And yet the sources I have posted clearly disagree with this, labelling the entire weekend the birth of the movement, 2 catholics were prayed over by protestants and supposedly received the charasmatc gifts. This is the contradiction.
This is a nice ab absurdam argument but ultimately it doesn’t deal with the fundamental issue. You do not have any authoritative documents supporting the movement and you have no support from tradition.
I dealt this in my posting of the two encyclicals out of many on the subject.(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”.
As you would know if you had read any of those encyclicals the church does.
A rather bad tempered response I must say. Papal addresses have no significant authority, I really don’t care if you accept this or not its a basic fact anyone with any decent theological training should know. If you are trying to claim the words of incredibly holy men, outstanding theologians and doctors of the church don’t count then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the magisterium of the church.
I evaluate papal addresses in the light of church teaching on the subject, if its inconsistent I am hardly going to accept the address over the tradition.
Papal speeches arent part of the magisterium OR if they are, are probably its most lightweight part. This is just a fact, a fact you should know.And you can do so, of course I and others who disapprove of the charasmatic movement can equally choose not to accept their opinions and rather follow the clear teaching of their predecessors
This is a good example of the point where I part company with Pentacostalism or Charismatic thinking.
This is a valid dispute, certainly. Since anything that is authentic in a Protestant community first came from the Catholic Church, anything that was not present in Catholicism before can rightfully be assumed an innovation.
I can see your point. However, what has happened is only that the non-Catholics came along and drew water from a well that is Catholic. Granted, some of the water that was drawn has become tained by abuses and heresies, but that which is of God cannot be tainted, and these gifts belong to the Holy Spirit. Whatever strangeness some may add to it after the fact will never taint the pure well that comes only from God.
As there is no theology in the Charismatic movement that diverges in any way from the once for all divine deposit of faith, there is nothing to show in that regard.
Personally I can’t understand why any faithful Catholic would waste their time trying to “prove” a heterodox position. We are all in agreement that abuses exist, and that there are persons who erroneously engage in “continuous seeking after them”, which the Church teaches as wrong. But, if you really need someone to “prove” this wrongful behavior to you, there sites on the internet where such Pentecostal fanatics post, and I am sure they will boisterously engage in an attempt to justify their warped perspective of you. A properly catechized Catholic wll not do this, since one knows that it is seeking the Spirit at work in one’s life to transform it that is sought, and not the gifts for themselves.
Indeed the Apostles’ taught that these gifts are imparted to the novice, the undisciplined, and the spiritually weak. They are not needed by those who are virtuous by nature, but by those who need extra assistance in getting closer to God.
It is true that there is an inadequte discernment of Spirits (which is listed as one of the Charismatic gifts, by the way
). What is commanded is that we seek to be filled with the Spirit, and to manifest in our lives that which the Spirit has chosen for us. Seeking gits without the Lordship of the Spirit is an abuse, so you rightly object to it. Seeking them for their own sake would be a departure from the faith of the Apostles.Yes it is clear that the release of the HS in life is not a 'second baptism" as many of our separated brethren erronously believe. It is a release or a new “dipping” into what was already given in baptism and confirmation. It is an infilling of a vessel that was already prepared and filled at water baptism.
Different people are called to emphasize different aspects of the faith in their lives and preaching. All of them are valid.
You are in error in this belief. The people that experienced them desired to live a spirit filled and holy life, and to receive everything that God intended for them. They are still desiring and living this 40 years later. They were not seeking sensationalism, but the Power of God that came upon the Apostles.
No, they can never “leave”. Baptism makes an indelible mark. They don;t get “unborn again”! They are brought into the Body in a community that is lacking part of the divine deposit of faith, so they are usually reared in a state of improper joining. That is why they are called “separated brethren”. But you will probably not accept that term either, since it was not used prior to Vat II, and cannot be found in the writings of the Doctors or saints.Of course they could subsequently leave the one body
I just see it differently. I have met them, talked with them, and followed their work over the last 40 years. I know from personal experience that they were seeking the fullness of God’s work in their lives. Whether they understood it at the time or not, what happened to them is exactly what Pope Benedict spoke about in his address. They rediscovered the power of their baptism which they received in the Catholic Church. The were baptized and confirmed, and the sacramental grace was released in their lives. T’his is how God set things up.
They were teachers and students, and they were not in an organized meeting at the time.
If the faithful never prayed with non-Catholics, then there would never have been a conversion at Pentecost. How else are people to come into the Church, if you don’t have any relationship with them?
Yes, you have, and yes,they did. They were writing for a very different world than the one we live in now. They did not face the ecumenical challenges we do.
**’ Pope Pius XI Mortalium Animos ’
I would strongly suggest that you carefully follow these admonitions. I dont recall anyone here encouraging you to pray with any non-Catholics.
Pope Pius IX Graves Ac Diuturnae **
And make sure you don’t go to any non-catholic services.
jmj1984;8357586:
I guess you are calling the HOly Fathers who have affirmed this liars?
Well, we see it differently, don’t we?
And so do the Popes.
This does not answer my concerns, you have been utterly unable to show that it is part of the deposit of faith that lay people should have these gifts en masses, should practice them in mass, should chase after them or even define what the gift of tongues for example is, the gift of speaking in a tongue no one understands or the gift of speaking in many tongues of men.
That completely ignores the point of my analogy and does not address it. If catholic charasmatics wished to receive ‘the fullness of the holy spirit’ as they called it they should have followed the methods of any number of the mystics of The Catholic Church, there was and there never is a need to draw water from a poisoned well. They could have attended any number of catholic retreats dealing with these subjects, read their works, sought spiritual direction on the matter or spent some time on retreat at for example a carmelite convent or monastery or on a jesuit retreat etc… There is simply no excuse for attempting to gain gifts and spiritual gifts via the emulation of non-catholics.
A statement you have been utterly incapable of proving.
A statement that I have repeatedly refuted, I can only assume that you have missed my posts or cannot read.And since you do not accept the witness of the Scriptures, the documents of Vatican II, and the teachings of the Popes, it is really not possible for you to accept he phrases that have been used to describe these events.
You also seem utterly incapable of seperating the objective from the subjective, you cannot say that the charasmatic movement is the result of the holy fathers prayers as you do not know the mind of God, there is no obejective proof either as regards what the holy fathers expected in response to their prayer or in what their prayer would result. You can however subjectively state that the movement was a response to their prayers, but ultimately that will never be more than an opinion, it cannot be proven and is not a fact.The Holy Fathers prayed for a NEW outpouring of the HS that would enliven the faithful as on the day of Pentecost. God has answered those prayers. Phrases have been used to describe this movement that you refuse to accept. It is ok, though, because it is not necessary for you to accept them in order that you be saved, or in order that they be valid.
Perhaps because that heterodox position underpins the movement? You need look no further than the eyewitness of someone who was present at the movements birth and a founding figure of the movement to establish this fact. Seeing as this is exactly what she did and what she describes others as doing, you would therefore have to admit that they were all not properly catechized.
The phrase is self-explanatory, charasmatics frequently assert that these gifts validate what they believe. The rest of your paragraph is set up in complete contradiction to what St Thomas Aquinas states on the subject which you have either not read or disagree with. The last sentence repeats the same lie that you have now said 5 or 10 times, perhaps you believe that repeating an untruth enough times will make it true? I never said that I do not consider scripture doctrine and I have clearly stated my beliefs on that matter. Seeing as I’ve explained it at east 3 times you are either not reading my responses or are in bad faith and read them but choose to ignore them and instead spout the same erroneous claim.
As the lives of the saints and the teaching of the church has told us, through their demonstration of the virtues and their conformity to God’s will, NOT through the presence or lack thereof of the charasmatic gifts.
You would do well to read what the saints and doctors of the church that have written on the subject and that have posted say on the matter.Indeed the Apostles’ taught that these gifts are imparted to the novice, the undisciplined, and the spiritually weak. They are not needed by those who are virtuous by nature, but by those who need extra assistance in getting closer to God.
There is far easier way of discerning spirits, simply ascertain whether what it says contradicts the teaching of the church rather than relying on feelings or hunches, that is th teaching of the church. I have no desire for the charasmatic gifts rather I desire an increase of the virtues and the ability to conform myself wholly to God’s will.It is true that there is an inadequte discernment of Spirits (which is listed as one of the Charismatic gifts, by the way
Perhaps discernment is your charismatic gift?
The support from the tradition of the church for this being…zero.
A)It wasnt given to me or even to the church as a whole but to specific groups of peopleDifferent people are called to emphasize different aspects of the faith in their lives and preaching. All of them are valid.
It is certainly your perogative to reject the direction given you by the successor of Peter. Personally, it seems dangerous to me.
If I’m in error then so are all the sources I posted, including eyewitnesses who were present at the birth of the movement, that seems a little strange
Can it not? How strange? Appears someone has forgotten that the church cannot proclaim new doctrine merely develop what is present in the deposit of faith. It appears you have inherently myopic, you cannot see further back than Vatican II or Pope Paul VI.
Now the eyewitnesses are wrong and you know better
I wouldnt know, basing your movement on this seems quite imprudent though.
What on earth are you talking about? The apostles and Our Lady were praying amongst themselves in a locked room, no mention of non-believers there
Really? How bizzare seeing as the world was just as divided and anti-christian then, than it is now perhaps they should sat down and had tea and coffee and biscuits with these people and seen what they could have learnt from them? What you mean to say of course is that they would be horrified at the nonsense that is promoted in the name of ecumenicism.
No, as you would see if you read the rest of my argument you cannot state it objectively and seeing as your aim was to use a subjective truth to undermine an objective one I pointed that out.Ahem, the last three in private addresses and statements, yes, lets be clear about that.
The gifts did not come into the Church from a non-Catholic movement. All the non-Catholic movement did was remind us that they still exist, and we should be using them. The gifts came into the Church from the Holy Spirit.
We have. We presented to you many quotes from Scripture, Church Fathers, Church Doctors, theologians, and Councils that demonstrated that the theology has always been present in the Church. Some of the phrases, particularly “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” may have been picked up from other charismatics in other demoninations, but what baptism in the Holy Spirit is describing has clearly always been taught.
Well there shouldn’t have to be a continuous seeking after them, and I don’t see charismatics continuously seeking after things they have already received and are already using. That just doesn’t make sense. If you mean in general, in the context of a community, or the whole Church, yes - there should be a continuous seeking of spiritual gifts. We have shown you this from Church teaching.
Look. If God can use a donkey (see Numbers 22:28), a dumb animal, to speak to His people I think He can probably use heretical movements.
But a person who has the gifts and who is very virtuous is more in accord with God’s will than a person who only has one or the other. That’s what we’re aiming for…
Nobody is suggesting that, for instance, Protestant Pentecostals are orthodox because they have these gifts. Seeking them was always valid and acceptable, according to Church teaching.
Then this is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting we should not have proper discernment of spirits. It is, after all, one of the charismatic gifts.
Precisely. Nobody is suggesting that we have a “second baptism”. What we are suggesting is exactly in line with what Pope Benedict is saying. Ideally we should be manifesting the charismatic gifts at our confirmation at least. This is hardly the case with the majority of the church.
And how can we possibly seek to emulate and enter into the Passion of Our Lord without Pentecost? Without the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit? Without the presence and power of God living in us? Without being filled with the presence and power of the Trinity? That is impossible without the grace of Pentecost. The fact is - we need grace, gifts, and we need the Holy Spirit to overcome our many weaknesses in order to enter deeply into the Passion of Our Lord.
They are speaking with a certain degree of authority, more authority than St. Francis de Sales for instance. John Paul II is already a Blessed. He is one of the greatest popes of all time. If he was made a Doctor of the Church would what he is saying suddenly become right? No. It was right to begin with. And Pope Benedict XVI is perhaps the greatest theologian alive today.
Untrue.
It was a Catholic retreat. At a Catholic university.
quote from above post:
St. Paul, in the infallible WORD OF GOD, the Holy Bible, proclaims very clearly and forcefully (particularly in the original Greek): “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (1 Cor 12:7).
Balance of proof rests on you. You have to prove that we deviate from Catholic theology. Best you can do is criticize some individuals in the movement for praying with Protestants. Hardly a great deviation from Catholic theology.
Good! According to your reasoning, this movement is valid! Since it does not at all contradict the teaching of the Church.
I have read at least 5 accounts from people who were at the original retreat. Several times. I don’t think you have. This is just stupid. What they experienced was EXACTLY what Pope Benedict was talking about - the increased awareness of their baptism and confirmation. Dave Mangan (who I have ‘almost’ met, he was pointed out to me at a prayer meeting anyway, I know plenty of people who do know him and have heard his story multiple times), if you recall, had wanted to renew his confirmation.
After, they went out and converted an entire crowd of people. Which is what we’re all supposed to be doing. It is one of our primary vocations as Christians.
According to the tradition in the early Church, it should be common that we manifest the gifts of tongues and perhaps prophecy, and from that point continuously be manifesting whatever charisms the Holy Spirit has given us in our daily lives. It is not necessary, and certainly not required for the sacrament to be effective. But we should still be doing it. The Apostles did!
I see a contradiction here. On the one hand you say that it is not necessary and not required to manifest speaking in tongues or prophesying at our confirmation, but that we should still be doing it. Why should we still be doing it then, if, as you say, it is not necessary or required, for the sacrament to be effective?
We can say this about several traditionalist practices though. Kneeling while receiving Communion does not make the Eucharist more effective, so why kneel?