bible study embraced something that was “born outside of the Catholic Church”. This is just not possible. The Catholic Church wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the Bible. If Protestants take it an use it (or misuse it, as often happens) how does that make the birth of it less Catholic?

That analogy is appalingly bad, there would however be a problem if they left the bible study and started spouting protestant doctrines, which is pretty much what happened.

The charismatic gifts of Pentecost were given to the Catholic Church, and the Apostles taught (in that Catholic bible) that they are for the building up of the Body of Christ. Now if non-Catholics take the gift and use, misuse, or abuse it, how does that make it less “born” of Catholicism?

The renewal occurred because the Holy Fathers asked for it. Pentecostals would strenuously deny that fact.

This entire section is based on an opinion, namely that these gifts are being used in an acceptable way by the movement and occured because The Holy Father asked for them. Objectively however we know that the movement came out of a prayer meeting with non catholics, that the catholics attending wanted what the non-catholics had and that afterwards they started demonstrating very similar ‘gifts’ to the protestants.

This is simply a false statement. Yes, there are communities that have this unhealthy, unbiblical, and erroneous obsession, but it is not Catholic, and it is not appropriate.

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is based around walking in the Spirit, so as not to fulfill the desires of the flesh.

It most certainly can be disputed. The fact that the gifts are present and identify the movement does NOT equate to any “obsession”. That is like saying the Apostles were “obsessed” by the gifts because they appeared at Pentecost.

When the rest of the church doesn’t use them in the same way or have the same opinion regarding them, it rather does.

I would be interested to see some of this. I also look forward to reading the “charismatic doctrines” you have identified.

I am also against false ecumenism, but it is not possible to evangelize without communicating with those who have unwittingly embraced heresies.

What is it about praying with non-catholics that is problematic?

I have posted the teaching of the popes on this matter and seeing as the church converted whole continents without practicing this ecumenicism I can hardly see how this can be argued.

Especially for a person that does not recognize the New Testament as a product of the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

No, it does not, because the majority of them do not qualify for the term “heretic”. To earn that term, a person must have known, embraced, then willfully departed from the Truth. On the contrary, those who were born and raised in ecclesial communities that have been separated from the Sacred Tradition for 500+ years have never known the true faith.

You have demonstrated that you have no use for the current catechism, but for those reading the thread that do, I post the following:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

You do realise that this proves nor disproves absolutely nothing? Those who are not catholics but christian are material heretics, that is they have the material for heresy but having been born into it are not necessarily to blame. On the other hand those that are not born into it are formal heretics, this being a very basic tenet of catholic theology I had presumed you would know it.