Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

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.

The facts? Your mind is apparently so caught up in this movement it has lost its ability to distinguish between fact and opinion, objective and subjective. Either the sources I have provided are lying or my accusations are true, these are the two options, there are no others. Just like ww2 either started in 1939 or in 1940, both cannot be true.

The movement is undergirded with the Teaching of the Church.

Something you simply cannot show.

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.

So we’re now going to use a TV network to justify the movement? As for comparing those in the NT to the founders of the movement, all I can say is that you are clearly delusional.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

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.

This is yet another lie. You are subscribing to the protestant heresy of private interpretation of scripture.

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.

Another lie. As I have repeatedly explained this is not my position, how you could get this from my posts is anyones guess

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.

An assertion you have been utterly unable to prove, further even if you did it would prove nothing. It would not prove that everyone should seek them or have them or any of the other doctrines that underpin the movement.

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.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

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!

An amusing and unsubstantiated ad hominem attack. The only one who disagrees with the councils and the magisterium is you. I notice you say ‘leading of the popes’ rather than authority or teaching as you cannot of course prove that they teach authoritatively the things the charasmatic movement believes.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

This must have been the sixth you’ve repeated this lie.

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.

Seventh

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.

You miss the point, it was not taught authoritatively.

As for the second I’ve already addressed this, something you apparently haven’t realised.

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

And this would be the 8th time you repeated this lie.

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.

Actually in relation to the facts I did not do this at all. You cannot refute the facts and this clutching at straws attempt pointless ad hominem attacks. I have quoted the testimony of an eyewitness and founder of the movement which can be seen to substantitate all the claims I made. You cannot claim to be ignorant of this and so are simply in denial of reality.

Sincerity is no protection form heresy as you would know if you had even the most basic knowledge of catholic theology or history, something you apparently lack.

 

[justtryin]

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.

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.

So which is it? Are tongues “MOST COMMON CHARISM RECEIVED?”
Or is it “THE LEAST OF THE GIFTS?”

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Who mentioned the reformation? I was speaking of any time at all prior to the mid 20th century.

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.

That is no excuse, you cannot look beyond 1962, or at popes prior to Pope Paul VI, that is not because The Church is so rich it is because you are willingly ignorant.

We understand them differently.

Thats a little like saying you think ww2 started in 1940 and I think it started in 1939, facts are facts.

Oh blissful ignorance! :extrahappy:

Ignorance is no defnece.

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.

Read what people have said about the devil and the appearence of good fruits.

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.

Not what I said, completely ignoring the tradition of the church is quite imprudent.

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?

Lets address the fundamental difference between heretics and other non-catholics, heretics have rejected the truth and/or embrace a mutilated version of the truth whilst other non-catholics simply haven’t heard of it. Whilst praying with the former is almost always wrong the latter is not.

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.

Affirming evil, mistaken, though it simply isnt taught authoritatively.

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.

I? No. The tradition of the church.

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

The ninth time you’ve repeated this lie.

 

[jmj1984]

I certainly can’t

No one can, because said things don’t exist and have never happened.

 

[guanophore]

All of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are listed in the Bible.
See 1Cor.12,14

God bless,
bluelake

jmj does not accept the Bible as an authentic authoritative source of doctrine and faith practice. That is why the statement keeps being made that there is NO EVIDENCE in Church Tradition for these things.

 

[guanophore]

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."

Exactly where are you getting your information from?

I think jmj is spewing forth Protestant contaminations that have been a source of aggravation, and does not seem to have any clue what the Catholic perspective and teaching is on the charismatic gifts. What I have heard in this thread are abuses, misinformation, erroneous assumptions, and refusal to accept the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

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.

This is a very important point that has been entirely overlooked by some. The Charismatic lifestyle is a . 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)

It would be good if you could post a link to this document.

 

[guanophore]

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

Have you considered, jmj, that if the Catholic charismatics, the Popes, the Catechism, the documents of Vatican two, and the Scriptures give a different perspective on the Renewal than you have, that the ignorance may not reside outside yourself?

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.

No ignoring, and no discrediting. We just see things differnently. Unlike yourself, we honor the authority of the Pope, and believe that God heard and answered his prayers. Unlike yourself, we believe some Catholics seek a deeper walk with God that is empowered by the Holy Spirit.

  The Church is already united, indeed it cannot lose its unity, it is called The Catholic church, young children properly catechized know of this,

Exactly! The Church is the pure and holy bride of Christ! She is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. This is why she cannot be contaminated by a “poisoned well”.

‘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.

Great!

I am glad you are finally understanding this. Spiritual Gifts come from the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit comes through the CATHOLIC CHURCH! This is why whatever Protestants do or think is irrelevant.

  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.

Actually, I think what would be more accurate is to say that these sources don’t say anything about YOUR ideas of the movement. Your posts have made it clear that you have a very warped and innacurate concept of the movement. I agree, Your ideas are not found in these documents. (thankfully)

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal teaches that we receive the gifts of the HS in Baptism and Confirmation. It teaches that we are not to chase after gifts and sensations. It teaches that we are to listen to the catechesis of the Magesterium, that same catechesis that your refuse to accept.

 

[guanophore]

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.

**

Really glad you are starting to look at some Catholic sources for your information. You asked yesterday for some history of “healing service” in the Church. I asked what you meant by “service”.

Venerable Solanus Casey held what is called “healing services” for Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

Who mentioned the reformation? I was speaking of any time at all prior to the mid 20th century.

Vatican II.

The Magesterium gave us direction in how to productively relate to the children of the Reformation. It is the duty of the Magesterium to guide us in dealing with phenomena that occur in our present day. Before the 20th century there was no stem cell research, no in vitro fertilization, no artificial birth control, etc. You are complaining that certain terms and phenomenon did not exist previously. This is irrelevant. What is releveant is that the Mageseterium has given us direction about these matters.

But, you have also stated that you don’t consider the docurments of Vat 2 infallible, and therefore they are not “authoritative”. You consistently state that there is NO EVIDENCE in tradition, which means you do not consider the HOly Scriptures to be an authentic reflection of Catholic Sacred Tradition. You refuse the teaching of the Holy Father, saying it was not directed toward you. You reject the contents of the catechism. It seems to me that it would not matter whether the documents predated the 20th century, or not.

In rejecting the authority that has been placed over you by Christ, you are making yourself your own Pope. I see this a lot CAF, but never before on the Traditional Forum!
Really glad you are starting to look at some Catholic sources for your information. You asked yesterday for some history of “healing service” in the Church. I asked what you meant by “service”.

Venerable Solanus Casey held what is called “healing services” for Catholics.

That is no excuse, you cannot look beyond 1962, or at popes prior to Pope Paul VI, that is not because The Church is so rich it is because you are willingly ignorant.

Thats a little like saying you think ww2 started in 1940 and I think it started in 1939, facts are facts.

Indeed it is like that. It is a truth that history is all a matter of perspective. Yes, I am saying that the Renewal started when the HOly Father asked for it.

You are starting further down the road with a later event.

Not what I said, completely ignoring the tradition of the church is quite imprudent.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. And taking the position that the Holy Scriptures are NOT part of that Sacred Tradition equally imprudent.

 Affirming evil, mistaken, though it simply isnt taught authoritatively.

Let me make sure I understand you. The Holy Fathers are affirming evil? They are mistaken? They are not teaching authoritatively?

The ninth time you’ve repeated this lie.

Just call them as I see them.

Every time you reject these sources I will do the same.

 

[jmj1984]

There is simply no point in continuing to talk to you, you cannot accept facts as facts and have next to no knowledge of catholic theology and as such it probably wouldnt matter if a saint himself told you you were wrong, you’d just continue on.

I am going to just add you to the ignore list, because truly you are so in the grip of the charasmatic movement you simply cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions, objective and subjective, infallible from non-infallible, binding from not. Its a rather troubling attitude, one we encounter from JW’s or mormons or those who are members of strange ‘cults’ but not catholics.

Your entire argument revolves around ad hominem attacks, lies and an inability to accept facts or reality, this argument has only furthered my understanding that charasmatic catholics are poorly catechised catholics with little knowledge of the faith or The Church’s rich tradition who are genuinley trying to seek God but go about doing so in the wrong way.

 

[FAB]

There is simply no point in continuing to talk to you, you cannot accept facts as facts and have next to no knowledge of catholic theology and as such it probably wouldnt matter if a saint himself told you you were wrong, you’d just continue on.

I am going to just add you to the ignore list, because truly you are so in the grip of the charasmatic movement you simply cannot tell the difference between facts and opinions, objective and subjective, infallible from non-infallible, binding from not. Its a rather troubling attitude, one we encounter from JW’s or mormons or those who are members of strange ‘cults’ but not catholics.

Your entire argument revolves around ad hominem attacks, lies and an inability to accept facts or reality, this argument has only furthered my understanding that charasmatic catholics are poorly catechised catholics with little knowledge of the faith or The Church’s rich tradition who are genuinley trying to seek God but go about doing so in the wrong way.

I have looked over the various post and it seems that both sides are entrenched in there opinion, so it’s time to raise your heads out of the fox hole and see that it is a fellow Catholic you are speaking to. Both believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Both recongize the work of the Spirit as the advocate and guidance of the the Church. Unlike what the head of the post inferes, there is not need to defend the Spirit.

The Chrismatic movement, as with the many varuious movements in the Church are not above scoutiny. As an ordained minister, I do see issues with the movement, “baptism is the Spirit” being the top of the list and being a more recent characteristic in the movement. Yet, I also see great fruits from the movement when it comes to the members being fervant evangilist for the faith.
THe preist involved in the movement and the bishops, do need to examine the practices now within the Chrismatic Movement. As one who was involved in it’s early beginings, went I looked at it again after many years of being away was taken back to see how many off the road directions it had taken. I pray that it can be given a true path once again.

 

[Denise1957]

I have looked over the various post and it seems that both sides are entrenched in there opinion, so it’s time to raise your heads out of the fox hole and see that it is a fellow Catholic you are speaking to. Both believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Both recongize the work of the Spirit as the advocate and guidance of the the Church. Unlike what the head of the post inferes, there is not need to defend the Spirit.

The Chrismatic movement, as with the many varuious movements in the Church are not above scoutiny. As an ordained minister, I do see issues with the movement, “baptism is the Spirit” being the top of the list and being a more recent characteristic in the movement. Yet, I also see great fruits from the movement when it comes to the members being fervant evangilist for the faith.
THe preist involved in the movement and the bishops, do need to examine the practices now within the Chrismatic Movement. As one who was involved in it’s early beginings, went I looked at it again after many years of being away was taken back to see how many off the road directions it had taken. I pray that it can be given a true path once again.

Perhaps the movement will be given its true path someday. But given that it’s based on having to have spiritual “experiences,” I have to wonder if it’s inevitable that it goes off in strange directions. As such, I don’t see how it can be reconciled with a traditional notion of Catholicism, which is based more on faith and reason.

But then, traditionalism has its extremes, too. It’s troublesome that some traditionalists obsess on such things as the third secret of Fatima, and will start Rosary campaigns for rediculous things, as if the Blessed Virgin were at their beck and call (similar to the CR believing that the Holy Ghost works only for them). I see correlations between CR and extreme traditionalism. Some of us, having embraced extreme views in the past, now want to keep a proper balance in our spiritual lives.

I would hope that those who are involved in CR would make an effort to understand that to traditionalists, the notion that all - or even most - Catholics should be speaking in tongues and prophesying is quite rediculous. And, no, I’m not going to debate this point, because it does no good.

 

[Vianney33]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/chrsmat.htm

**Is the Charismatic Movement Catholic? **

Charismatism takes its origins from Protestant Pentecostalism in the United States and it has spread throughout the Catholic Church by the “Baptism in the Spirit”.

This spiritual baptism is an innovation which the Charismatic renewal attempts to justify by claiming that with the sacraments the Catholic Church has not fulfilled all the abundance of the Gospels: “The over flowing and abundance of the New Testament should not be hastily assimilated to subsequent sacramental forms” (Fr Laurentin, Charismatic apologist, in his book Pentecôtisme chez les Catholiques, Beauchesne, 1975). Now, the Catholic Church alone is the custodian of the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It transmits infallibly the blessings of the Gospels in the only true Sacraments. “My God, I firmly believe all the Truths which You have revealed to us and which You have taught us through Your Church, because You can neither deceive nor be deceived.” (Act of Faith)

Regarding the emphasis put on charisms:

1. The presence of charisms is not sufficient to prove their divine origin:
   “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of My Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils in Thy name, and done many miracles in Thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity.” (Matt. VII: 21-23)

“There are people whom the devil does not prevent in any way from doing much good because the good which they do serves him to deceive them.” (Fr. Lallemant, La Doctrine Spirituelle, Paris, 1882, p. 253)

1. The Catholic Church is built on the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity and not on charisms which are only lower gifts which must be controlled by the Church.
   “But be zealous of the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way.” (I Cor. XII :31)

“Certain people value above all amongst the spiritual gifts, that of performing miracles, which are to be seen, forgetting that there are many others higher, which are hidden and because of that not liable to fall.” (St. John Climacus, Scala Paradisi, 26th degree, 78)
“In comparison with Charity which is perfect, these gifts are of little consequence and those who are at that level can fall while those who have Charity do not fall. I tell you that I have seen men who have received all the charisms and who have become participants in the Spirit and who nonetheless fell because they did not achieve perfect Charity”. (St. Macarius Magnus, IVth c., Spiritual Homilies, II, 27, 14)

Regarding its search of extraordinary signs and wonders:

1. Risk of illusion:

“And I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, ‘God told me,’ ‘God answered me.’ Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution.” (St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29) (1)

1. Possession by the devil:

“Through the desire of accepting them one opens the door to the devil. The devil can then deceive one by other communications expertly feigned and disguised as genuine. In the words of the Apostle, he can transform himself into an ‘angel of light’ (II Cor. XI:14). (…) Regardless of the cause of these apprehensions, it is always good for a man to reject them with closed eyes. If he fails to do so, he will make room for those having a diabolical origin and empower the devil to impose his communications. Not only this, but the diabolical representations will multiply while those from God will gradually cease, so that eventually all will come from the devil and none at all from God. This has occurred with many incautious and uninstructed people.” (St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 11) (1)

Regarding its suspicion of the Church’s Hierarchy:

The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is seen as a stifling human institution:
“In so far as the ecclesiastical institution is constructed in the form of a hierarchical and closed juridical structure, in so far as it is organised, not according to the spirit of charism but by coopting clergy monopolising the resources, the knowledge, the power and the initiative in the Church, the Charismatic thrusts have been stifled.” (Fr Laurentin, Ibid.) Now this hierarchy derives from God Himself: "He said therefore to them again: ‘Peace be with you. As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.’ " (John XX 21) “And I say to thee: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matth. XVI 18)

Regarding its ecumenism:

“Originating from Protestant families, I was baptised a Protestant. Today, I know that God wants me to be a Protestant. I have gradually felt that I must not separate myself from my Protestant Church but to bring myself closer to it.” (Testament of a young girl in the Bethany Community, in Revue Tychique, No. 52, p.10)
“There will not be a real Judeo - Christian dialogue until the return of the Lord, except when Christians are truly Christian and the Jews truly Jewish.” (Brother Ephraim, Founder of the Community of the Beatitudes, in Cahiers du Renouveau, No. 64, p.13) …

 

[Melchior_1]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/chrsmat.htm

I’ll see this link, and raise you this one; ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm

Specifically, what our friend BXVI had to say about things:

In a forward to a book by Cardinal Suenens, at that time the Pope’s delegate to the Charismatic Renewal, the Prefect comments on the Post-Conciliar period stating,

***At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms - which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit - is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.

What is the relation between personal experience and the common faith of the Church? Both factors are important: a dogmatic faith unsupported by personal experience remains empty; mere personal experience unrelated to the faith of the Church remains blind.

… to those responsible for the ecclesiastical ministry - from parish priests to bishops - not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully; and on the other (hand) … to the members of the Renewal to cherish and maintain their link with the whole Church and with the charisms of their pastors.***

 

[jmj1984]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/chrsmat.htm

**Is the Charismatic Movement Catholic? **

Charismatism takes its origins from Protestant Pentecostalism in the United States and it has spread throughout the Catholic Church by the “Baptism in the Spirit”.

This spiritual baptism is an innovation which the Charismatic renewal attempts to justify by claiming that with the sacraments the Catholic Church has not fulfilled all the abundance of the Gospels: “The over flowing and abundance of the New Testament should not be hastily assimilated to subsequent sacramental forms” (Fr Laurentin, Charismatic apologist, in his book Pentecôtisme chez les Catholiques, Beauchesne, 1975). Now, the Catholic Church alone is the custodian of the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It transmits infallibly the blessings of the Gospels in the only true Sacraments. “My God, I firmly believe all the Truths which You have revealed to us and which You have taught us through Your Church, because You can neither deceive nor be deceived.” (Act of Faith)

Regarding the emphasis put on charisms:

1. The presence of charisms is not sufficient to prove their divine origin:
   “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of My Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils in Thy name, and done many miracles in Thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity.” (Matt. VII: 21-23)

“There are people whom the devil does not prevent in any way from doing much good because the good which they do serves him to deceive them.” (Fr. Lallemant, La Doctrine Spirituelle, Paris, 1882, p. 253)

1. The Catholic Church is built on the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity and not on charisms which are only lower gifts which must be controlled by the Church.
   “But be zealous of the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way.” (I Cor. XII :31)

“Certain people value above all amongst the spiritual gifts, that of performing miracles, which are to be seen, forgetting that there are many others higher, which are hidden and because of that not liable to fall.” (St. John Climacus, Scala Paradisi, 26th degree, 78)
“In comparison with Charity which is perfect, these gifts are of little consequence and those who are at that level can fall while those who have Charity do not fall. I tell you that I have seen men who have received all the charisms and who have become participants in the Spirit and who nonetheless fell because they did not achieve perfect Charity”. (St. Macarius Magnus, IVth c., Spiritual Homilies, II, 27, 14)

Regarding its search of extraordinary signs and wonders:

1. Risk of illusion:

“And I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, ‘God told me,’ ‘God answered me.’ Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution.” (St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29) (1)

1. Possession by the devil:

“Through the desire of accepting them one opens the door to the devil. The devil can then deceive one by other communications expertly feigned and disguised as genuine. In the words of the Apostle, he can transform himself into an ‘angel of light’ (II Cor. XI:14). (…) Regardless of the cause of these apprehensions, it is always good for a man to reject them with closed eyes. If he fails to do so, he will make room for those having a diabolical origin and empower the devil to impose his communications. Not only this, but the diabolical representations will multiply while those from God will gradually cease, so that eventually all will come from the devil and none at all from God. This has occurred with many incautious and uninstructed people.” (St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 11) (1)

Regarding its suspicion of the Church’s Hierarchy:

The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is seen as a stifling human institution:
“In so far as the ecclesiastical institution is constructed in the form of a hierarchical and closed juridical structure, in so far as it is organised, not according to the spirit of charism but by coopting clergy monopolising the resources, the knowledge, the power and the initiative in the Church, the Charismatic thrusts have been stifled.” (Fr Laurentin, Ibid.) Now this hierarchy derives from God Himself: "He said therefore to them again: ‘Peace be with you. As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you.’ " (John XX 21) “And I say to thee: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matth. XVI 18)

Regarding its ecumenism:

“Originating from Protestant families, I was baptised a Protestant. Today, I know that God wants me to be a Protestant. I have gradually felt that I must not separate myself from my Protestant Church but to bring myself closer to it.” (Testament of a young girl in the Bethany Community, in Revue Tychique, No. 52, p.10)
“There will not be a real Judeo - Christian dialogue until the return of the Lord, except when Christians are truly Christian and the Jews truly Jewish.” (Brother Ephraim, Founder of the Community of the Beatitudes, in Cahiers du Renouveau, No. 64, p.13) …

Good links but don’t expect charasmatics to pay any attention.

 

[Melchior_1]

Good links but don’t expect charasmatics to pay any attention.

You’ve brushed off every single post here from people that disagreed with you essentially with “that’s not good enough” and you’re saying that others aren’t/won’t pay attention?

I just provided a clear quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger endorsing the charismatic renewal during the time he was the Prefect of the CDF. During a time if things were bad, he would have stomped it out. Instead, he says to not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully it. To embrace it.

But then again, he’s only the current Pope and led the CDF. I suppose his opinion doesn’t matter (unless it’s a traditionalist practice he agrees with, then it’s all good I guess).

I await being placed on your ignore list accordingly.

 

[jmj1984]

You’ve brushed off every single post here from people that disagreed with you essentially with “that’s not good enough” and you’re saying that others aren’t/won’t pay attention?

I just provided a clear quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger endorsing the charismatic renewal during the time he was the Prefect of the CDF. During a time if things were bad, he would have stomped it out. Instead, he says to not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully it. To embrace it.

But then again, he’s only the current Pope and led the CDF. I suppose his opinion doesn’t matter (unless it’s a traditionalist practice he agrees with, then it’s all good I guess).

I await being placed on your ignore list accordingly.

Well if somethings not good enough what do you want me to say ‘Oh yes thats good enough’? I merely pointed out they were not authoritative statements, something any theologian would know. Neither you nor anyone else that supports the movement can prove its practices from either the catechism, Vatican II, papal encyclicals or anything authoritative. Speeches and statements arent going to cut it, especially not in the light of the fact that so many authoritative sources condemn the movements practices.

And as for putting you on the ignore list, I dont see why.

I have only ever made statements of facts, when people read what an eyewitness states and then go ‘No it was a catholic retreat, no she didnt want what protestants had’ when the eyewitnesses say the exact opposite explicitly its pretty safe to assume people aren’t paying attention.

 

[Melchior_1]

Well if somethings not good enough what do you want me to say ‘Oh yes thats good enough’? I merely pointed out they were not authoritative statements, something any theologian would know. Neither you nor anyone else that supports the movement can prove its practices from either the catechism, Vatican II, papal encyclicals or anything authoritative. Speeches and statements arent going to cut it, especially not in the light of the fact that so many authoritative sources condemn the movements practices.

There has been COUNTLESS amounts of information posting from several people containing several sources. Everything from the Bible to Vatican II documents. Extensive posting from several people who have given a lot of information. Early Church Fathers for example, have been referenced speaking about the charisms. Personally, I have referenced on a few occasions that there has been an entire Society of Apostolic Life which has this movement as a crucial portion, and if Rome disagreed with this movement so they would not have went a head with it. They would have exercised caution, they would have brought up some red flags.

But they didn’t. The Companions of the Cross, a charismatic Society of Apostolic Life, was given the full blessing to become what they are today.

But those things don’t matter, do they? That whole groups are being formed based around these charisms? That Steubinville continues to be wildly successful? That our very traditionalist Pope endorses the charismatic renewal?

No, it doesn’t matter I guess. Instead it’s easier to accuse others of “ad-homineneseddesswhatever” and say “I’ve given all the proof in the world!” and ignore what others have posted (literally, since you’ve publicly stated that you were ignoring people).

I have only ever made statements of facts, when people read what an eyewitness states and then go ‘No it was a catholic retreat, no she didnt want what protestants had’ when the eyewitnesses say the exact opposite explicitly its pretty safe to assume people aren’t paying attention.

Yet others have said other eye witnesses have said otherwise, so who do we trust?