Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[Warrenton]

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

I can try - but we’re at getting out of my depth!

The Latin Church tend to see grace as something God sends to the believer, or soon-to-be-believer in the Calvinist view. “Twas Grace that taught my soul.”

The Orthodox conceive grace a bit differently. Grace is a perpetual outpouring of God, rather more part of his nature. The analogy I read (sorry can’t recall exactly where) is like the rays of the sun.

This grace operates on all people equally. It can be resisted only by the willful act of refusing to believe, rather like a person who hides from the sun’s rays by remaining in the dark.

Once this grace is accepted, the possibility now exists for the believer to take the next step, which is to join the Church and partake of the sacraments. The sacraments are the mysteries which deepen the identification between the believer and the bride of Christ. There are no other means to deepen this second kind of grace.

In both forms of grace, however, the believer is acted upon by something that is already there - the general grace and the specific grace to which one is exdposed by participation in the sacraments.

Charisms do not fit into the first kind of grace. However, they do not fit neatly into the second kind either, because they are not sacraments. They also seem to be individually crafted for the individual believer. This is not how grace works in the Orthodox economy of salvation.

Clearly, then, modern Charismatic theory is more Latin than Orthodox. It also seems to me that it is more Latin than Latin, hence my neologism “Para-Latin.”

Hope that helps!

 

[guanophore]

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,

You are right. It is not possible to show this without the Scriptures, the Catechism, the Vatican Council, instruction of the Popes. Since you reject all these sources as valid authority, then I do not think iti s possible to show you anything.

 should practice them in mass,

No one has claimed this, this is just another of your strawmen.

 should chase after them

You have been repeatedly told that this is NOT the position of anyone in the Charismatic Renewal. This is another strawman.

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.

Really, this is a minor issue. There are many varieties of tongues, but since it is the least of the gifts, using it as a sticking point is just an excuse to reject the Teaching of the Apostles on the charismatic gifts.

 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 followed what they read in the Holy Scriptures. I agree, there is never any need to draw water from a poisoned well. The HS was given to Jesus’ Church. Jesus’ Church is the Catholic Church. The Spirit, and the gifts that accompany Him are the inheritance of Catholics. They come from God, to His Holy Bride. Other people absconding with them and misusing them does not invalidate or “poison” them. Nothing that comes from the Holy Spirit comes from a poisoned well. Such a statement borders on blasphemy against the Spirit.

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...

I am not so sure this is true. There was not much of this available at the time. Nowadays, yes. The fact is, they sought these after their experience at Duquesne, and finding little or none, started forming these resources. They have continued to do that for 50 years.

There is simply no excuse for attempting to gain gifts and spiritual gifts via the emulation of non-catholics.

I agree, but since this was not their errand, it is just another strawman. To accuse people who want a deeper life with God of running after phenomena is quite judgmental of you.

A statement you have been utterly incapable of proving.

Quite right again. You may remember if you ever took a class in logic or philosophy, it is impossible to prove a negative.

“There is no theology in the Charismatic movement that diverges in any way from the once for all divine deposit of faith”.

As the person bringing the charge, it is up to you to “prove” your assertion, which you are unable to do. The fabrication that the renewal has “it’s doctrine” is just another strawman.

A statement that I have repeatedly refuted, I can only assume that you have missed my posts or cannot read.

Oh, I read them. Then I went back over the thread to make sure I didn’t miss any. You have invalidated Vatican 2 because it was not an infallible council, you have stated that what is written in scripture is irrelevant because you don’t agree with “private interpretation”, you have stated at least twice that you “don’t agree” with the statements of the Popes, and refuse to accept what the Catechism teaches about Protestant communites, ecumenism, and the Spiritual gifts.

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 Popes prayed. The Spirit manifested what they requested (a new Pentecost). The Popes accepted the Charismatic Renewal as the answer to their prayers. Really, I don’t need to be the one to be objective, or subjective. I just need to follow the lead of the successor of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

What can and has been prove as fact however is that the movement was born in prayer meetings lead  and presided over by protestants and was founded in order to acquite the so called spiritual gifts these protestants possessed.

No, jmj, this has not been “proven” at all. You would like to set aside the sincere searching of eager Catholics to have a life filled with spiritual empowerment and condemn them for ‘seeking gifts’ but those of us that know the history realize this is just a judgemental attitude. We know these people wanted to live in obedience and the fullness of God’s intention for their lives. And to confirm their calling, they did what Paul did, they went to the successor of Peter, to make sure they were not “running in vain”. And the successors of Peter affirmed their motives, their ministries, and their faith. You dont’ have to accept any of it, but your refusal does not change the facts.

Perhaps because that heterodox position underpins the movement?

The movement is undergirded with the Teaching of the Church.

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.

I have never denied that they were inadequately catechized. As with all those in the NT that received the gifts of the HS, the catechesis followed. They dedicated themselves to the teaching of the Church, scripture study, and spiritual formation. Now, they have founded nationwide ministries, and have teaching on EWTN that spans the globe. And EWTN, for your information, refuses to air any person or program that is not completely congruent with the teaching of the Church. I dare you to listen to Ralph Martin, and find something he says that is heterodox.

 

[TrueLight]

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

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.

See Guanaphore, no matter how it is stated, there is always an undercurrent that some are lacking.

Why does God pouring all that there is to be had have anything to do with speaking in tongues and getting slain in the spirit? I don’t know what your background is, but trust me, this is the same sort of thing you see and hear in the Pentecostal church.

 

[guanophore]

The phrase is self-explanatory, charasmatics frequently assert that these gifts validate what they believe.

I will take your word for it. I have not met any Catholic Charismatics that believe or “assert” any such thing, but if you do, then I guess you know some poorly catechized Catholics.

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.

I have read them, and I agree with them.

Although I recognize that the writings of St. Aquinas are not considered infallible, whatever he writes that is consistent with the infallible Word found in the Scriptures can be accepted.

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.

Actually, you have. Every time you have refused to accept the Scriptural testimony, you reinforce that position. And every time we show you scriptures, and you insist they are irrelevant, you reinforce that position. You claim that we are making “private interpretation” and therefore, how we understand them is not accurate. You also have repeatedly stated there is “no doctrine or tradition of the Church” that supports the Charismatic renewal. This statement in itself means that you do not consider Scripture as a valid testimony to Catholic faith.

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.

This is what I understand you to mean when you reject the Scriptural witness.

For us, the New Testament is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. It was written by, for,and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Since it came from the same Source as the unwritten infallible Teaching preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church, there is no contradiction between the contents of the NT and the Teaching of the Church. You don’t seem to share this view.

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.

No arguement there.

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.

Thank you. :bowdown:

Right now I am working through the Philokalia, and the Mystics. I have found quite a few references to Charismatic phenomena in the Interior Castle.

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.

Whether you desire them or not, they have been sealed into your soul at baptism. You may spurn the gift of God if you wish, he is not going to force you to use it.

I suspect that most of American Catholics today stand with you in “disagreeing” with the leading of the Popes about a great many things. They “disagree” with the councils, canon law, Magesterial teaching, and doctrine. They are commonly called “cafeteria catholics” because they think they can pick and choose which parts of the One Faith they will accept, and which ones they won’t. I just don’t usually find people like that on the Traditional forum!

 

[guanophore]

The support from the tradition of the church for this being…zero.

This is a good example of you rejecting the Scriptures,the Catechism, the Vatican Council, and the instruction of the successor of Peter as authoritative sources.

Charismatic Catholics believe that Scripture is the product of Sacred Tradition. Since you claim it amounts to “zero”, that means you must reject it as an authoritive source of Catholicity.

A)It wasnt given to me or even to the church as a whole but to specific groups of people

Certainly you are free to excuse yourself from being counted among those to whom he is giving direction.

However, it must be noted that the Charismatic Catholics sought out the successor of Peter, and submitted before them their experiences for his assessment. He has affirmed them in the positive. If you reject his assesment, then you are saying that the Pope has encouraged something “evil” in the Body of Christ.

B)When no tradition from the church has been cited as authority nor any authoritative document cites I believe it is far more dangerous to ignore all authoritative statements on the matter.

I agree with you . Your position of rejecting Scripture, Council, Catechism and papal response is far more dangerous.

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

No, we just understand what happened differently. You wish to assign selfish and superficial motives to the Catholics, and I understand them to have been sincerely seeking a deeper walk with God.

 

[Warrenton]

Every time you have refused to accept the Scriptural testimony, you reinforce that position. And every time we show you scriptures, and you insist they are irrelevant, you reinforce that position. You claim that we are making “private interpretation” and therefore, how we understand them is not accurate. and which ones they won’t. I just don’t usually find people like that on the Traditional forum!

I am curious - is it the assertion that modern speaking in tongues is identical to the speaking in tongues referred to in the New Testament? If not, how is it different?

As I wrote, this is not really that important to me, in that if it is not identical, I would not necessarily condemn the practice on that ground alone. But I am interested in how those who practice this perceive it.

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, jmj, no one has “forgotten” anything. The term “separated brethren” is not a doctrine of the faith. It is a term to describe the consequences of the Reformation. Of course it did not exist prior to the Reformation.

I may be myopic, as I am sure there is more Catholic Teaching than I will ever be able to embrace over the course of my lifetime. However Vat. 2 had to struggle with the unfortunate divisions created by the Reformation, and the fruit of it (splitting and dividing the One Church). While the Teaching of the Church has always been that there is no salvation outside the Church, we are now faced with hundreds of thousands of persons who stand in the tradition of Apollos - faithful disciples who are improperly joined and catechized because they have been reared in faith communities that are separated from the Apostolic faith.

Now the eyewitnesses are wrong and you know better

We understand them differently.

It seems you are suffering from a full on denial of reality.

Oh blissful ignorance! :extrahappy:

In my “denial”, I have been brought by the Holy Spirit and the leadership of the successors of Peter back to the sacramental life of the Church, taught to study the Scriptures, to pray the Liturgy of the Hours, and shortly to take religious vows. What other “denial of reality” could bear such sweet fruit.

I wouldnt know, basing your movement on this seems quite imprudent though.

Partaking of a mighty rushing wind that comes into the Church as the result of the prayers of the Popes, and affirmed by them when it arrived, “seems quite imprudent”? This is astonishing.

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

It seems that you have been neglecting your New Testament. I recommend the book of Acts. In it, you will find that they exited the upper room, and went out into the marketplace to preach to those who did not believe. They prayed with them, baptized them, and catechized them. Your notion that Catholics should not pray with persons who have non-Catholic faith experience is not consistent with the Scriptural record.

How would the disciples who believed, but did not know the Baptism of Jesus have come to be catechized and recieved the Holy Spirit if Paul did not seek them out?

And no one said anything about not having a relationship with them, what both Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XI said is not to be involved in any way in their spiritual activities.

That being the case, I stronly urge that you follow what they said.

We could do best by emulating the lives of the great saints such as St Dominic, St Louise de Grignion and St Antony of Padua, by preaching not praying with those who are not catholic. Nor has anyone said that we could not pray for them, indeed we must.

Good for you. :clapping:

=What you mean to say of course is that they would be horrified at the nonsense that is promoted in the name of ecumenicism.

Without question.

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.

I read your arguement. I have also read at least two posts where you state you “disagree” with the speeches of the Popes. You have stated your believe that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is “fruit of the poisoned well”, and therefore, evil. Since the Popes have affirmed that it is of God, that means you must think that the Popes are affirming evil in the Church.

Ahem, the last three in private addresses and statements, yes, lets be clear about that.

They are posted in the Vatican website, so that they are available to the public. They are statments made for the whole Church, and directed toward those in the Charismatic Renewal. The Popes affirm that this movement is from God. You say it is from the devil. One of you has to be missing the mark.

And yes you, me and the last few thousand years of catholic tradition, seeing as you have yet to cite a single authoritative document to support the movement.

This is another example of you rejecting the Scriptures, the Catechism, the documents of Vatican 2 and the statements of the Popes as “authoritative”.

 

[At_Trent]

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?

I certainly can’t

 

[bluelake]

Pope Paul VI gave his blessings to the renewal of the charisms given by the Holy Spirit within the Catholic Church. Can anyone defend this movement for the sake of the Holy Spirit who is guiding the Church with the charisms which the Church has always possessed? I want to defend this movement as an aftermath of the ‘inspired’ Second Vatican Council. But I don’t know where to start.

All of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are listed in the Bible.
See 1Cor.12,14
Some churches spend time seeking the gift of tongues.
They also teach that speaking in tongues is a requirement to be saved.
There is no scriptural support for this. We are saved by grace. Eph.2:8-9

Seeking is not needed. Pray about this.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[guanophore]

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?

All the sacraments are effective in and of themselves. How much an individual benefits from them depends upon their catechesis, and disoposition. If a person receives the sacrament of marriage, but does not understand, or does not embrace that the Holy Spirit is at work in and through the marriage bond to perfect the members of it for heaven, then that person will experience limited effectiveness of the Sacrament.

If a person does not know that one was sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism, and in Confirmation took adult responsibility for practicing their faith, or they fail to act upon these truths, then the effectiveness of the sacrament in their lives will be limited.

If a person receives Holy Orders, then walks away from their vocation, the efficacy of the sacrament will be very limited.

 

[guanophore]

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

I appreciate your participation. It is worth the wait.

I am simply observing that speaking in tongues and some of the other Charismatic practices are adaptations of prior Protestant activity.

I guess I just don’t follow this. There were no Protestants when the NT was written. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Protestants adapted them from the Catholic faith?

Since it is in the NT, it can’t possibly originat in Protestantism.

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.

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.

Do you think that acting upon also comes from within 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 am not sure I am following you here, but are you saying that we see the charismatic expressions as emanations of God’s grace through a person? If you are, then I think this is true about charismatics.

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.

Clearly.

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.

Since there is a variety of tongues, and a variety of manifestations to accompany those, this would not have just one answer. It has been rightly pointed out that the devil can also manifest this phenomenon, so the answers would be different depending upon the source. Excorcists are taught to look for this as confirmation that a demon is present.

 

[guanophore]

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

It is good that you are beginning to recognize that your approach causes this. Rejecting part of the doctrine of the faith, while claiming you are doing so in the name of the doctrine of the faith is quite circular.

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

No. The Church, and therefore the Charismatic Renewal, does not encourage such things. You will not be able to produce any document of the Charismatic Renewal that does this, because it is not taught.

Furthermore, you are creating a false dichotomy. The purpose of the gifts is to lead people into virtue. they are not opposed to one another, but compliementary.

It is only in your mind that an “obsession of gift seeking” as you put it exists.

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?

No, but since this does not apply to the Catholic Charismatic movement, it is a strawman. The gifts of the Holy Spirit belong to the Catholic Church. The fact that they are usurped and misused by non-Catholics does not "poison’ what the Holy Spirit produces.

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) ?

Why would any one read Protestant literature when there is much better Catholic literature available? Why would anyone seek out Protestants to pray with when there are Catholics available? This does not make sense.

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?

This is not taught in the renewal either, and is another strawman.

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

How do you define “service”?

 

[guanophore]

Really? That hardly to be supported from what eyewitnesses at the retreat that birthed the movement describe.

The Holy Spirit only gives birth to the works of grace that occur in valid charismatic experience. To attribute this work to Protestants or “heretics” as you seem fond of calling them is a form of blasphemy against the Spirit.

Worse still you think we need non-catholics to remind us of our gifts?

Indeed, the people of God have needed all manner of strange channels to remind them about His gifts. God has often allowed the enemies of His people to scourge them so that they would return to HIm.

In the Reformation, He used apostasy and heresy to purify the Church. Of course the Church is reminded of what belongs to her, especially when people try to usurp it. This happened with the Scriptures as well.

These people would have been better off reading the books written by any of the church’s great mystics.

You may be right, but they did not. God met them where they were. They read them now.

Who are you to judge another man’s servant? What qualifies you to pass this judgment upon them?

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.

This is very true. I think it would be quite impossible to show something authoritative to a Catholic who denies the Scripture, the Vatican Conciliar documents, the Catechism, and the speeches of the successors of Peter.

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.

Wow. This is an amazing ability to read the hearts and motives of others. Padre Pio had this gift. It is called the gift of knowledge. It happens when God reveals what is hidden in the secrets of a persons’ hear to the one ministering to them. Often God would reveal the hearts of those who came in confession, especially when they were holding something back.

Since this gift is given to someone for the building up of the Body of Christ, I am wondering, now that you have supernaturally discerned their motives and intentions, how do you use this knowledge to minister to them?

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.

I think history will prove you wrong on this point, jmj. On the contrary, it is the heretics speaking out that has ALWAYS brought the Church to develop dogma. I would go so far as to say that no dogma has been developed that was NOT the result of heretics teaching wrongfully.

And again, your use of this term demonstrates your refusal to accept what is written in the Catechism as authoritative teaching of the Church. The Catechism expressely states that our separated brethren do not qualify for the term “heretic”. Speaking of people who are disobedient…

Not a judgement you or I can make.

It seems that you can, jmj. You have been given divine supernatural insight into the hearts and motives of persons you have never met. It seems like you would be able to make a judgment on this also.

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

Here is an example of you arguing with the Scriptures and the writings of the early fathers.

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.

Then it is prudent that you stay away from any such thing. If this is how you perceive the efforts of devoted Catholics seeking to live the Spirit filled life, it is much better for you not to go around them at all.

 

[ClayPots47]

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:.

And no one (in this thread), especially those in the CCR, have ever claimed that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a sacrament! Strawman! BTW, the quote you give below, shows a recent use of the term by the Church, through her Prince. (Oh, yeah, I forgot, this doesn’t count according to you because it’s not an encyclical… my bad.

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. ’ .

And right in that paragraph is an excellent definition of just what the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is; " 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."

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.

Exactly where are you getting your information from? Having taken part in events in several diocese’s and parish’s, and having taken the Life in the Spirit Seminar authored by Msgr Vincent Walsh and given a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur by John Cardinal Krol, former Archbishop of Philadelphia; I have never understood the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to ever be any kind of second baptism, nor did I or any of the numerous people I knew and encountered ever suddenly get get the charisms when experiencing Baptism of the Holy Spirit. According to the Seminar I took, it doesn’t even work that way. The most common charism received is prayer tongues, and many don’t even receive those right away. One must continue to grow from that point on, and be receptive of whatever charisms the Holy Spirit intends for that person, when the Holy Spirit intends for them to occur. As another poster pointed out, you make a lot of bare assertions; have you ever had any direct content with the movement itself? Or are you basing your assertions on anecdotal sources that are often biased (especially if they are Traditionalist sources, who tend to exaggerate everything charismatic). Or do you base your assertions on Pentecostal or Charismatic protestant teachings; which are not the same as Catholic teaching. B16 gave an excellent Catholic definition in the above quote. His Personal Preacher. Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa wrote an article that explains very well, that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not exclusive to the CCR, it is the same experience, by other names, in which one realizes the fullness of what we received in the Sacraments of Initiation. Some experienced it after participating in the Ignation Exercises. Others after participating in a Cursillo.

(Continued in next post)

 

[ClayPots47]

(Continued from last post)

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…

Why do the popes have to be declared doctors or saints? That’s ridiculous, for the sheer fact that one isn’t declared either until after they have been deceased and their writings examined by the Church. One is now a Blessed, one is still living…So, if the one declared Blessed is made a Saint; what then? The authority of a doctor surpasses that of a pope? Where is this teaching (authority of doctor surpasses pope)? The pope is the representative of Jesus Christ, I would think that would give him prime authority. We are not required to accept the writings of the doctors and saints of the Church, but we should certainly be attentive to the writings and teachings of the Holy Father; even if they are nor Encyclicals or are infallible.

Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility.
(Quoadea quoeconcernunt papae dignitatem, auctoritatem, seu potestatem, et infallibilitatem.)

#1 “The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.”
(#1 “Papa tantae est dignitatis et cesitudinis, ut non sit simplex homo, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius.”)

#18. “As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plenitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.”
(#18. “Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.”)

#30. "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."

(#30. “Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.”)

Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica. (“Handy Library”), Vol. 5, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin.

I’ve never hear of saints and/or doctors being described in this manner.

 

[jmj1984]

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

Really? You seem to be quite ignorant of the movement then

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.

I have repeatedly shown you an eyewitness description of the birth of the movement, you have attempted to ignore these being unable to discredit them. Seeing as this is the fourth time I have posted them it is clear that you are simply in bad faith as you are clearly able to read and should be able to think logically.

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).

The Church is already united, indeed it cannot lose its unity, it is called The Catholic church, young children properly catechized know of this, how you are therefore ignorant of it I don’t know
‘It depends on the literature’ no you don’t get spiritual gifts out of reading protestant literature and you are certainly not inspired to start a movement by them.

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.

Seeing as you have repeatedly stated this throughout this conversation either you do not pay any attention to the things you write, you are very forgetful or you are simply in bad faith. You can say all you want but the church does not clearly teach anything of the sort, neither the catechism nor Vatican II mention your charasmatic gifts or any of the ideas of the movement.

You base your argument on your defintion of charism but let us see what the catholic encyclopedia defines charism as

'**The Greek term charisma denotes any good gift that flows from God’s benevolent love (charis) unto man; any Divine grace or favour, ranging from redemption and life eternal to comfort in communing with brethren in the Faith (Romans 5:15, 16; 6:23; 11:29). The term has, however, a narrower meaning: the spiritual graces and qualifications granted to every Christian to perform his task in the Church: “Every one hath his proper gift [charisma] from God; one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Corinthians 7:7 etc.). Lastly, in its narrowest sense, charisma is the theological term for denoting extraordinary graces given to individual Christians for the good of others. These, or most of these, are enumerated by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31), and form the subject-matter of the present article. They are: “The word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits, diverse kinds of tongues, interpretation of speeches” (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). To these are added the charismata of apostles, prophets, doctors, helps, governments (ibid., 28).

These extraordinary gifts were foretold by the Prophet Joel (ii, 28) and promised to believers by Christ: “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues,” etc. (Mark 16:17, 18). The Lord’s promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4) at Jerusalem, and, as the Church spread, in Samaria (Acts 8:18), in Caesarea (x, 46), in Ephesus (xix, 6), in Rome (Romans 12:6), in Galatia (Galatians 3:5), and more markedly in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:14). The abuses of the charismata, which had crept in at this latter place, induced St. Paul to discuss them at length in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Apostle teaches that these “spiritual things” emanate from the Spirit who quickens the body of the Church; that their functions are as diversified as the functions of the natural body; and that, though given to individuals, they are intended for the edification of the whole community (1 Corinthians 12).

Theologians distinguish the charismata from other graces which operate personal sanctification: they call the former gratiae gratis datae in opposition to the gratiae gratum facientes. The “gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost”, being given for personal sanctification, are not to be numbered among the charismata. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cxi, a. 4) argues that the Apostle (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) “rightly divides charismata; for some belong to the perfection of knowledge, as faith, the word of wisdom, and the word of science; some belong to the confirmation of doctrine, or the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits; some belong to the faculty of expression, as kinds of tongues and interpretation of speeches.” It must, however, be conceded that St. Paul did not intend to give in these two verses a complete enumeration of charismata, for at the end of the chapter he mentions several more; besides he makes no attempt at a scientific division. Englmann (Die Charismen, Ratisbon, 1848) distinguishes two categories of charismata:

charismata tending to further the inner growth of the Church;
charismata tending to promote her outer development.

**

 

[jmj1984]

**
To the former belong the gifts which help the dignitaries of the Church in performing their offices; to the latter the gift of performing miracles. This division seems indicated in 1 Peter 4:10-11: “As every man hath received grace [charisma], ministering the same to one another. . . If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth.” Seven of the charismata enumerated by St. Paul fall into the first category:

the Apostolate;
the cognate office of prophecy;
the discerning of spirits;
the office of teacher;
the word of wisdom and science;
helps;
the gift of governing.

Five belong to the second category:

increased faith;
the power of miracles;
in specie the healing of the sick;
the gift of tongues;
the interpretation of tongues.

Charismata given for the inner life of the Church

(1) The Apostolate deservedly heads the list of God’s extraordinary gifts to man for the building up of the Church. The Apostolic office contains in itself a claim to all charismata, for the object of its ordinary working is identical with the object of these special gifts: the sanctification of souls by uniting them in Christ with God. The Apostles received the first great effusion of charismata when the Holy Ghost descended on them in the shape of fiery tongues, and they began to speak in diverse tongues. Throughout their whole missionary activity they are credited with supernatural powers by Scripture, history, and legend alike. The legend, however fanciful in its facts, is built upon the general sense of the Church. Through the Apostles the fullness of Christ’s gifts flowed on to their helpers in various measure, according to the circumstances of persons and places.

Charismata given for the outer development of the Church

(1) Faith, as a charisma, is that strong faith which removes mountains, casts out devils (Matthew 17:19, 20), and faces the most cruel martyrdom without flinching. Such faith, common at the beginning, has been granted by God in all ages to saints and martyrs, and to many holy men and women whose hidden lives offered no occasion for miracles or martyrdom.

Among the Fathers it is sententia communissima that the speaking with tongues was a speaking in foreign languages. Their interpretation is based upon the promise in Mark 16:1, “They shall speak with new tongues”, and on its final fulfilment in the gift of tongues to the apostles (Acts 2:4). A new tongue, however, is not necessarily a foreign language, and a gift which had a special use on the day of Pentecost appears purposeless in meetings of people of one language. There are, besides, textual objections to the common opinion, although, it must be owned, not quite convincing [see the second point above]. Many explanations of this obscure charisma are proposed, but not one of them is free from objection. It may indeed be that there is some truth in all of them. St. Paul speaks of “kinds of tongues”, which may imply that glossolalia manifested itself in many forms: e.g. in the form of foreign languages when required by circumstances, as with the Apostles; as a new language — “a kind of speech distinctive of the spiritual life and distinguished from common speech, which to the exuberant feeling of the new faith appeared unsuitable for intercourse with God” (Weizsacker); or as the manifestation of the unspeakable groanings of the Spirit, asking for us, and causing us to cry, “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15, 26).**’

Your attempt to limit therefore the charism spoken of in the council documents and the catechism to the so called charasmatic gifts is therefore a total failure.

 

[jmj1984]

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

It’s a big issue because:

1)Healing services are presumptous
2)It shows a lack of that heroic humulity demonstrated by thoe miracalous healers you speak of

 

[jmj1984]

You are right. It is not possible to show this without the Scriptures, the Catechism, the Vatican Council, instruction of the Popes. Since you reject all these sources as valid authority, then I do not think iti s possible to show you anything.

This is a lie, a lie you keep repeating so you cannot claim to be in good fath as I have refuted it numerous times.

No one has claimed this, this is just another of your strawmen.

En masses not in mass and frankly it wouldnt surprise me if people did

You have been repeatedly told that this is NOT the position of anyone in the Charismatic Renewal. This is another strawman.

And yet this is what the founders of the movement thought, I believe I’ll trust them rather than you.

Really, this is a minor issue. There are many varieties of tongues, but since it is the least of the gifts, using it as a sticking point is just an excuse to reject the Teaching of the Apostles on the charismatic gifts.

Not really if people are speaking gibberish, then there are not using the gift of tongues but something utterly unknown, who can say whether it comes from God?

They followed what they read in the Holy Scriptures. I agree, there is never any need to draw water from a poisoned well. The HS was given to Jesus’ Church. Jesus’ Church is the Catholic Church. The Spirit, and the gifts that accompany Him are the inheritance of Catholics. They come from God, to His Holy Bride. Other people absconding with them and misusing them does not invalidate or “poison” them. Nothing that comes from the Holy Spirit comes from a poisoned well. Such a statement borders on blasphemy against the Spirit.

This is the error of ‘Private interpretation’, they followed what they believed was in scripture after reading protestant literature on the subject, praying with protestants and being lectured by protestants.

I am not so sure this is true. There was not much of this available at the time. Nowadays, yes. The fact is, they sought these after their experience at Duquesne, and finding little or none, started forming these resources. They have continued to do that for 50 years.

Believe what you want seeing as I have a book from the 1870’s that lists no less than 20 books on the subject, I hardly believe that in the mid 20th century it was not available. There plenty of retreats around and plenty of legitmate mystical literature.

I agree, but since this was not their errand, it is just another strawman. To accuse people who want a deeper life with God of running after phenomena is quite judgmental of you.

Its not an accusation, its a fact, a fact all the sources I have provided state.

Quite right again. You may remember if you ever took a class in logic or philosophy, it is impossible to prove a negative.

“There is no theology in the Charismatic movement that diverges in any way from the once for all divine deposit of faith”.

As the person bringing the charge, it is up to you to “prove” your assertion, which you are unable to do. The fabrication that the renewal has “it’s doctrine” is just another strawman.

What a load of nonsense, if people want to defend the movement they should be able to disprove criticisms of it, something you simply cannot do,

Oh, I read them. Then I went back over the thread to make sure I didn’t miss any. You have invalidated Vatican 2 because it was not an infallible council, you have stated that what is written in scripture is irrelevant because you don’t agree with “private interpretation”, you have stated at least twice that you “don’t agree” with the statements of the Popes, and refuse to accept what the Catechism teaches about Protestant communites, ecumenism, and the Spiritual gifts.

More lies

The Popes prayed. The Spirit manifested what they requested (a new Pentecost). The Popes accepted the Charismatic Renewal as the answer to their prayers. Really, I don’t need to be the one to be objective, or subjective. I just need to follow the lead of the successor of Peter.

And this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the difference between objective and subjective and an alienation from catholic tradition.