Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[ClayPots47]

“Authoritative” or not- I am gonna take the speeches and addresses of our Holy Fathers well above your opinion. Has it ever occurred to you that they might have a better grasp on the whole situation than you do?

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[ClayPots47]

And yet the sources I have posted clearly disagree with this, labelling the entire weekend the birth of the movement, 2 catholics were prayed over by protestants and supposedly received the charasmatc gifts. This is the contradiction.

They were NOT the same weekend. And your own sources prove you wrong. You continue to claim what I wrote was not correct, even though it agreed with your sources, now you claim your sources say something they don’t. You are incorrect. From your own sources:

ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

On January 20 (1967), two of the men returned. They received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and began to manifest charismatic gifts.

On February 17 (1967) about 25 of us left for The Ark and The Dove Retreat house on the outskirts of the city.

The retreat was held nearly a month later. They were not the same weekend! The retreat was the birthday of the movement.

Yes, there was a birthday party that night, God had planned it in the Upper Room Chapel. It was the birth of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal!

The other sources you quoted are less detailed, and don’t give all of the events and dates.

The SpiritWatch one is both inaccurate with some details, and biased; not even a credible source. But it doesn’t conflict with the above.

This is the third time you have posted blatantly incorrect information, when your own sources say otherwise. I pointed out and corrected your prior ones, which your own sources pointed out as wrong. You are either being disingenuous, or deliberately misleading.

And you still have not shown how my statement disagrees with your sources, because you can’t. Your own sources, specifically the one I quoted from above, support everything I stated. I will take it then, since you refuse to fulfill your burden of proof to show how my statement conflicts with your sources, and then erect strawmen fallacy’s instead, that we are done with this. I have met my burden of proving that my statement doesn’t disagree with your sources, even though I had no such burden, but you have yet to meet yours.

This is a nice ab absurdam argument but ultimately it doesn’t deal with the fundamental issue. You do not have any authoritative documents supporting the movement and you have no support from tradition.

And you are conveniently dodging my argument, heck, you are the one making the claims. And at no point in this thread did I discuss or argue with you regarding your last sentence, you had/are having that discussing with perhaps someone else. For some reason you keep inserting arguments you are having/have had with others in your replies to me. I think these questions are very relevant, and your unwillingness to answer them is telling. You made the claim regarding heresy, if you cannot or will not provide such a document to back you up, then I and others in this thread are free to assume that you are babbling opinions or intentionally lying, throwing around loaded words like “heresy”, but can’t back up what is ultimately your personal opinion or a straight out lie (Since there is no source declaring them heretical in the RCC). If you are going to claim something is heresy, then you better darn well have sources to back you up, otherwise it isn’t heresy, even if you think it is. And of you claim something is heresy, then by inference those supporting and allowing it are promoting and encouraging heretical practices. These are valid and fair questions, your ab absurdam argument is a convenient co-out. You got caught making a claim you can neither back or prove; and you simply don’t want to admit it.

And, since you brought it up, a) please point to a single valid document that declares Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Resting in the Holy Spirit (as they are defined within the CCR, and not Protestant Pentecostalism, since they define these differently) to be heretical beliefs and b) If they are heresy, than the recent popes (P6, JP2 and B16) have all been allowing heresy to be spread in the Church (Not to mentioned the appointed a heretic as Papal Household Preacher). Add in the numerous bishops throughout the world, who have along with the popes; given support to the CCR, and that’s a lot of heresy being spread. 22 church documents have been authored regarding the renewal from P6 and JP2, more when you add in B16’s. So please explain how the popes and a large number of bishops could be promoting heresy, and encouraging the faithful to take part in heretical practices?

 

[ClayPots47]

I dealt this in my posting of the two encyclicals out of many on the subject.

As you would know if you had read any of those encyclicals the church does.

a) I don’t agree with your interpretation of those encyclicals, and apparently I am not alone. b) You are very good at being disingenuous and dodging things by falling back on "I dealt with ______ ", something else I see others also noticing. c) I pointed to two sources that use the same words, “sacred rites” and they clearly referred to formal liturgical worship in a place designated for such. Who’s to say who’s interpretation is correct? Yours is no more correct than mine is.

A rather bad tempered response I must say.

Ad hominem from the guy who complains about everybody else using ad hominen.

Papal addresses have no significant authority, I really don’t care if you accept this or not its a basic fact anyone with any decent theological training should know…

So you keep telling everyone, like a broken record…

If you are trying to claim the words of incredibly holy men, outstanding theologians and doctors of the church don’t count then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the magisterium of the church.

No, I clearly said we are not required to accept them, please do not put words in my mouth I never spoke. That is church teaching.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Private Revelation. God continues to reveal Himself to individuals “not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q174 a6 reply 3). Since it occurs after the close of Public Revelation the Church distinguishes the content of such particular revelations to individuals from the deposit of the Faith by calling it private revelation. The test of its authenticity is always its consistency with Public Revelation as guarded faithfully by the Catholic Church. For example, alleged revelations which propose to improve upon, correct or entirely supplant Public Revelation are rejected by the Church as inauthentic, regardless of the claims made for them. Such revelations include those of Mohammed in the Koran, Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon, the writings of new age mystics, psychics and the like.

Some private revelations, however, the Church has accepted as credible, calling them constat de supernaturalitate (that is, they give evidence of a supernatural intervention). Such private revelations cannot correct or add anything essentially new to Public Revelation; however, they may contribute to a deeper understanding of the faith, provide new lines of theological investigation (such as suggested by the revelations to St. Margaret Mary on the Sacred Heart), or recall mankind prophetically to the living of the Gospel (as at Fátima). No private revelation can ever be necessary for salvation, though its content may obviously coincide with what is necessary for salvation as known from Scripture and Tradition. The person who believes the teachings of the Magisterium, utilizes devoutly the sacramental means of sanctification and prayer, and remains in Communion with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is already employing the necessary means of salvation. A private revelation may recall wayward individuals to the faith, stir the devotion of the already pious, encourage prayer and penance on behalf of others, but it cannot substitute for the Catholic faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the Pope and bishops.

(Continued in next post)

 

[ClayPots47]

(Continued from last post)

Another way of saying this is that private revelations may not be believed with divine and Catholic Faith. They rest on the credibility of the evidence in favor of a supernatural origin. In the case of private revelations approved by the highest authority in the Church we can say with Pope Benedict XIV,

Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

The Pope is saying that a Catholic, seeing that the Church (and here the Holy See is meant, as only it’s acts can be of universal effect) has investigated and approved certain revelations, is being prudent to give them human assent. That acceptance does not rest on the guarantee of Faith, or the charism of infallibility, but on the credibility of the evidence as it appeals to reason. The assent involved is not supernatural but the natural assent that the intellect gives to facts which it judges to be true. Approved private revelations are thus worthy of our acceptance and can be of great benefit to the faithful, for as the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes,

Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. [CCC 67]

However, on the other hand, they do not demand acceptance by Catholics. As Pope Benedict states in the aforementioned text,

it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as a superior. [De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

Sources of Private Revelations. Approved private revelations derive from two sources. First, there is the mysticism of the Servants of God who have been proposed for canonization. When the diocese which initiated the Cause has concluded its investigation and forwarded the documentation to Rome, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints undertakes its own study of the person’s life. If the Congregation determines that he or she lived a life of heroic virtue this decision necessarily includes the judgment that the writings, including any mystical ones, are not contrary to faith and morals. If the Holy Father concurs the person is declared Venerable. The later canonization of the person (generally considered an act of papal infallibility), only heightens the credibility of the person’s writings and the pious regard Catholics should have for them, according to the standard given by Benedict XIV.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

I evaluate papal addresses in the light of church teaching on the subject, if its inconsistent I am hardly going to accept the address over the tradition.

More like if it doesn’t agree with your personal views. I get it, you obviously have a serious dislike for anything Charismatic. You don’t have to accept it, but when you or others, in your vehement arguments against the CCR, find that you need to engage in fruitless debate (trust me, it’s fruitless; you are neither gaining converts to your position, or to your opponents; most of CAF avoid these threads like the plague. I suspect they are started intentionally by trolls, who sit back and watch the Traditionalists come out in hordes to denigrate the CCR, and the Charismatics defend it. I mean, just what happened to the OP of this thread?) one has to wonder why this is such a big huge issue for the lot of you.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

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.

Brother Roger of Taize

From Father Didier Bonneterre’s The Liturgical Revolution.

And how about Pope Paul VI?

(Continued in next post)

Perhaps if you had bothered to read the eyewitness account I linked to you wouldn’t be repeating the same false assertion for what must be the 5th time

 

[jmj1984]

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.

So because they’re more recent they automatically over rule what the other popes have said and are right, that’s not a very good understanding of catholic theology.

 

[jmj1984]

They were NOT the same weekend. And your own sources prove you wrong. You continue to claim what I wrote was not correct, even though it agreed with your sources, now you claim your sources say something they don’t. You are incorrect. From your own sources:

ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

The retreat was held nearly a month later. They were not the same weekend! The retreat was the birthday of the movement.

The other sources you quoted are less detailed, and don’t give all of the events and dates.

The SpiritWatch one is both inaccurate with some details, and biased; not even a credible source. But it doesn’t conflict with the above.

This is the third time you have posted blatantly incorrect information, when your own sources say otherwise. I pointed out and corrected your prior ones, which your own sources pointed out as wrong. You are either being disingenuous, or deliberately misleading.

And you still have not shown how my statement disagrees with your sources, because you can’t. Your own sources, specifically the one I quoted from above, support everything I stated. I will take it then, since you refuse to fulfill your burden of proof to show how my statement conflicts with your sources, and then erect strawmen fallacy’s instead, that we are done with this. I have met my burden of proving that my statement doesn’t disagree with your sources, even though I had no such burden, but you have yet to meet yours.

And you are conveniently dodging my argument, heck, you are the one making the claims. And at no point in this thread did I discuss or argue with you regarding your last sentence, you had/are having that discussing with perhaps someone else. For some reason you keep inserting arguments you are having/have had with others in your replies to me. I think these questions are very relevant, and your unwillingness to answer them is telling. You made the claim regarding heresy, if you cannot or will not provide such a document to back you up, then I and others in this thread are free to assume that you are babbling opinions or intentionally lying, throwing around loaded words like “heresy”, but can’t back up what is ultimately your personal opinion or a straight out lie (Since there is no source declaring them heretical in the RCC). If you are going to claim something is heresy, then you better darn well have sources to back you up, otherwise it isn’t heresy, even if you think it is. And of you claim something is heresy, then by inference those supporting and allowing it are promoting and encouraging heretical practices. These are valid and fair questions, your ab absurdam argument is a convenient co-out. You got caught making a claim you can neither back or prove; and you simply don’t want to admit it.

Actually no, the first time these gifts were manifested was with those 2 Catholics who came back from a several day prayer gathering i.e retreat, that counts as a birth in my books. It certainly gave the others impetus.

I’ve provided ample sources for my claims ranging over a significant period of time in the catholic tradition, millenia. You’ve provided a few non-authoritative quotes from the last 50. If you think that’s authority your understanding of catholic theology is deeply flawed.

 

[jmj1984]

a) I don’t agree with your interpretation of those encyclicals, and apparently I am not alone. b) You are very good at being disingenuous and dodging things by falling back on "I dealt with ______ ", something else I see others also noticing. c) I pointed to two sources that use the same words, “sacred rites” and they clearly referred to formal liturgical worship in a place designated for such. Who’s to say who’s interpretation is correct? Yours is no more correct than mine is.

Ad hominem from the guy who complains about everybody else using ad hominen.

So you keep telling everyone, like a broken record…

No, I clearly said we are not required to accept them, please do not put words in my mouth I never spoke. That is church teaching.

(Continued in next post)

Not quite sure what the point of this post was, from what it could tell it proved well nothing seeing as I didn’t dispute whatever you felt the need to post and then some more ad hominem. As for the interpretations of the sources I posted, seeing as they’re pretty explicit I’m not sure there’s anything to disagree with but the sources themselves.

 

[jmj1984]

(Continued from last post)

ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

More like if it doesn’t agree with your personal views. I get it, you obviously have a serious dislike for anything Charismatic. You don’t have to accept it, but when you or others, in your vehement arguments against the CCR, find that you need to engage in fruitless debate (trust me, it’s fruitless; you are neither gaining converts to your position, or to your opponents; most of CAF avoid these threads like the plague. I suspect they are started intentionally by trolls, who sit back and watch the Traditionalists come out in hordes to denigrate the CCR, and the Charismatics defend it. I mean, just what happened to the OP of this thread?) one has to wonder why this is such a big huge issue for the lot of you.

An unsubstantiated assumption and then an absurdity if they’re so pointless why are you here?

 

[guanophore]

So because they’re more recent they automatically over rule what the other popes have said and are right, that’s not a very good understanding of catholic theology.

No, not “automatically”, but the duty of the Magesterium is to guide the current flock of God on earth. The recent popes are givng instruction on events that are occurring in the present. To say that the speeches of the Holy Father have “no authority whatsoever” is astonishing, coming from someone who claims to be a Traditional Catholic. I was just listening to a talk about schism by Fr.Conner of EWTN, and this was one of the definitions he used for schismatic.

It is like saying the disciples need not have listened to any of the speeches Peter made that are recorded in the book of Acts.

They have the gift and the call of God to feed and care for HIs flock. Therefore we are all obligated to follow their lead in matters of faith and morals, unless, of course, you are claiming that they are advocating for us to sin. I have asked you directly, and you have dodged the question. Are the popes promoting evil in the Church? You claim the Renewal is fruit of the poisoned well (comes from heretical Protestant groups), so that would mean promoting it is promoting evil.

I’ve provided ample sources for my claims ranging over a significant period of time in the catholic tradition, millenia. You’ve provided a few non-authoritative quotes from the last 50. If you think that’s authority your understanding of catholic theology is deeply flawed.

There have been a great many lay movements in the Church during those millennia. They all begin with laity becoming inspired, and acting upon the leading of the Holy Spirit to share their charisms with the Church. Many of these Lay organizations are still going strong, including the Knights of Columbus, the Legion of Mary, and the St. Francis de Sales Association. You seem to be taking issue with the validity of a lay movement, and claiming that movements of this kind have no precedents in Church Tradition.

An unsubstantiated assumption and then an absurdity if they’re so pointless why are you here?

It is always good to advocate for Truth. Even your efforts to assert that the Charismatic Renewal is not a valid work of the Holy Spirit have borne much fruit, as it is clear from the documents on the Vatican website alone that this movement has been supported by the Magesterium.

 

[Warrenton]

(More like if it doesn’t agree with your personal views. I get it, you obviously have a serious dislike for anything Charismatic. You don’t have to accept it, but when you or others, in your vehement arguments against the CCR, find that you need to engage in fruitless debate (trust me, it’s fruitless; you are neither gaining converts to your position, or to your opponents; most of CAF avoid these threads like the plague. I suspect they are started intentionally by trolls, who sit back and watch the Traditionalists come out in hordes to denigrate the CCR, and the Charismatics defend it. I mean, just what happened to the OP of this thread?) one has to wonder why this is such a big huge issue for the lot of you.

I have to disagree with you here, Clay.

Just because a debate is heated, does not mean it’s nasty. Varda and JMJ are coming from two very different starting points. Guarna and I, in comparison, seem to occupy the position of “moderates on the left and right” relative to those two. Most of the posts have both argued the points cogently, certainly by the standards of an internet forum!

I have got a lot out of this. I never really thought it through before, but I am considering that Charismatics and Traditionalists are best understood vis a vis their position to the wider Church - what Anglicans would call Latitudinarian. Our respective thinking could be termed Para and Meta Catholic, as I suggested.

It has also got me thinking about the nature of grace, certainly a live issue by any fair measure. Unless of course one disagrees with giants like Calvin, Luther, Molina and the rest!

Ultimately all conviction is personal. At best, we happen to hold the same opinions as some others do. That’s not bad, however. I don’t know that the purpose of these threads is to convince or convert each other. It’s a chance to poke out of our shells a little. I mean, given my traditionalist inclinations, where am I likely to engage in extended discussion with Charismatic Catholics? Where are they likely to find someone who doesn’t think it’s right to eat anything after midnight?

I’m not asking anyone to change their spirituality or their beliefs, nor am I offering to change mine. I’m learning, and I am finding common ground.

540 some posts filled with scriptural reference, religious literature, lives of the saints, documents both recent and medieval! I give this thread an A plus.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

Then to be a true traditionalist, one must also be charismatic. And vice versa.

Just because a debate is heated, does not mean it’s nasty.

Yes, I hope none of us bear any hard feelings. I apologize if anyone has taken offense at my posts. I guess it must be the way I word things, but that has often happened when I meant none.

I’m not asking anyone to change their spirituality or their beliefs, nor am I offering to change mine. I’m learning, and I am finding common ground.

540 some posts filled with scriptural reference, religious literature, lives of the saints, documents both recent and medieval! I give this thread an A plus.

Glad to hear it! My purpose on this thread is to defend the ideas of the movement, and to try and break down the many many misconceptions there of the movement. I am certainly learning myself.

Let me clarify that I am less interested in defending the movement, as defending the charismatic dimension of Christianity. The movement really should not exist, and I think it’s purpose is to become invisible, to spread into the whole Church and disappear. In this regard, I do have a lot of criticism of many of the people in the movement. One should not have to make such qualifications on the title of Catholic. One should not be a “traditional Catholic” or a “charismatic Catholic”, but an orthodox Catholic - which means he holds fast to the traditions of the Church, to all Her teachings, and most importantly is living out the grace of his baptism and confirmation and striving to be a saint.

I think the devil delights in making “either/or” positions out of ones that should really be “both/and”. He likes playing off of opposing positions. He takes the left and the right and turns them against each other. He takes two important components and tries to pit them against each other. Things tend to swing from one extreme to the other, like a pendulum. This is certainly the case here.

 

[FAB]

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?

This is part of the issue. One there is an assumtion that the person has first been baptized. The way our Chrismatic center works, this is not necessarly the case. So the idea is given, not deliberitly, that “baptism in the Spirit” is a substitition, this is a very protestant veiw and leads away from the sacraments.
Also “Baptism on the Spirit” is not required to have the gifts “released”. Paul’s letter is clear that the Spirit gives the Charisms based on the needs of a community. In simple pray are the gifts “released” for 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

.

So the answer to knowing one’s Charism comes down to prayer, that personal communication with God to Discern His plan.

 

[vardaquinn]

This is part of the issue. One there is an assumtion that the person has first been baptized. The way our Chrismatic center works, this is not necessarly the case. So the idea is given, not deliberitly, that “baptism in the Spirit” is a substitition, this is a very protestant veiw and leads away from the sacraments.
Also “Baptism on the Spirit” is not required to have the gifts “released”. Paul’s letter is clear that the Spirit gives the Charisms based on the needs of a community. In simple pray are the gifts “released” for those who ask.

Well, if they’re not baptizing people, that’s definitely problematic.

Hmm, that’s an arguable point as to whether baptism in the spirit is necessary to have the gifts. I would ultimately probably agree with you though, the Holy Spirit can work the charisms based on the needs of a community - even if the person is absolutely unaware of it. I’m willing to bet most, if not all, of the people on this thread have used the charisms in some way or another and probably without their knowledge.

So the answer to knowing one’s Charism comes down to prayer, that personal communication with God to Discern His plan.

Yeah, definitely.

 

[guanophore]

This is part of the issue. One there is an assumtion that the person has first been baptized.

This is true. In Catholic Charismatic circles, it is assumed that most were baptized as infants, or at least children, or when they converted.

If a person got involved in the Renewal that was not,they would be directed to RCIA so these could be corrected. The Renewal has a goal of potentiating the effects of the Sacraments, not replacing them. Everything that is taught is based upon the previous Sacramental foundation.

The way our Chrismatic center works, this is not necessarly the case. So the idea is given, not deliberitly, that “baptism in the Spirit” is a substitition, this is a very protestant veiw and leads away from the sacraments.

Yes, I agree.

**

Also “Baptism on the Spirit” is not required to have the gifts “released”. Paul’s letter is clear that the Spirit gives the Charisms based on the needs of a community. In simple pray are the gifts “released” for those who ask.**

Yes, and I think that is one of the points of non-charismatic people on this thread. It is perfectly possible for one to discern and use their gifts through prayer and spiritual direction in a non “charismatic” setting. This has been done throughout the life of the Church. Shoot, this is the model our Seminaries are based upon. One enters, and progresses through a discernment process to determine if one is called to ordained ministry.

FAB:

So the answer to knowing one's Charism comes down to prayer, that personal communication with God to Discern His plan.

The gifts just help facilitate this. Sometimes we don’t know how to pray as we ought.

 

[guanophore]

I would ultimately probably agree with you though, the Holy Spirit can work the charisms based on the needs of a community - even if the person is absolutely unaware of it. I’m willing to bet most, if not all, of the people on this thread have used the charisms in some way or another and probably without their knowledge.

I think this is true. Look, we have learned that jmj has the gift of discernment, and has the ability like Padre Pio to see into the hearts of those in the Renewal. That is how it was revealed that those people were not seeking a deeper life in the Spirit, but just “obsessing over gifts” and “wanting what Protestants had”.

 

[Denise1957]

Then to be a true traditionalist, one must also be charismatic. And vice versa.

Yes, I hope none of us bear any hard feelings. I apologize if anyone has taken offense at my posts. I guess it must be the way I word things, but that has often happened when I meant none.

Glad to hear it! My purpose on this thread is to defend the ideas of the movement, and to try and break down the many many misconceptions there of the movement. I am certainly learning myself.

Let me clarify that I am less interested in defending the movement, as defending the charismatic dimension of Christianity. The movement really should not exist, and I think it’s purpose is to become invisible, to spread into the whole Church and disappear. In this regard, I do have a lot of criticism of many of the people in the movement. One should not have to make such qualifications on the title of Catholic. One should not be a “traditional Catholic” or a “charismatic Catholic”, but an orthodox Catholic - which means he holds fast to the traditions of the Church, to all Her teachings, and most importantly is living out the grace of his baptism and confirmation and striving to be a saint.

I think the devil delights in making “either/or” positions out of ones that should really be “both/and”. He likes playing off of opposing positions. He takes the left and the right and turns them against each other. He takes two important components and tries to pit them against each other. Things tend to swing from one extreme to the other, like a pendulum. This is certainly the case here.

I disagree that to be a true traditionalist one must also be a charismatic. No use in debating this for the 100th time, though. A traditional priest said last year that we are not to ask for or pray for the extraordinary gifts. I’m going to go with what he has said on the matter. You are free here on CAF to defend charismaticism, just as others here are free to show why we don’t like it, or have problems with certain aspects of it. I’m not committing a sin by thinking that the CCM is overall not a good thing, just others have the right to not like the Latin Mass.

I, for one, have no interest in pushing the Latin Mass on everyone in the Church, nor do I think that it should become the norm, unless God allows that to happen. It’s not up to me.
Yet you push the idea that all Catholics should, ideally, speak in tongues and prophesy. It’s a silly idea, but you are free to try to push for this. And some here will continue to disagree with you.

 

[Mike30]

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.

The majority of the charismatic threads that I see here are started by apparent charismatics, or perhaps some claiming to be charismatic in an attempt to start arguments. That being the case, why should something that is not actively being attacked be defended? After all, I somehow doubt that many true traditional minded Catholics would post an anti charismatic thread on the traditional forum. It seems almost as if some people are looking for some excuse to argue for and defend the movement.

 

[vardaquinn]

The majority of the charismatic threads that I see here are started by apparent charismatics, or perhaps some claiming to be charismatic in an attempt to start arguments. That being the case, why should something that is not actively being attacked be defended? After all, I somehow doubt that many true traditional minded Catholics would post an anti charismatic thread on the traditional forum. It seems almost as if some people are looking for some excuse to argue for and defend the movement.

Yeah, you’re probably right. But, I didn’t start the thread… (the fellow who did seems to have vanished…). I’ve been writing in many of the current threads on here on the subject of the CCR, mostly because I’ve spent over the past year learning about it, experiencing it, and having done a major amount of research I would like to put it to good use putting out good information and defenses of the movement. And of course, I think the message of the movement is something extremely for the Church today.

I disagree that to be a true traditionalist one must also be a charismatic. No use in debating this for the 100th time, though. A traditional priest said last year that we are not to ask for or pray for the extraordinary gifts. I’m going to go with what he has said on the matter. You are free here on CAF to defend charismaticism, just as others here are free to show why we don’t like it, or have problems with certain aspects of it. I’m not committing a sin by thinking that the CCM is overall not a good thing, just others have the right to not like the Latin Mass.

Sure, you’re at liberty to dislike the movement. Like I said, I ultimately don’t care what you think about the movement. As for the charisms and extraordinary gifts… well, I’ve shown you what Scripture says, the Church says, and I’ve tried (very poorly) to argue rationally the merits of having gifts like tongues, and being open to and seeking the other charisms. It’s your decision. I certainly won’t count it against you if you are sincerely just doing what you believe is best, and certainly not for following what a priest says.

I, for one, have no interest in pushing the Latin Mass on everyone in the Church, nor do I think that it should become the norm, unless God allows that to happen. It’s not up to me.
Yet you push the idea that all Catholics should, ideally, speak in tongues and prophesy. It’s a silly idea, but you are free to try to push for this. And some here will continue to disagree with you.

Yet, the Latin Mass and tongues and prophecy are not exactly comparable in this situation. The analogy doesn’t really work.

Forgive me, though, if I have been too pushy. I do not wish to place demands.

 

[Colorad007]

Does the Charismatic renewal include things like the Steubenville conferences, WYD, and contemporary praise music-inspired adoration of the Blessed Sacrament? I know those things do not necessarily include the various Pentecostal charisms, but are they nevertheless Charismatic? If so, the Charismatic renewal is probably the Church’s future, although that’s only one man’s opinion.