Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

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.

Things like that are often engaged in by charismatics, and it’s definitely hugely associated with the movement. Steubenville is a big center for the Charismatic Renewal. It’s not an essential part.

 

[guanophore]

 Actually it has little to do with cafeteria catholicism and everything to do with looking at the tradition of the Catholic Church, within this tradition there is no supplier from the movement.

There has never been “supplier” for any Lay movement in the Church. Certain Catholic laypersons become inspired do do something, they take it to the proper authorities, and it is approved (or not). A good example is Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. One will not see anything like this in the history of our Church because it was a response to specific historic and economic conditions in the modern world. There were tools available to make a movement like this successful that were not available in earlier ages.

Again when you speak of approval you refer to the popes addressing charasmatic meetings, no encyclical has been written on the matter and no definitive authoritative document on the subject exists. Of all the forms of authority a papal speech is the lowest. Further you exagerate there are not 20+ statements.

And yet, these papal statements that have been given, which in your mind carry no authority, have supported and encouraged the movement. You say you “disagree” with them. You state that the movement is by it’s source, “evil”. That means the Popes are supporting and encouraging that which is “evil” in the Church. Pretty strong allegation, don’t you think?

And no, when a movement has been condemned it is condemned both because of the movements doctrines and its actions, if another movement comes along espousing much the same doctrine and doing much the same things it is equally likely to be erroneous and false.

I agree. As yet you have not shown us the “charismatic doctrines” you claim exist.

Seeing as the movements encourage people to seek these gifts, people often do and then behave exactly as St John of the Cross described the quote is very relevant.

It is true that there are some Pentecostal sects that do encourage the seeking of gifts for their own sake, but this is not part of the Catholic faith. Peopel are encouraged to discover the gifts that were given to them in baptism, and to use them for the service of the Church. Living the successful Christian life is the goal, not running after gifts and ecstasies.

You are right, communities that have a warped perspective of seeking gifts for their own sake do indeed behave exactly as St. John of the Cross described, and the quote is very relevant. Painting all Catholics with this brush, though, is not appropriate.

 You'll not that I said '*Saints, Doctors of the church and theologians*' and you'll note again that he is speaking of behaviour that is inextricably linked with the catholic charasmatic movement.

No, jmj. Abuses are NOT inextricably linked to anything Catholic, whether it is charismatic or liturgical. Abuse of God’s gifts is always and everywhere wrong. But liturgical abuse does not invalidate a proper liturgy, just as abusing the gifts of Pentecost does not invalidate true charismatic gifts.

The gifts of Pentecost functioned strongly in the lives of Padre Pio and the Venerable Solanus. I have found no records of any abuses of them at all.

The gifts almost always involve sensatonal experiences

It is not necessary to leave our sensations out when serving God, do you think?

Is this merely a quote from a statement he made in Pentecost? Because I see no reference to the charasmatic movement in it at all, rather I see reference to sound Catholic Theology

I am glad you are beginning to realize that your ideas about the Catholic Charismatic renewal are emanating from misinformation and prejudice. If you are willing to look at these statements, you will find that they are ALL referencing sound Catholic Theology.

I'm  not going to engage in some protestant distortion of scriptures

Good. Does that mean you are willing to look at the passages and actually discuss what they say?

 

[company11]

I have read 4 rules you gave

seo company

 

[guanophore]

No one is disputing whether the gifts had been experienced in the catholic church before, what am I disputing is whether it is acceptable to draw the gifts into the church from a non-catholic movement.

I think if you look at what you have written here, you will realize the logical error.

The Gifts of Pentecost were given to the Catholic Church. After the Reformation, some groups “drew” from Catholicism to acquire them. Many of those ecclesial communties have abused them. Their recovery by the Catholic Church, and the restoration of appropriate use is the desire of the Holy Spirit.

‘Since, however, the Sacraments of the New Law, though they produce their effect ex opere operato, nevertheless, produce a great effect in proportion as the dispositions of the recipient are better…according to each one’s strength, circumstances and duties.’ SACRA TRIDENTINA
On Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion
Pope St. Pius X

This is an excellent point, jmj. Many people are not disposed at Baptism or Confirmation to receive al that God intends. This is why instruction and training in becoming better disposed to the work of the Spirit is helpful.

Its a statement of fact. You havent suppplied anything with authority.

It is statements like this that lead the reader to believe that you do not consider the Holy Scriptures, Concilar documents, instructions of the Pope and congregation for the doctrine of the faith to be authorative.

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

Indeed they do. And statements like this one indicate that you reject the Catechism as a sure norm for the faith, since the catechism is clear that our separated brethren do not qualify for the term “heretics”.

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

I am sure we can agree that an infant is unable to prepare oneself dispositionally for baptism. It is more likely a person will be prepared for confirmation (except in the Eastern Rites, where it is given to infants along with baptism and communion).

Like Marriage, which is a one time Sacrament, a persons’ disposition to the sacramental grace has everything to do with it’s efficacy. If a person does not live the vows they made, or is not open to the work of God in the relationship, the sacrament will have little value. I would go so far as to say that the high rates of divorce today are a result of couples not understanding and effectuating the power of the Holy Sacrament.

So it is with Baptism and confirmation. If a person fails to understand and live out the the graces they received, then the effect of the sacrament will be limited.

 

[guanophore]

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

It must concern you greatly, thinking that the Holy Father is going about promoting “evil” and heresy in his “private opinions”.

I’m merely pointing out that their statements and speechs are not authoritative and so neither binding and could well be wrong.

I guess this applies to every shepherd that Christ has placed over His One Body, the Church. If a Catholic does not accept the authority of the Successor of Peter, one has to wonder if that Catholic has some sort of authority problem.

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

Yes. I don’t think anyone would be drawn to a prayer meeting or bible study if they felt their life in Christ was wholly satisfied in Mass once a week.

For many of us, it was the sense that there was something lacking in us - the fullness of what God intends in our lives. I have noticed that Catholics who already have a sense of fulfilling God’s desire for them have no interest in the Charismatic movement. Some of these are regulars on EWTN, like Mother Angelica, Father Benedict Groschel and others.

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

It does not have to do with it. Sometimes it does, but it is not necessary. It is one form in which God imparts grace. I did have a sojourn in some Pentecostal circles, and I agree that is what is taught. It is not consistent with the Catholic faith, though.

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

I don’t believe anyone did this here but you. What is the source of this document you are quoting?

It’s a big issue because:

1)Healing services are presumptous

How do you figure this?

Why did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith encourage them, if this is true?

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.

Or, it could be that we just see them differently.

Something you simply cannot show.

You are right. It is not possible to show much to a Catholic who denies Catholic sources.

So we're now going to use a TV network to justify the movement?

Not a bit. The Holy Spirit’s work does not need any “justification” from me, or anyone else.

As for comparing those in the NT to the founders of the movement, all I can say is that you are clearly delusional.

Do you think that Christians today are supposed to be substantially different than the Christians in the New Testament? If so, why?

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

Actually, jmj, I have not attempted to interpret any scripture. I have posted some scripture, and I have noticed that you will not respond to anything that is written in it with regard to the Charismatic gifts. I also notice that you have denied the Bible is the product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. This denial is, indeed a Protestant heresy.

An assertion you have been utterly unable to prove,

This is true. A Catholic who denies the Sacred Scriptures and Catechism is not in a condition to have any Catholic doctrine well validated by those sources.

 It would not prove that everyone should seek them or have them or any of the other doctrines that underpin the movement.

I agree that if you reject the words of St. Paul in the New Testament, then you will not be able to accept the Catholic principle that we have all been given gifts, and it is our responsibility to discern what they are, and use them to serve the Body of Christ.
But this is not a doctrine of any “movement”, which is obvious by the fact that it was written 2000 years before it started.

As to “other doctrines that underpin the movement” you have not shown what, if any, there are. I think this is just another strawman.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

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.
[/quote]

 

[ClayPots47]

Originally Posted by ClayPots47
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.

It’s both. Neither statement conflicts with the other. And for heaven;s sake, please avoid from yelling (posting in all caps); it is not only unnecessary, it is considered rude and a violation of netiquette for a reason, Use the bold and underline functions built into the forum software. Forums themselve , including CAF, also tend to frown on users shouting/using all caps.

It is the most common charism received, but it is the least of them in order of importance. This is clear in scripture, where St Paul mentions them being the least important, and his desire that they seek the greater gifts that God calls them to use. Mainly because prayer tongues edify the individual, the greater charisms edify the Church body. Many people start with prayer tongues, and when/of called, they move on to the greater gifts. Pretty much all have greater gifts they are called to use, they may be the common service charisms (which are more abundant) then the extraordinary; those are reserved for use by a select few and in select circumstances. Most of the charisms are the ones a person needs to be equipped for a ministry (for the ordained) or an apostolate (for the non-ordained religious and laity). Many charismatics become active in their parishes, serving where their particular charisms lead them to. For example; someone with a teaching charism would do Religious Education for youth, or RCIA or some other teaching work. A person with a leadership charism would oversee a parish lay group and serve it’s members. A priest or deacon may have an ability to relate well with youth, and utilizes this charism in youth ministry. And before you ask; no, one does not need to be involved in CCR or attend a seminar or do any of the things done in CCR to experience charisms. As I stated before; Raniero Cantalamessa OFM-CAP (preacher to the papal household and charismatic) said that people experience the realization of the gifts received from the Sacraments of Initiation from things such as Ignation Spiritual Exercises or a Cursillo, or many other spiritual pathways. The charisms are not exclusive to Charismatics, they are available to everyone in the Church.

 

[ClayPots47]

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

I did at one point, in another thread. I don’t recall where I had originally found it. If I can locate, I will post a link.

 

[ClayPots47]

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.

Not all those involved in CR believe that all - or even most - Catholics should be speaking in tongues and prophesying. I was never taught that, and those I knew never subscribed to that belief. Prayer tongues are unique as they are completely at the will of the user they are not necessary, and the lack of them does not mean one is less holy or less Catholic or whatever. The other charisms, both ordinary and extraordinary, are gifts of the Holy Spirit that one cannot just will to have. The Church is full of members, both in and out of the CCR, who live the fullness of their Baptismal and Confirmation and exercise charisms; teaching, preaching, leading, serving, etc. All Catholics should be exercising these ordinary charisms. And should be open to the extraordinary ones, if the Holy Spirit calls one to be the channel It uses. The extraordinary ones are called extraordinary for reason, they are not the common ones used by the majority of the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

I did at one point, in another thread. I don’t recall where I had originally found it. If I can locate, I will post a link.

I found it, thanks.

newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm

My message was for jmj, who did not include the link. It is a violation of the forum rules to quote this without the reference.

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

Well, prior to that there WERE no “separated brethren”

That is no excuse, you cannot look beyond 1962, or at popes prior to Pope Paul VI,

This is an erroneous assumption. However, why would I expect a pope to teach about a movement that had not yet occurred? I would not expect any popes prior tp Paul VI to make any statements about the Catholic Worker Movement, either.

you cannot accept facts as facts and have next to no knowledge of catholic theology

Do you think Catholic Theology is contained in the statements of the Popes about the Renewal?

Really? They presented private interpretations of scripture

Would you be so kind as to give me a post number for this? I think I must have missed it.

So because they’re more recent they automatically over rule what the other popes have said

No, but they may speak to things that were not in existence previously. We would not expect a papal statement or doctrinal teaching about in vitro fertilization prior to this century.

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.

It is very suspicious that the OP disappeared from the thread.

It is also a poor thread title. It sets up a false dichotomy.

 

[guanophore]

It’s a big issue because:

1)Healing services are presumptous

I would appreciate some feedback from all you Traditionalists here. EWTN has daily Mass.This is a link to the daily homily for Sept. 6

It is about 27 minutes, and is offered by Fr. Frank Pavone. So far as I know, he is not “charismatic”, but this homily reflects the message of the Charismatic renewal. I would like some feedback about whether you think there is any non-catholic theology in this homily.

 

[bettyfrisbie]

I don’t know anything about the orthodoxy of Fr. Macnutt, but I don’t see anything at all heretical about receiving more of the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit while being prayed over by Protestants.

You’re absolutely wrong when you say the Holy Spirit is not given outside the Church. Everybody baptized by a Christian with water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has a valid baptism and has received to some degree to the Holy Spirit. Thankfully, God the Holy Spirit doesn’t limit Himself to people who are right theologically. If that was the case, we would never have gotten anywhere. He moves with people who want to let Him move.

Remember what Lumen gentium says:

Thank you! This is the voice of reason and truth…

 

[ClayPots47]

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

The ‘healing services’ are typically joined with a Mass. The whole Healing Mass event consists of Mass, Confessions, Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction, Anointing of the Sick for those eligible for the Sacrament, and individual prayer with prayer teams for those desiring to participate. So, yes, the prayer teams made up of lay people do lay hands on the person they are praying for and with. There is nothing that prohibits this, and the Church has allowed this. Any such healing service has to go through the Chancery office and have permission of the bishop to take place. The emphasis is on reception of the sacraments which are great sources of healing, in and off themselves. The personal prayer with the prayer teams can be a great comfort to the person being prayed over and with. The prayer team acts as intercessors on behalf of the persons. Charismatics may pray for healing outside of organized events; one-on-one with someone who has requested prayer. The person praying the prayer encourages the person receiving it to take advantage of the healing available in the sacramental life of the Church, if they haven’t already.

 

[ClayPots47]

Originally Posted by jmj1984
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.

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

It isn’t a false assertion, **your own sources do not agree with you. You need to learn to read your sources! ** I noticed others caught you posting your same incorrect claims too. You are wrong. The Duquesne retreat, held in the university retreat house, was organized and led by Catholics. And until you stop lying and falsifying what happened, which your own sources do not support, I and others are going to point it out. I wonder if you are being intentionally dishonest, in hopes you won’t get caught; but several have called you on your false statements; perhaps in order to bolster your arguments in the eyes of those unfamiliar with the CCR.

Your source; ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

At this time I was a member of the Chi Rho Scripture Study group that met on the Duquesne campus. Two of these professors served as moderators of Chi Rho, and although they did not tell us outright about their charismatic experience, those who knew them well noticed that they radiated a new joy. We were planning for our retreat in February and the professors suggested a new theme: “The Holy Spirit.” In preparation for the retreat, they told us to pray expectantly, to read The Cross and the Switchblade, and to read the first four chapters of the Acts of the Apostles.

On February 17 about 25 of us left for The Ark and The Dove Retreat house on the outskirts of the city. As we gathered for each session, our professors told us to sing as a prayer the ancient hymn, Veni Creator Spiritus, “Come Creator Spirit”. On Friday night there was a meditation on Mary. Then we had a Penance Service. In John’s Gospel we read that when the Holy Spirit comes He will convict the world of sin. That’s what happened among us as we repented in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

On Saturday a member of the Chapel Hill Prayer Group came to speak on Acts, chapter 2. All we were told was that she was a Protestant friend of our professors. Although her presentation was very simple, it was filled with spiritual power. She spoke about surrendering to Jesus as Lord and Master. She described the Holy Spirit as a Person who empowered her daily. Here was someone who really seemed to know Jesus intimately and personally! She knew the power of the Holy Spirit like the Apostles did. I knew I wanted what she had and I wrote in my notes, “Jesus, be real for me.”

In the discussion following her talk, David Mangan proposed that we close our retreat by renewing our Confirmation…that we, as young adults, say our personal “yes” to the Holy Spirit.

No mention of protestants organizing the retreat, no mention of protestants leading it. Stop falsifying or confusing the facts!

What was organized and led by protestants, was the Chapel Hill prayer group meeting the professors attended. Which was a prayer gathering, and not a retreat, and took place nearly a month before the student’s weekend retreat.

In January 1967, four Catholics from Duquesne attended their first interdenominational charismatic prayer meeting – the Chapel Hill meeting – in the home of Miss Flo Dodge, a Spirit-filled Presbyterian. Interestingly enough, a few months before these Catholics came, the Lord led Flo to read Isaiah 48 where He announces that He is about to do “a new thing”.Indeed, God was about to do a new thing among Catholics as a result of the prayer meeting. The people from Duquesne were impressed with what they witnessed there. On January 20, two of the men returned. They received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and began to manifest charismatic gifts. They returned home to pray with the other two who had not attended that night.

Your source provided the quoted material. It does not in any way, shape, or form, say what you claim it does. The other sources you provided agree with it.
[/QUOTE]

 

[ClayPots47]

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.

I never said they automatically over rule what the other pope, once again you insert claims I never stated. Don’t the more recent popes merit the same consideration the older ones do? I’m asking you, in light of what the earlier popes said, were John XXIII and Paul VI wrong? How do you explain the fact that John XXIII and Paul VI met and prayed with protestants, before those Duquesne professors met with the Chapel Hill prayer group, and before Vatican II redefined our relationship with our separated brethren? And actually, recent popes can overrule what others said in the past. Not only can they overrule; they can abrogate, amend and redefine teachings and disciplines and traditions. What they cannot do, is change points of revealed dogma, morals or virtue.

The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. (Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI)

 

[ClayPots47]

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

I put back what you failed to quote, which you are now avoiding answering, because you won’t or can’t admit you are wrong. The above proved from your own sources, that you were posting falsified and misleading information.

Your first statement is you once again responding to some claim I never made. Where did I anywhere in the above say that the gifts were not manifested at the prayer gathering??? Read again my first quote from your source.

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

Really sad that you now resort to more falsifications in your reply.There was no several days at Chapel Hill, not one of your sources says that they were there for several days, nor did any say it was a retreat. They went on separate occasions; the first time four attended, two returned later to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Again, from your provided source. ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

In January 1967, four Catholics from Duquesne attended their first interdenominational charismatic prayer meeting – the Chapel Hill meeting – in the home of Miss Flo Dodge, a Spirit-filled Presbyterian. Interestingly enough, a few months before these Catholics came, the Lord led Flo to read Isaiah 48 where He announces that He is about to do “a new thing”.Indeed, God was about to do a new thing among Catholics as a result of the prayer meeting. The people from Duquesne were impressed with what they witnessed there. On January 20, two of the men returned. They received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and began to manifest charismatic gifts. They returned home to pray with the other two who had not attended that night.

The even at Chapel Hill may count as the birth in your books, but that is your opinion, not fact. So, say it is in your opinion, but don’t claim it as fact. Your sources indicate the Duquesne event as the birth, as I quoted to you. .

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!

ccr.org.uk/duquesne.htm

Not only that, just about every source online about the CCR refers to the Duquesne event being the birthday of the CCR, that is a fact.

 

[ClayPots47]

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.

And if this isn’t arrogant, not too mention irrelevant and a non-answer. Considering what you were asked is the following, and no, I am not giving up on insisting you answer the following. You are the one after all, that made the false and unsupportable claim that Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Resting in the Holy Spirit were heresy! Either provide the proof, or admit you were wrong to make such an erroneous claim, I believe you owe a few others some proofs for claims you made, and they repeatedly asked you for; so it isn’t just me you have done this to.

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]

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.

The point was to tell you I don’t agree with your interpretation, and I think my sources are pretty explicit as to what the Church means by the use of the words “sacred rites”. And you did dispute, you posted this:

Originally Posted by jmj1984
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.

To which I replied:

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.

And quoted church teaching from this location: ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm

Is this what you say you are not disputing?

 

[ClayPots47]

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

Because somebody has to stand up and defend the CCR from the people that seem to think they have some mission to denigrate the entire CCR. Because I am tired of the constant threads, likely started by trolls, who sit back and get their kicks watching the disintegration. The threads almost always originate in the Traditional forum, sometimes the mods move them elsewhere. The OP’s of the threads are often long gone. It’s the same arguments, ad nauseum. There are threads galore saying the same thing. Those intent in denigrating the CCR, are not accomplishing anything in the long run; though they may think they are. Of course you avoid the question. as to why the CCR bothers you so much that you must engage in denigrating it?

 

[ClayPots47]

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…

Don’t expect an answer, he has made several fairly outrageous claims, then proceeds to ignore it when brought to his attention. I’m still waiting for him to provide sources as proof that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Resting in the Spirit are heresy, a claim he made! And also, are the popes allowing heresy as a result.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’ could be heretical in Catholicism. What are you getting at ‘services’ where this occurs, that you don’t get at your Catholic Baptism or Confirmation?

The constant inference is: there’s something missing in traditional Catholicism from 70AD to 1970 and this Gnostic-style seeking after ‘experiences’ is going to supply it.

In the Renewal (what a presumptuous term, on the back of such trivial effects), it’s purported that the Third Person of the Trinity, God in fact, is acting upon people in a showy and trivial way. If He truly was in this movement, we would hear some clear, powerful and affecting teachings and see marvellous miracles, as exhibited by the Apostles. Not people whipping themselves up into ecstacy, sentiment and people gibbering.

This is like what is happening at Medjugorje: the thrust here is that Church is wrong and the locals are right; the Virgin Mary/Holy Spirit is speaking to us/acting on the participants all the time except, N.B., ‘She’ never says anything original and ‘He’ produces trivial, unoriginal phenomena; a mark, amongst many, of the Satanic origin of the phenomenon.

The effects are trivial and divisive.

It’s also ludicrous to come into this subforum and say this is traditional, as it is to say CITH or whatever your favourite novelty, is traditional, when traditionalists understand that thing to mean the opposite.

But I guess if you say it long enough and loud enough, some people might believe you, until, like the Pro Multis controversy, the Barque of Peter eventually corrects its course and sails serenely on.