Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[Denise1957]

We can say this about several traditionalist practices though. Kneeling while receiving Communion does not make the Eucharist more effective, so why kneel?

Thank you for your contribution, Melchior, but I’d rather that Vardaquinn address this question before I address yours. I hope you understand.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Really? That hardly to be supported from what eyewitnesses at the retreat that birthed the movement describe. Worse still you think we need non-catholics to remind us of our gifts? These people would have been better off reading the books written by any of the church’s great mystics.

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.

You have shown me absolutely nothing, I have not seen an authoritative document on the subject (because no such document exists) nor a single quote from saints or church fathers that approves of what the movement believes and does.

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.

And what were they doing before they received them? Were they perhaps seeking? Are they perhaps still seeking yet more gifts? And what were those at the retreat doing, seeking these gifts? Lets not beat around the bush, the entire raison d’etre of the movement is to seek these gifts, seek as many as possible and then engage in mystical experiences. Indeed the founders of the movement were so desperate for them they were willing to receive them through the prayer of non-catholics and wanted what these non-catholics had.

As for showing me that church teaching approves this, you’ve shown me absolutely nothing and ignored two doctors of the chuch that clearly counsel against this and another who warns that these gifts prove nothing if the person using them is heterodox.

Of course they increase the fullness of the Holy Spirit in a person. That’s their purpose. We need more of the Holy Spirit.

No. St Thomas Aquinas is quite clear on this, miracles and thus these gifts are not always a result of the Holy Spirit and indeed often are not. Other saints and The Church herself has made it clear that an increase in virtues is the sign of piety and devoutness not the presence of these gifts.

Validate doctrines?

I explained this in another post.

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.

So this was in the old testament, was in reference to a prophet and pre-dates the existence of the Church and the incarnation, I cannot see the relevance The two situations are so completely different to make a comparision between the two is truly a desperate act.

God does not speak to his church through heretics, end of. He may use them to chastise his church but he certainly does not use them to develop their dogma or enkindle their faith or renew his church.

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…

Not a judgement you or I can make.

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.

And yet their use in the way the church advocates has only ever occured in the early church and that in itself is arguable.

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.

And yet the movement was born out of this, I do not see any reference to discernment in the retreat that created the movement, just ‘I feel good, yayyyyyyyyyyyy!’ and that seems pretty much to be the way it continues today.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Really? And who has decided this was ideal? Pray tell is it in canon law or in guidelines from the CDF, surely the Pope must have issued an authoritative document on the matter? Ok,Ok I’ll settle for a doctor of the church? No? Well…a saint would do? No
Wow its an utterly unsubstantiated statement

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.

And yet I’m afraid that has absolutely nothing to do with the charasmatic gifts.

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.

Really? Papal statements in private addresses are more authoritative than Doctors of the church? No, this is so utterly ridicalous I can’t believe anyone could actually propose it. Its arguable whether even an authoritative statement from a pope that wasn’t binding or infallible would trump the teaching of numerous doctors of the church, it probably would but its arguable that it wouldnt. So for you to give so much authority to papal speeches is just a sign of the total lack of actual authority the movement has.

As Pope John Paul II, he’s a blessed, Pope John XXIII has been a blessed for close to 50 years and he was every bit as popular as Pope John Paul II so we have no way of knowing whether he’ll become a saint. You may well think he’s one of the greatest popes of all time, frankly I think that that statement can only be made in complete ignorance of the many truly great popes we have such as the 80 that have been made saints or Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius XI and Pope Leo XIII. Regardless it remains your opinion whereas a doctor of the church is not an opinion its a fact.

Fact is: something isn’t right because the Pope says it, or a Doctor of the Church, or a saint. They say it because it is right.

Or of course they could be wrong as many have been over the years, I’m sorry but the movement has absolutely zero authority.
vardaquinn;8358574:

Untrue.

Only if all the sources I’ve cited are liars or totally ignorant.

 

[jmj1984]

It was a Catholic retreat. At a Catholic university.

You clearly haven’t read the sources I provided amongst which is a eyewitness account of the event.

 

[jmj1984]

We can say this about several traditionalist practices though. Kneeling while receiving Communion does not make the Eucharist more effective, so why kneel?

:tsktsk:

‘Since, however, the Sacraments of the New Law, though they produce their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless, produce a great effect in proportion as the dispositions of the recipient are better, therefore, one should take care that Holy Communion be preceded by careful preparation, and followed by an appropriate thanksgiving, according to each one’s strength, circumstances and duties.’ SACRA TRIDENTINA
On Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion
Pope St. Pius X

So if kneeling allows people to receive our blessed lord more reverently and means that they are more aware of what it is they are receiving, something that can hardly be argued not to be good dispositions, it does actually make the reception of the eucharist more effective. And no before someone starts up I’m not judging or critcising those that receive communion standing and in the hand

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWFREQ.HTM

 

[Warrenton]

One of the biggest problems, in my humble opinion, that Vatican II addressed was this ridiculous idea that the laity aren’t supposed to be doing anything, aren’t supposed to be holy, aren’t supposed to be saints - that all that stuff was for religious and priests. Which is so absolutely completely contrary to the Catholic faith.

This was never an idea, and it is not an accurate portrayal of the laity before V2.

 

[vardaquinn]

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?

I see how what I said may have caused confusion. Let me explain. We shouldn’t go about things by just fulfilling the bare minimum requirements. We should go well above and beyond the call of duty. I’m sure traditionalists would understand this position. Are altar rails and veils and incense necessary for the Mass? (not that I’m comparing tongues/prophecy at confirmation to things like that at Mass). No. Why do them then? Because they add to the Mass. They’re consistently seen in early Christianity as a sign of the indwelling of God. Let us take Paul seriously when he says he wants us to speak in tongues, and even more importantly to prophecy. Though, as St. Peter says, prophecy is not put forward by man’s willing it we should seek to be open to the charismatic gifts and desire to put ourselves to the service of the church through the gifts the Spirit gives us. The more we use the gifts of the Spirit, the better.

 

[vardaquinn]

You clearly haven’t read the sources I provided amongst which is a eyewitness account of the event.

I have read Patti Gallagher Mansfield’s account, and the accounts of several others. It was a Catholic retreat at a Catholic university. There was even a priest there (a Fr. Healy I believe).

 

[vardaquinn]

You have shown me absolutely nothing, I have not seen an authoritative document on the subject (because no such document exists) nor a single quote from saints or church fathers that approves of what the movement believes and does.

That’s a clever way of twisting things. No, obviously you’re not going to see anything from the Church Fathers on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The movement started in 1967. Most of the original people are still living. We’ve given you authoritative documents, just not as authoritative as you would like.

We have given you writings from the saints and Church Fathers that speak of the charismatic gifts, and describe charismatic activity in the early Church and other places that is the same activity engaged in by modern charismatics. Do you need me to resupply them? Here’s just a small number:

“If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” - Justin Martyr

“For the prophetical gifts remain with us [Christians], even to the present time. And hence you [Jews] ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us” (Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 82 [A.D. 155]).

“Just as also we hear many brethren in the church who have gifts of
prophecy, and who speak through the Spirit with all manner of tongues,
and who bring the hidden things of men into the clearness for the
common good and expound the mysteries of God.” - St. Ireneus

See St. John Chrysostom’s homily on 1 Corinthians.

‘We begin to have insight into the mysteries of faith,
we are able to prophesy and to speak with wisdom. We become steadfast in hope and receive the gifts of healing…’ St. Hilary of Poiters

When a man who has the divine Spirit comes into a synagogue of righteous men, who have faith in the divine Spirit, and intercession is made to God… the prophetic Spirit, who is in contact with him, fills the man, and the man filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the congregation as the Lord pleases. - Hermas

 

[vardaquinn]

:tsktsk:
So if kneeling allows people to receive our blessed lord more reverently and means that they are more aware of what it is they are receiving, something that can hardly be argued not to be good dispositions, it does actually make the reception of the eucharist more effective. And no before someone starts up I’m not judging or critcising those that receive communion standing and in the hand

Precisely. Similarly, speaking in tongues and prophecying at confirmation makes the sacrament more effective in that it helps one conform to the grace of the sacrament better.

And what were they doing before they received them? Were they perhaps seeking? Are they perhaps still seeking yet more gifts? And what were those at the retreat doing, seeking these gifts? Lets not beat around the bush, the entire raison d’etre of the movement is to seek these gifts, seek as many as possible and then engage in mystical experiences. Indeed the founders of the movement were so desperate for them they were willing to receive them through the prayer of non-catholics and wanted what these non-catholics had.

Seek gifts: yes. Use them: yes. Experience the grace of Pentecost in a real way: yes. Mystical experiences? Extraordinary phenomena? No. That’s not why the movement exists.

As for showing me that church teaching approves this, you’ve shown me absolutely nothing and ignored two doctors of the chuch that clearly counsel against this and another who warns that these gifts prove nothing if the person using them is heterodox.

No, you have shown me two doctors of the Church counseling against seeking extraordinary consolations. I agree with them entirely. Charisms are not extraordinary consolations, though they may be accompanied by them. You completely ignore what the infallible word of God says: seek eagerly the greatest spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. You are making a straw man, AGAIN.

St Thomas Aquinas is quite clear on this, miracles and thus these gifts are not always a result of the Holy Spirit and indeed often are not. Other saints and The Church herself has made it clear that an increase in virtues is the sign of piety and devoutness not the presence of these gifts.

Another straw man.

God does not speak to his church through heretics, end of. He may use them to chastise his church but he certainly does not use them to develop their dogma or enkindle their faith or renew his church.

Um, sure. God is cool with the fact that His church is divided. I don’t think so. Don’t be so shortsighted. God is doing things with Protestants too, and He’s doing them for a reason.

You’re making a bare assertion. Can God speak to His Church using heretics? Yes. If people get out of His way and want Him to work, is He unable of doing anything with them simply because they are heretics? No.

I think you are very childishly put out by the fact that God might in fact have some purpose for heretics and might use them as His instruments.

My point with the donkey is this: if He can use a donkey to speak to His people, He can certainly use a heretic.

This is a ridiculous.

And yet their use in the way the church advocates has only ever occured in the early church and that in itself is arguable.

Untrue, we’ve provided examples which you’ve flatly ignored.

I do not see any reference to discernment in the retreat that created the movement, just ‘I feel good, yayyyyyyyyyyyy!’ and that seems pretty much to be the way it continues today.

Dave Mangan, for instance, consulted the leaders of the retreat about his experience. There were some efforts made for discernment.

And who has decided this was ideal?

God did. See Acts 2.

And yet I’m afraid that has absolutely nothing to do with the charasmatic gifts.

I’m afraid you’re absolutely clueless as to what charismatic gifts even are.

Papal statements in private addresses are more authoritative than Doctors of the church? No, this is so utterly ridicalous I can’t believe anyone could actually propose it. Its arguable whether even an authoritative statement from a pope that wasn’t binding or infallible would trump the teaching of numerous doctors of the church, it probably would but its arguable that it wouldnt. So for you to give so much authority to papal speeches is just a sign of the total lack of actual authority the movement has.

I don’t know, that’s an arguable point. Not everything the Doctors of the church say are right. The Pope has more authority in what he says and writes than anyone else in the Church, even if he is later pronounced doctor of the Church.

You’re making another logical fallacy, called an “argument by authority”. Something is not right because it comes from the Pope, or a doctor of the Church. It comes from the Pope because it is right. You’re diverting the argument from what the Popes are actually saying, because you can’t further defend your own position versus there’s.

Nothing you have posted from any Doctor of the Church conflicts with anything I think. Your argument is called a “straw man”.

As Pope John Paul II, he’s a blessed, Pope John XXIII has been a blessed for close to 50 years and he was every bit as popular as Pope John Paul II so we have no way of knowing whether he’ll become a saint

Not true, but that’s a silly argument. Pope John Paul II was seen and heard and read by more people than any other man in human history. He’s a lot more popular than good old Pope John XXIII. But seeing as BL. John XXIII got the ball rolling when he prayed for a new Pentecost… your list of allies stretches thin.

I recommend you review these before you continue: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ I mean that in all charity.

 

[jmj1984]

That’s a clever way of twisting things. No, obviously you’re not going to see anything from the Church Fathers on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The movement started in 1967. Most of the original people are still living. We’ve given you authoritative documents, just not as authoritative as you would like.

We have given you writings from the saints and Church Fathers that speak of the charismatic gifts, and describe charismatic activity in the early Church and other places that is the same activity engaged in by modern charismatics. Do you need me to resupply them? Here’s just a small number:

“If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” - Justin Martyr

“For the prophetical gifts remain with us [Christians], even to the present time. And hence you [Jews] ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us” (Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 82 [A.D. 155]).

“Just as also we hear many brethren in the church who have gifts of
prophecy, and who speak through the Spirit with all manner of tongues,
and who bring the hidden things of men into the clearness for the
common good and expound the mysteries of God.” - St. Ireneus

See St. John Chrysostom’s homily on 1 Corinthians.

‘We begin to have insight into the mysteries of faith,
we are able to prophesy and to speak with wisdom. We become steadfast in hope and receive the gifts of healing…’ St. Hilary of Poiters

When a man who has the divine Spirit comes into a synagogue of righteous men, who have faith in the divine Spirit, and intercession is made to God… the prophetic Spirit, who is in contact with him, fills the man, and the man filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the congregation as the Lord pleases. - Hermas

It doesn’t twist anything, its a statement of fact. You havent suppplied anything with authority.

As for your sources the majority prove nothing more than that these gifts existed, 2 speak of many having it, these two being Hermas and St Ireneus.

None of this deals with the fact that:

1)Objectively the movement was born outside of the catholic church
2)Those engaged in the meeting where the movement was born wanted and appeared almost jealous of what non-catholics had
3)A chronic failure to discern spirits and a belief that if it feels good and Godly it must be from God
4)The overemphasis and obsession with these gifts to the detriment of the virtues
5)False ecumenicism

Anyone of these would be sufficient to condemn the movement, all 5 together supplies overwhelming evidence of the movements heterodoxy.

And of course the very Church Fathers you quote and indeed all the church fathers condemned intercourse with heretics, prayer with them and so on in the strongest possible terms.

 

[jmj1984]

I have read Patti Gallagher Mansfield’s account, and the accounts of several others. It was a Catholic retreat at a Catholic university. There was even a priest there (a Fr. Healy I believe).

**In the Spring of 1966, two Duquesne University professors were ASKING, SEEKING, and KNOCKING. They had pledged themselves to pray daily for a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit in their lives using the beautiful Sequence Hymn of Pentecost. In the midst of this time of prayer, some friends gave them two books: The Cross and the Switchblade and They Speak With Other Tongues. Both books describe the experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The men from Duquesne realized that this Baptism in the Spirit was precisely what they were searching for.

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.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.”**

So they were inspired by two books, both of which are protestant literature and as a result undoubtedly peppered with theological errors. The meeting was an interdenominitional prayer meeting at the house of a protestant, upon returning from said meeting they received what they called ‘baptism of the spirit’ and manifested the charasmatic gifts. Do you deny any of this?. Those that went on the next retreat read the same protestant literature, were lectured by a protestant and praised her spiritual life, further they said they wanted to have what this protestant had and essentially stated that jesus was not real for them. Do you deny any of this?

If not then my charges are true.

 

[jmj1984]

Precisely. Similarly, speaking in tongues and prophecying at confirmation makes the sacrament more effective in that it helps one conform to the grace of the sacrament better.

No, the source I supplied had absolutely nothing to do with that so please do not distort it to fit your words. You cannot make your baptism or confirmation ‘more effective’ because they are received once and for all, the council is stating that proper disposition and preperation when receiving a sacrament increases its effect and vice-versa. Therefore having the so called charasmatic gifts later on is going to have no effect one either your baptism or confirmation, to say otherwise goes against everything the church has ever taught about sacraments. As for displaying these gifts at either your baptism or confirmation? No, gifts have nothing to do with either proper disposition or preperation. For a child being baptised the disposition is simply that the parents and godparents make the necessary promises, for an adult their must be the true intent to obey the church’s teachings and hold its faith but a baptism is effective regardless. As for confirmation the preperation is the catechesis and the disposition is piety and confession.

Seek gifts: yes. Use them: yes. Experience the grace of Pentecost in a real way: yes. Mystical experiences? Extraordinary phenomena? No. That’s not why the movement exists.

So these gifts aren’t extraordinary phenomena?

And limiting the grace of pentecost to the charasmatic gifts is very foolish indeed.

‘Q. 434. Why did Christ send the Holy Ghost?
A. Christ sent the Holy Ghost to sanctify His Church, to enlighten and strengthen the Apostles, and to enable them to preach the Gospel.
Q. 435. How was the Church sanctified through the coming of the Holy Ghost?
A. The Church was sanctified through the coming of the Holy Ghost by receiving those graces which Christ had merited for His ministers, the bishops and priests, and for the souls of all those committed to their care.
Q. 436. How were the Apostles enlightened through the coming of the Holy Ghost?
A. The Apostles were enlightened through the coming of the Holy Ghost by receiving the grace to remember and understand in its true meaning all that Christ had said and done in their presence.
Q. 437. How were the Apostles strengthened through the coming of the Holy Ghost?
A. The Apostles were strengthened through the coming of the Holy Ghost by receiving the grace to brave every danger, even death itself, in the performance of their sacred duties.’ The Baltimore Catechism

It doesn’t even mention the charasmatic gifts, how odd

No, you have shown me two doctors of the Church counseling against seeking extraordinary consolations. I agree with them entirely. Charisms are not extraordinary consolations, though they may be accompanied by them. You completely ignore what the infallible word of God says: seek eagerly the greatest spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. You are making a straw man, AGAIN.

If you can read the sources of the birth of the movement that I supplied and still claim that the movement is not based around seeking extraordinary consolations then frankly there is no point continuing this discussion as you cannot even recognise the clearest and most explicit facts as true.

Oh and the greatest spiritual gifts? The virtues, self abandonment to God’s will etc… NOT the charasmatic gifts

Um, sure. God is cool with the fact that His church is divided. I don’t think so. Don’t be so shortsighted. God is doing things with Protestants too, and He’s doing them for a reason.

You’re making a bare assertion. Can God speak to His Church using heretics? Yes. If people get out of His way and want Him to work, is He unable of doing anything with them simply because they are heretics? No.

I think you are very childishly put out by the fact that God might in fact have some purpose for heretics and might use them as His instruments.

My point with the donkey is this: if He can use a donkey to speak to His people, He can certainly use a heretic.

The only thing God does with protestants and non-catholics is call them back to Holy Mother Church, he certainly does not use them to renew, revive or speak to his church. Such an idea is so self-evidently absurd that any reasonable mind would dismiss it as such.

If you call me childish for saying that you condemn the church fathers for saying the same and the church itself for the last 2,000 years.

This is a ridiculous.

Untrue, we’ve provided examples which you’ve flatly ignored.

The examples?

Dave Mangan, for instance, consulted the leaders of the retreat about his experience. There were some efforts made for discernment.

You mean the leaders of a retreat where they encouraged protestant speakers to spread their errors to catholics, to read protestant literature and made them desire what protestants claimed to have? I’m sure speaking to them must have really helped matters

I’m afraid you’re absolutely clueless as to what charismatic gifts even are.

And I’m afraid your absolutely clueless as to even the most basic tenets of catholic theology.

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t know, that’s an arguable point. Not everything the Doctors of the church say are right. The Pope has more authority in what he says and writes than anyone else in the Church, even if he is later pronounced doctor of the Church.

You’re making another logical fallacy, called an “argument by authority”. Something is not right because it comes from the Pope, or a doctor of the Church. It comes from the Pope because it is right. You’re diverting the argument from what the Popes are actually saying, because you can’t further defend your own position versus there’s.

Nothing you have posted from any Doctor of the Church conflicts with anything I think. Your argument is called a “straw man”.

Firstly not everything the pope rights exercises his full authority as st peter, papal addresses and speeches use hardly any of his authority and often are nothing more than private opinion.

Secondly no, I am a law student, I am using what is called ‘backing your argument up with authority’, you may be familiar with this method? As for diverting, I don’t see how I’m merely pointing out that their statements and speechs are not authoritative and so neither binding and could well be wrong.

Third, yes it does, if you can’t see that, well I’m afraid the cause is lost.

Not true, but that’s a silly argument. Pope John Paul II was seen and heard and read by more people than any other man in human history. He’s a lot more popular than good old Pope John XXIII. But seeing as BL. John XXIII got the ball rolling when he prayed for a new Pentecost… your list of allies stretches thin.

I recommend you review these before you continue: nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ I mean that in all charity.

I tell you whats even sillier, claiming that because someone was really popular and is a blessed then we must listen to him, him alone and ignore what everyone else has said.

I recommend you read this before you continue catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm I mean that in all charity and oh you might want to look at the summa as well.

 

[Warrenton]

@ Warrenton: We are not intent upon adopting “Protestant ways”,

Sorry it has taken a while to respond - I got busy with work!

I’m not saying that you “want to be Protestant.” That is more JMJ’s assertion, if I read his critique aright.

I am simply observing that speaking in tongues and some of the other Charismatic practices are adaptations of prior Protestant activity. Therefore, their experiences are germane to the discussion. I think even the founders of Catholic Pentacostalism would agree with that, judging from the quotes that you and others have posted in this thread.

Well, the direct proximate activity of the Holy Ghost should be ordinary in our daily lives.

I am not sure I agree with this, but I am not sure I understand you fully, either. In one sense, everything we do is a function of Deus Vult. The continuation of all of creation is. However, this general reality is different than the kind of miraculous intrusion of divine will into history, like Balaam’s *** speaking which you referred to elsewhere. I do not agree that every moment should be a miraculous in that sense. To believe that requires me to think that the rest of creation is somehow flawed, or unnatural.

Different people have different charisms to play different roles in the Body.

Sure, I do not think that the charisms are limited in the way you seem to be defining them. Like I said, it seems to boil down to the realization that different people have different ways of being pleasing to God. What St. Paul was teaching was that our ability to please God is a function of grace, which comes from God, not from us.

Let’s define charism then. It is a divinely inspired gift. It is not a natural talent or ability.

Alright, that is helpful. This is something that I can say definately I do not accept. Your analogy to the Franciscans, I think, makes my point. Some people like being poor, some do not. Poverty can result from choice or circumstance or temperment. What makes it holy is not its source, but the action of God’s grace on the individual.

This brings us to an interesting pass - at least more interesting to me that whether speaking in tongues was practiced with greater frequency by Protestants in the 50s and 60s than by Catholics, or whether Lumen Gentium was a miraculous occurence.

As we have discussed this, I am realizing that we have a very different idea of what grace is and how it works. I would characterize your view of grace as Para-Catholic - even “beyond” the Catholic concept. To the Orthodox, the Catholic view of grace is too mechanical, in that we conceive of grace as being something that God “sends” to the believer. The Orthodox believe that grace emanates from God perpetually. This is akin to the disagreement regarding the Filioque. Grace, therefore, “acts on” the believer.

Charismatic logic seems to take the Latin view a step further from the Orthodox, and distinguish the kind of grace that is sent forth, presumably from the Son as well as the Father via the Holy Ghost into certain kinds of activities, eg, speaking in tongues, etc.

I accept the filioque as a Latin liturgical tradition, but do not agree that its insertion was “correct” compared to the patriarchal objections; the Apostles’ Creed does not contain it. Just because I accept the premise that some cats are larger than others,l indeed, some are quite large, I do not necessarilly accept the premise that some cats are the size of an elephant. Even if I like the idea of a tiger, I do not necessarily support a cat the size of a blue whale. Every idea has limits.

I suspect that Charismatic activity may be stretching a point further than some Traditionalists are willing to go, even though they might support some of the foundations.

 

[Warrenton]

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

Sure: If I encounter someone speaking in tongues, what exactly will I see and hear? Why does what I am encountering happen? How do I know if what is happening is what the person says is happening? Why does it happen at one time, and not another? How voluntary is it? Why?

These are the kind of specific inquiries I think are helpful, and from there, we move on to the theological dimensions based on those answers.

 

[jmj1984]

Frankly I’m tired of going round in circles, so I’m going to set a challenge.

Can you show me where the church has encouraged the seeking of these extraordinary gifts as opposed to the virtues?

Can you show me one legitimate movement in the entire history of the church that was born out of praying with heretics, reading their literature and desiring their so called spiritual gifts?

Can you show me one church father or saint that encourages praying with non-catholics, being prayed over by them or reading their literature (not in order to refute it but in order to benefit from it) ?

Can you show a consensus of the church fathers or saints or authoritative documents that believe the so called charasmatic gifts show a person has ‘more’ of the holy spirit or is living up to their baptism and confirmation more faithfully?

Can you show me a legitimate movement or lay saint or church father who held or encouraged healing services?

 

[vardaquinn]

I am simply observing that speaking in tongues and some of the other Charismatic practices are adaptations of prior Protestant activity. Therefore, their experiences are germane to the discussion. I think even the founders of Catholic Pentacostalism would agree with that, judging from the quotes that you and others have posted in this thread.

Ok, I would agree.

. Like I said, it seems to boil down to the realization that different people have different ways of being pleasing to God.

No, but rather God has different purposes for different people. To enable them to perform these purposes, He distributes various spiritual gifts (charisms).

Hmm, that’s an idea I hadn’t considered - that we are both considering “grace” differently. Could you be clearer though?

I suspect that Charismatic activity may be stretching a point further than some Traditionalists are willing to go, even though they might support some of the foundations.

If I encounter someone speaking in tongues, what exactly will I see and hear? Why does what I am encountering happen? How do I know if what is happening is what the person says is happening? Why does it happen at one time, and not another? How voluntary is it? Why?

Well, if he’s addressing himself to you either you will be given an interpretation, or you will know the language he is speaking. If not, then keep in mind what he’s saying is not addressed to you, but rather to God. In that case, you don’t know, but it generally won’t concern you. That’s the other person’s affair.

It is totally voluntary: I start. I speak, and the words come out. I do not choose them, or even think about them whatsoever. When I want to stop talking, I stop talking. The person is almost always in control.

Can you show me where the church has encouraged the seeking of these extraordinary gifts as opposed to the virtues?

No, and I have yet to see any charismatic claim this. I certainly do not.

Can you show me one legitimate movement in the entire history of the church that was born out of praying with heretics, reading their literature and desiring their so called spiritual gifts?

There may be one. But this isn’t an example of one. So. The movement was born out of a spiritual event that happened on a Catholic retreat.

Can you show me one church father or saint that encourages praying with non-catholics, being prayed over by them or reading their literature (not in order to refute it but in order to benefit from it) ?

shrugs I can look. We’re not necessarily saying that. Though I would advocate praying with and praying over yourself other Christians. Let’s try and unite the Church!! It depends on the literature. C.S. Lewis is amazing, and I read it to benefit from it - certainly not to refute it (that would generally be impossible).

Can you show a consensus of the church fathers or saints or authoritative documents that believe the so called charasmatic gifts show a person has ‘more’ of the holy spirit or is living up to their baptism and confirmation more faithfully?

Again, your wording isn’t quite right. You really don’t understand our position at all. Someone who uses the gifts may or may not have more. It depends on a lot of things. You can’t, and shouldn’t, make broad statements like that. And it’s pointless to even go down that road. I would say very clearly that the Church teaches that using the charismatic gifts is an essential aspect of living up to baptism and confirmation. We provided information on that one, particularly from the Catechism and Church documents.

 

[vardaquinn]

Can you show me a legitimate movement or lay saint or church father who held or encouraged healing services?

I’ll dig. Plenty of miraculous healers out there. Don’t see why that’s such an issue, but… if it bugs you.

 

[guanophore]

This is a good example of the point where I part company with Pentacostalism or Charismatic thinking.

Let’s not assume this yet, shall we?

St. Paul was probing the converts to determine whether they were properly instructed. He found that they had no understanding of what we would later call the Trinity. Thus, they did not properly understand the role of Christ in salvation. Read this passage in context of the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 1 “he (St. John the Baptist) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness to that light.”

This is precisely why I think it is a good illustration. Today, we have whole communities of persons that are “disciples”, but who have not receieved Apostolic instruction. Being poorly catechized, they have deficient understandings of many things, including sacramental life, the nature of God, of man, of the nature and function of the Church, and of salvation.

When Paul lays hands on them, he “confirms” their baptism (probably what we would now call a babtism of desire) and the miracles are noted.

It goes beyond that. He had them REBAPTIZED in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Trinitarian baptism).

The miracles that were noted at the laying on of hands (confirmation) are consistently recorded through the NT.

BUT - we have no way of knowing what language they spoke, because the account does not say, nor what topic the prophecy was on.  That has not come down to us, unless perhaps these converts story is preserved in a local tradition somewhere in the east.

St. Paul taught that these are also the “tongues of angels”, which would not be recognizable by us anyway. They were not concerned about what language it was. For the Apostles, “prophesy” meant something very different than it does to us today. To prophesy was to declare the mighty deeds of God in one’s life, and in the world. Yes, a minority of it was about future happenings, but most of it was in the here and now. The “topic” for such prophesy is testimony of what God is doing, and can do. This is why it was so important to master this gift, and use it properly in the gatherings.

We cannot say on the evidence in scripture that we can do the “same” thing as St. Paul and the converts.

Why not?

What is there that leads one to believe that this is not normal? What evidence is there that the gifts have ceased?

Why do the Holy Fathers say that we can expect the same?

We can, however, admit that certain passages inspire us. Limiting our understanding preserves the freedom to dissent, which as I have argued in this thread, is vital for ensuring harmony and tolerance between the Church’s members.

I agree. It was these passages that inspired the first Catholic laypeople to want to reach out to God, and ask that He pour into them all that there was to be had.