Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[Warrenton]

Let’s not assume this yet, shall we?

Alright!

Why not?
What is there that leads one to believe that this is not normal? What evidence is there that the gifts have ceased?
Why do the Holy Fathers say that we can expect the same?

Your quote responded to my query whether modern speaking in tongues is the same as that of New Testament times.

First, let me say that I make no comment on whether the practice is normal or not. Lots of things are normal and bad, like divorce, and other things are unusual and good, like a cool day in August. I’m willing to agree that the practice is perfectly normal within this discussion.

Regarding evidence that the gifts have ceased, let’s focus on speaking in tongues only.

Obviously, there is no recording of what St. Paul was writing about. We don’t know how the converts sounded. We don’t know how angels sound, but St. Paul probably did since one let him out of prison. Even if people spoke in angelic tongues at some time, we don’t have an unbroken tradition of what we should expect. That is really all I am contending: that there is a gap in our knowledge

Regarding the recent statements, including those of the popes that I have read in this thread, I do not find that they are instructive to the questions I have. I am not saying that they are wrong, but neither do they answer the questions I have been posing. But again, I would not expect them to. How can a pope from the 20th century fill in a gap of knowledge of some 19 centuries?

I don’t think that way, but neither do I criticise those who do, or who take comfort in it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree. I think it was a very poor choice for a title. It seems to start out from an adversarial position.

  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

Yes. I think there are many people that need to listen to the instruction of the Pope on this matter, and, as jmj has pointed out, avoid adopting Protestant theologies and Protestant terms.

Yet, I also see great fruits from the movement when it comes to the members being fervant evangilist for the faith.

I think this is the part jmj has NOT seen, or perhaps having seen it, does not value it as a spiritual benefit.

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.

I think that pastoral guidance is seriously needed. It is good to hear this from an ordained person. The entire American Church is in need of more pastoral guidance and direction from the ordained ministers. It seems we have a majority of Catholics claiming to espouse the faith, but who are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, and by extension, rebellious subjects of the shepherds appointed over them by God.

 

[Mike30]

This discussioin really puzzles me.On the one hand you have people who apparently, at least according to other people,believe that there are no more charismatic gifts or are afraid of them.On the other hand, you have people who apparently, according to other people believe that their movement, the CCR is inspired, and even necessary in order to unlock and use these gifts, and as such must be vociferously defended.

My question is why? Obviously the charisms do exist and equally obviously, nothing man made can cause these gifts to magically turn on and come to fruition… That is totally between the Holy Spirit and the person involved.

Why not do it this way. Those who think that they have need of such a movement stay involved in it.Those who do not have a need for such a movement stay away from it. And lets keep each side from trying to convert the others to their way of thinking.

That would seem to be the fair balanced and reasonable approach to this rather than spending over 30 pages of incredibly repetitious and totally non effective argumentation from both sides.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree about the tendency to go off in strange directions. We can see this in Paul’s writing to Corinth, and it would not surprise me to learn that this is the very reason that the gifts fell into neglect.

I am puzzled over your characterization of the movement as “based on having to have spiritual experiences”. I am thinking about the reading I have been doing in St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, Padre Pio and venerable Solanus. These saints had “strange experiences” but were not considered part of any “movement”. I wonder if the “movement” is not an attempt to understand, explain and make practical sense of the strange experiences, rather than being the basis of them. Granted, persons who don’t have these strange experiences don’t need any help understanding and directing them. But for those that do, spiritual direction is necessary. One of the reasons St. Teresa was ordered, under obedience (she did not want to do it) to write about her strange ecstatic experiences is because her Bishop was unfamiliar with them, yet assumed them to be authentic because he knew the fruit of her life and her holiness. He insisted that she find words to explain and describe them, and she clearly had difficulty, but did the best she could.

Some of us, having embraced extreme views in the past, now want to keep a proper balance in our spiritual lives.

Always and everywhere a wise position.

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.

This thread has helped me a great deal to understand the objections, many of which I think are quite valid. I disagree with you, though, I think debating the Truth always does good. There are usually 10 X more lurkers reading these threads than there are posters. Many people will be able to get the point that a person does not have to speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit. You are right though, there will always be some fundamentalists that are unable to grasp another point of view, and have a warped perspective of theology. It still needs to be said, though.

 

[Denise1957]

I agree about the tendency to go off in strange directions. We can see this in Paul’s writing to Corinth, and it would not surprise me to learn that this is the very reason that the gifts fell into neglect.

I am puzzled over your characterization of the movement as “based on having to have spiritual experiences”. I am thinking about the reading I have been doing in St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, Padre Pio and venerable Solanus. These saints had “strange experiences” but were not considered part of any “movement”. I wonder if the “movement” is not an attempt to understand, explain and make practical sense of the strange experiences, rather than being the basis of them. Granted, persons who don’t have these strange experiences don’t need any help understanding and directing them. But for those that do, spiritual direction is necessary. One of the reasons St. Teresa was ordered, under obedience (she did not want to do it) to write about her strange ecstatic experiences is because her Bishop was unfamiliar with them, yet assumed them to be authentic because he knew the fruit of her life and her holiness. He insisted that she find words to explain and describe them, and she clearly had difficulty, but did the best she could.

Always and everywhere a wise position.

This thread has helped me a great deal to understand the objections, many of which I think are quite valid. I disagree with you, though, I think debating the Truth always does good. There are usually 10 X more lurkers reading these threads than there are posters. Many people will be able to get the point that a person does not have to speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit. You are right though, there will always be some fundamentalists that are unable to grasp another point of view, and have a warped perspective of theology. It still needs to be said, though.

I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable post here. You mentioned that you are puzzled over my characterization of CR as havingto be based on spiritual experiences. I probably would have attempted to address this a few threads ago, but really, there isn’t any point in doing so. Those Catholics who are deeply committed to CR do not understand traditional Catholicism. They cannot understand where we are coming from at all. It’s like two completely different thought processes in action, which cannot intersect in any way, shape, or form. Those who expound the glories CR will, of course, believe that it is the traditionalists who lack understanding. That’s fine - I would expect you to think this way. But even though the advocates of CR cannot understand where we are coming from at all, nearly two-thousand years of Catholic teaching and tradition is on our side. You cannot believe or understand this, and I accept that. The gulf between Trads and the CR is HUGE.

 

[guanophore]

[catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/chrsmat.htm](http://www.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:

This is interesting to read. I have never encountered this notion in the Renewal. Perhaps I was fortunate to receive very good catechesis from the beginning, and was formed in an orthodox manner. In the Life in the Spirit Seminars, Conferences, Workshops and talks I have heard, it has never been claimed that the Sacramental life of the Church is in any way deficient. On the contrary, the gifts of the Spirit are rooted in the Sacraments, and the work of the Spirit filled life is to take those graces out into the world, where wea are to fulfill all the abundance of the Gospels. We are to become the living bread that is fed to the world. We are to be filled with the joy and peace that is our birthright in the sacraments, and to fulfill the work of the ministry, which lies in the works of mercy.

“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).

I have heard of this priest, but have not read any of his work. I am not really sure what this statement means. If it means, as you say, that the sacraments are somehow insufficient, then he is certainly wrong. If he means that the grace of God is limited to the sacraments, then it is true. God pours out his grace upon all mankind, to draw them to Himself. He makes his rain to fall on the wicked and the righteous, and His Spirit is hard at work in non - catholic, non-sacramental ecclesial communites to draw them into the fullness of the faith.

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)

Is this yours, or his? If he can make this act of faith, then how can he possibly also say the sacraments are deficient?

Regarding the emphasis put on charisms:

1. The presence of charisms is not sufficient to prove their divine origin:

While this is true, there are also charisms that are of divine origin. Their purpose is to build up the Church.

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.

This is certainly true. Do you think that the Charismatic Renewal teaches otherwise? If you have a source of a teaching that contradicts this, I would like to know about it. Thanks in advance.

“But be zealous of the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way.” (I Cor. XII :31) “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)

I think this zeal is why the Pentecostal gifts fell into disuse. Indeed, love never fails. If the Gifts do not lead a person into deeper walk of love, then they have little value.

Regarding its search of extraordinary signs and wonders:

I am lost on this one. I don’t understand where people get the idea that this is the focus. I do understand that people do this, but this is not the teaching.

What we are taught to seek is the fullness of all that the Holy Spirit wants to do in and through us. Yes, it is true that we believe what is written in scripture that gifts have been given to each person for the service of all. But it is not a “seeking” or “obsession” of gifts. It is more a matter of discerning what gifts have already been imparted in baptism, and how to use them properly.

Regarding its suspicion of the Church’s Hierarchy:

The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is seen as a stifling human institution:

This is definitely a problematic attitude, but honestly, I see it more in non-charismatics. It is rampant among those who reject the moral teachings of the Church, especially with birth control/abortion/ordination of women, etc.

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)

I read many statements like this here on CAF. This is not what is encouraged by the Charismatic Renewal, though. I do pray for people like this,though, and I trust that God will meet them where they are, and draw them to HImself in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[vardaquinn]

On the other hand, you have people who apparently, according to other people believe that their movement, the CCR is inspired, and even necessary in order to unlock and use these gifts, and as such must be vociferously defended.

Oh, I could see how someone could come off with that view. To clarify: no, I do not think the CCR is necessary to unlock these gifts. But I do think it must be defended.

 

[vardaquinn]

Those Catholics who are deeply committed to CR do not understand traditional Catholicism. They cannot understand where we are coming from at all. It’s like two completely different thought processes in action, which cannot intersect in any way, shape, or form

That’s unfortunate. I consider myself to be a traditionalist, at least to a certain degree. Altar rails, veils, Latin, incense, the EF of the Mass…

 

[Denise1957]

That’s unfortunate. I consider myself to be a traditionalist, at least to a certain degree. Altar rails, veils, Latin, incense, the EF of the Mass…

It’s not really about altar rails, veils, Latin, incense, or even the EF Mass. It’s about nearly two-thousand years of what has been handed down in Catholic teaching and tradition.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is just the problem, though, jmj. You have cited activities and abuses, and what you have called "doctrines’ that you say belong to the movement, but they do not. It is as if I would cite the catalogue of liturgical abuses I have seen since Vat. 2, and use these wrongdoings to assert that Vat 2 was not a valid council.

On the contrary, Vat. 2 did not generate or authorize these abuses, any more than the Catholic Charismatic Renewal generates or authorizes abuses with the gifts of Pentecost. No one here is trying to purport that these abuses are supported.

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

Your post stated this was what you were going to do with those who disagree with you. You did not include a quote, so it was not clear if it was directed to everyone, or a certain person. Clearly, if the Popes were on this thread it would apply to them.

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.

It was a Catholic retreat at a Catholic school. Yes, there were Protestants present, and yes, they most certainly wanted what the Protestants had. The Protesatnts enjoyed a strong, living, empowered relationship with the Holy Spirit through which they could live out the Gospel in their lives. It is a sad fact that many of our separated brethren live a more wholesome Christian life than many Catholics.

The fact that we see things differently, jmj, does not mean we are not paying attention. I have found your posts very helpful in understanding why Traditionalists are so prejudiced against Charismatics.

 

[Warrenton]

This thread has helped me a great deal to understand the objections, many of which I think are quite valid. I disagree with you, though, I think debating the Truth always does good.

While coming from a different perspective, I could not agree more!

Cheers!

 

[guanophore]

There are no encyclicals on the matter and on the other hand encyclicals condemning the practices out of which the movement was born and which it continues to practice.

By this I understand you to mean reading non-Catholic literature and praying with Protestants?

I agree that reading non-Catholic literature has been a long standing tradition of the Church. I recently reviewed some of the lists of banned books published during the Reformation.

There has been no reference to saints or doctors of the church and on the other hand no less than 3 condemn the practices of the movement.
Nor has there even been any documents issued by the CDF. So I don’t see any overwhelming evidence

I think you are confusing “practices of the movement” with authentic exercise of the Spiritual gifts. We can see from reading the lives of Padre Pio and Venerable Solanus that these Pentecostal gifts can be practiced appropriately. No one is defending misuse of them.

This is like saying that illicit liturgical activities inidcate that there is no such thing as a valid liturgy.

By the way, I did some digging to day for that handout we got on the healing prayer services.

Perhaps you can explain to me why the Congregation of the doctrine of the faith would publish these kinds of instructions if they did not support such an activity?

 

[Melchior_1]

By the way, I did some digging to day for that handout we got on the healing prayer services.

Perhaps you can explain to me why the Congregation of the doctrine of the faith would publish these kinds of instructions if they did not support such an activity?

GREAT find, good sir.

The «charism of healing» is not attributable to a specific class of faithful.* It is quite clear that St. Paul, when referring to various charisms in 1 Corinthians 12, does not attribute the gift of «charisms of healing» to a particular group, whether apostles, prophets, teachers, those who govern, or any other. The logic which governs the distribution of such gifts is quite different: «All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually just as the Spirit choses» (1 Cor 12:11).** Consequently, in prayer meetings organized for asking for healing, it would be completely arbitrary to attribute a «charism of healing» to any category of participants, for example, to the directors of the group; the only thing to do is to entrust oneself to the free decision of the Holy Spirit, who grants to some a special charism of healing in order to show the power of the grace of the Risen Christ. Yet not even the most intense prayer obtains the healing of all sicknesses. So it is that St. Paul had to learn from the Lord that «my grace is enough for you; my power is made perfect in weakness» (2 Cor 12:9), and that the meaning of the experience of suffering can be that «in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church» (Col 1:24). *

 

[guanophore]

It’s not the charisms that I particular have a disagreement with, it is how the movement claims that one gets them, “baptism in the Spirit” as though that is some kind of straight line to heaven.

Indeed, this is the Teaching of the Church. When the soul is sealed in baptism, the Sacrament washes away all sins, both original, and personal. Such a soul, if they should die, will indeed have a straight line to heaven. This is why some in the early church delayed baptism until they were close to death. It was a risky practice, especially for a soldier, but so long as one went to meet their Maker before they could stain that pure state of grace, they were assured of heaven.

I have a number of gifts from the Spirit or charisms, but my realaztion of them came through discernment and prayer, not a zap form the heavens.

Even people that receive such gifts as a “zap” still do not come into realization of them immediately. Since the Renewal teaches that the gifts were bestowed during the Sacrament of Baptism, it seems obvious that most Catholics don’t come to realization of them at all, and those that do come the same way that you have, through prayer and discernment. This being the case, it would seem that the Church needs MORE spiritual direction in this process of discernment and prayer, not less.

Despite what Chrismatic believe, prayer and dicernment is the way they are realizing their charisms and if they stopped being “baptism in the Spirit” would not them anyone from realizing their gifts.

I am not sure I am following you here, but what makes you think that Charismatics believe differently than this? Do you think a person who receives a gift necessarily understands it immediately?

I have attended the retreat were “baptism in the Spirit” was done. It was laying on hands and annoiting with oil and calling the Spirit down so I could get my charism, at that moment, no discernment. To those who did get the gifts, tongue healing, prophacy, it was indicated that, oh you will get yours latter. There not way to gage later.

It’s not a straw man, it is a real issue of misdirecting people. Many who were at this retreat were there in the center for the first time, without understanding of the Church’s teaching. In the long run it can do more harm than good.

I see what you mean. I have had this happen to me also, but I think maybe it was explained more appropriately. It is more properly described as a release of the gifts that were infused at baptism. There are many “infillings” and a person who has been sealed in the Spirit at Baptism can again be “filled with the Spirit”. The gifts of the Spirit are released when one seeks to know them. As it says in Scripture, how much more will your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask?

When a person does not have an immediate experience of a gift, it is assumed that it will be revealed to them later because it is believed that God has given gifts to everyone, and if we seek to learn what they are, He will show that to us. I agree, if people are improperly catechized, it is misleading. Sometimes it can do more harm than good.

 

[TrueLight]

Among Charismatic Catholics, do lay people lay hands on the sick at healing services?

 

[guanophore]

Let me clarify.

I very much appreciate your careful and reasoned posts.

I am saying Charismatics conceive of the gifts as being a special kind of grace sent by the Holy Ghost to the particular person for a particular purpose unique to that person.

This is a very interesting statement that I would like to explore further.

1 Cor 12:4-11
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

Charismatics read this and understand it to mean that everyone is given gifts, and they are “apportioned” by the HS. Meaning, I may want to have the working of miracles, but the HS may have another plan for me. It is for me to be open to receive what He has willed to inspire in me. As has been noted, this comes through prayer and discernment.

The gifts are also given “for the common good”, which means the purpose of them is not for me to aggrandize about them, or be self indulgent. They are to be used to build up the Church.

After all, that OP's question was why some Traditionalists are hostile to Charismatic activity.   JMJ has put forward many answers to that question...

Yes it has been very educational.

 

[guanophore]

Among Charismatic Catholics, do lay people lay hands on the sick at healing services?

There has been quite a bit of misconduct in this area. I recommend the link in post # 529 for accurate information. These are the instructions that are followed in my region.

 

[ClayPots47]

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

To what retreat do you refer to? The Duquesne University student retreat? That was not other organized, nor led by non-Catholics. There was one non-catholic invited by one of the professors to speak. The retreat was organized by University faculty who were Catholic, and led by Catholics. Talk about grasping at straws, you are so intent on seeing everything wrong with this, you are now making up scenarios that are not factual. Prior to the retreat, two professors attended the prayer group meeting in the private home, that was organized and led by mainstream protestants.

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

Well, the John XXIII was apparently breaking the rules, along with the catholic members of the Taize community. J23 met several times with Brother Roger, and prayed while at Taize.

In 1949, Brother Roger founded the Taize community in a small village in the Burgundy region of France. It was heralded by Pope John XXIII who was excited about its ministry of reconciliation. Other popes and religious dignitaries followed in his train. The writings in this paperback cover a time frame from 1941 until his death in 2005. Brother Roger emphasized the love of God as the core of living: “A life of communion with God opens us to seek reconciliation with others and to commit ourselves to alleviate the sufferings of the poorest.”

Brother Roger of Taize

During one of several audiences with Schultz, Pope John XXIII responded to a reference to Taize by saying, “Ah, Taize, that little springtime!”

After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visit Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, “It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize.”

From Father Didier Bonneterre’s The Liturgical Revolution.

And how about Pope Paul VI?

Pope Paul’s relations with Protestantism were also cordial. In 1965 the World Council of Churches proposed the creation of a mixed commission to explore the possibilities of dialogue between the council and the Catholic Church, and he promptly sent Cardinal Bea to Geneva to accept the proposal. In March 1966 he welcomed to the Vatican the Most Reverend Arthur M. Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, and discussed relations between Catholicism and the Anglican Church. In 1968 Pope Paul sent greetings to the Tenth Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops and to the Fourth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches. Both of these meetings were attended by Catholic observers. On his June 1969 trip to Geneva he was warmly received at the headquarters of the World Council of Churches. In these ecumenical endeavors, however, the Pope frequently cautioned against any attempt to modify or gloss over essential Catholic teachings. He insisted that unity cannot be brought about at the expense of doctrine.

Read more: answers.com/topic/pope-paul-vi#ixzz1Y0TmObDk

(Continued in next post)

 

[ClayPots47]

During Vatican II, the Council Fathers avoided statements which might anger Christians of other faiths.[45] Cardinal Augustin Bea, the President of the Christian Unity Secretariat had always the full support of Paul VI in his attempts to ensure that the Council language is friendly and open to the sensitivities of Protestant and Orthodox Churches, whom he had invited to all sessions at the request of Pope John XXIII. Bea also was strongly involved in the passage of Nostra Aetate, which regulates relation of the Church with the Jewish faith and members of other religions

Read more: answers.com/topic/pope-paul-vi#ixzz1Y0UeBgb6

In 1965, Paul VI decided on the creation of a joint working group with the World Council of Churches to map all possible avenues of dialogue and cooperation. In the following three years, eight sessions were held which resulted in many joint proposals.[92] It was proposed to work closely together in areas of social justice and development and Third World Issues such as hunger and poverty. On the religious side, it was agreed to share together in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, to be held every year. The joint working group was to prepare texts which were to be used by all Christians.[93] On 19 July 1968, the meeting of the World Council of Churches took place in Uppsala, Sweden, which Pope Paul called a sign of the times. He sent his blessing in an ecumenical manner: “May the Lord bless everything you do for the case of Christian Unity.”[94] The World Council of Churches decided on including Catholic theologians in its committees, provided they have the backing of the Vatican.

The Lutherans were the first Protestant Church offering a dialogue to the Catholic Church in September 1964 in Reykjavik, Iceland.[95] It resulted in joint study groups of several issues. The dialogue with the Methodist Church began October 1965, after its representatives officially applauded remarkable changes, friendship and cooperation of the past five years. The Reformed Churches entered four years later into a dialogue with the Catholic Church.[96] The President of the Lutheran World Federation and member of the central committee of the World Council of Churches Fredrik A. Schiotz stated during the 450th anniversary of the Reformation, that earlier commemorations were viewed almost as a triumph. Reformation should be celebrated as a thanksgiving to God, his truth and his renewed life. He welcomed the announcement of Pope Paul VI to celebrate the 1900 anniversary of the death of the Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul, and promised the participation and cooperation in the festivities.[97]

Paul VI supported the new-found harmony and cooperation with Protestants on so many levels. When Cardinal Augustin Bea went to see him for permission for a joint Catholic-Protestant translation of the Bible with Protestant Bible societies, the Pope walked towards him and exclaimed, “as far as the cooperation with Bible societies is concerned, I am totally in favour.”[98] He issued a formal approval on Pentecost 1967, the feast on which the Holy Spirit descended on the Christians, overcoming all linguistic difficulties, according to Christian tradition.

Read more: answers.com/topic/pope-paul-vi#ixzz1Y0VZmwKX

John XXIII and Paul VI were more recent that the popes you quoted, both met and prayed with protestants. The professors who met with the Chapel Hill prayer group, did so after these popes already demonstrated praying with protestants. Besides, your quotes never mention no personal private prayer with protestants being forbidden. The word “prayer” isn’t even mentioned. There is talk of assemblies, religious celebrations, etc. But not once did either use the word “prayer”. Finally, those documents had there purpose in their time, but apparently things changed, since J23 and P6 prayed with protestants, but neither shared in their worship or attended their houses of assemblies.

 

[ClayPots47]

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

Again, there was no retreat led by non-Catholics at a non-Catholics home. It was a prayer gathering. The retreat was held at a Catholic University , attended by Catholic students and led by Catholics, The only non-Catholic present, was one protestant who gave a talk. Would you kindly keep your facts straight?