The Church has most certainly given parameters and structure, many of which have been ignored by overenthusiastic charismatics.
Thanks.
I think there are some overly zealous and poorly catechized Catholic Charismatics that may believe this. However, it is NOT the teaching of the Church, or the Renewal. Invalidating something because certain persons do not understand it properly makes no sense. It is like saying that, since Judas did not accept Jesus’ teaching, everything He taught is wrong.
This may come as a shock to you, but the purpose of a discussion forum is to provide a venue for expressing a variety of viewpoints.
You are free to avoid participating…
I don’t know where you are getting this, but it is erroneous.
I think it is up to the Holy Spirit to decide what is necessary. However, I do agree that having a Charismatic experience or being part of the “renewal” is not necessary to have a Spirit filled life in Christ.
I thought we agreed that this was not necessary?
I agree that the Charisms are not restricted or embedded in the “movement”. In fact, it seems, especially in the light of what has been expressed on this thread, that people really object more to what they think the “movement” is than they do the Charisms, though some seem to object to both.
Why does it seem so impossible that the Pope would want the Holy Spirit to act powerfully in the Church?
It is a mystery to me why Scripture has to be avoided in any discussion about faith and practice. I guess it is necessary to abrogate it in this case because there are so many passages present that validate the Charismatic experience. Did it not occur to you that the Holy Spirit made sure this letter was included for future reference?
I’m going to assume you’ve read the whole forum, because if you didn’t you’d be in no position to say anything with any degree of certainty, in which case I’m surprised you’ve written what you’ve written.
I’m a bit confused about the term “Traditionalist”, it almost seems that you see anybody not joined to the CCR to be a “Traditionalist” which is a bit strange.
Not a very effective dodge, jmj. These questions were never answered by you, because no one here has asked them of you (at least, in this thread), and you have not offered this information. If you wish to avoid answering, that is your perogative, of course, since they are quite personal, but don’t try to pass off that you have. It is disingenuous.
I am confused about this too. The Catholic Charismatics I know are the most Tratditional Catholics I ever met… They like TLM, are daily communicants, pray the Rosary or the Liturgy of the hours every day, observe fastings, and heavily engage in the Works of Mercy of the Church. They are rabid about following the Magesterium, and obedience to authorities appointed over them, even when those authorities disagree with them. So, from my point of view, the purpopse of the Renewal is to bring people into a Traditional expereince of the Church.
I stand by what I said, the Church hasn’t given us the parameters and structure to use the gifts we are given. You can read that doc until next Sunday, won’t change the fact of life in a Parish. IF a person discovers in themselves the gift of healing, how exactly does this person go about offering and practicing that gift?
I have no idea what this means, but I understand you don’t wish to engage in dialogue with me.
I think there are some overly zealous and poorly catechized Catholic Charismatics that may believe this. However, it is NOT the teaching of the Church, or the Renewal. Invalidating something because certain persons do not understand it properly makes no sense. It is like saying that, since Judas did not accept Jesus’ teaching, everything He taught is wrong.
To say that instruction from the Holy Father “doesn’t count” seems to reflect an attitude of rebellion. Of course, he may not be addressing you directly, but how does that invalidate what he has to say?
Why does it seem so impossible that the Pope would want the Holy Spirit to act powerfully in the Church?
It is a mystery to me why Scripture has to be avoided in any discussion about faith and practice. I guess it is necessary to abrogate it in this case because there are so many passages present that validate the Charismatic experience. Did it not occur to you that the Holy Spirit made sure this letter was included for future reference?
I am glad that you agree that there some poorly chatechized and over zealous members of the movement. It is primarily those that give the movement a bad name as do those that make false and misleading statements about the novement.
What instruction are you speaking of? Addresses to certain groups really don’t count as instruction to the whole of the Church. At least it would seem odd if they did. As I said, point me to something definite, in black and white, then we can have a well informed discussion about this. An encyclical would be nice or a speech made to the Universal Church. maybe something from the catechism.
It is not impossible to believe that the Holy father wants such a thing. What is impossible to believe is that the CCR is somehow responsible for it in the first place and necessary for it to continue.
Of course the letter was included for future reference. And in all honesty, it must be conceded that the letter mave have been left to show the dangers that can arise with overly zealous and poorly schooled members of the Church. Not every part of scripture that we have addresses only the good. Remember 2nd Peter and the prediction of the rise of false teachers and heresy. Much of what is in scripture could be classified as warning of future error creeping in.
Maybe it would be a good idea for the person who believes they have a gift of healing to read that document not only now till Sunday, but for a month of Sundays, and more. The document is quite clear.
Not unlike the poorly catechized and over zealous Catholics that were swept away by the Spirit of Vatican 2, resulting in very poor spiritual formation and gross liturgical abuses.
The Holy Fathers, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have given instructions to the faithful involved in the movement. They are posted on the Vatican website so they will be available to everyone. If you don’t wish to avail yourself of them, because you need something with your name on it, that is up to you. It in no way minimizes the value of their instruction.
Since I have made no such claim, and the CCR makes no such claim, I can’t really help you there. I think the best thing to do is to avoid this kind of thinking, since it is erronous, and unproductive.
Indeed.
I don’t know why you “shrug”, I was replying to your post assuming that people who are not in full agreement or “into” the Charismatic movement are “Traditionalists”. Read your post I was replying to again.
You are avoiding the question. There was never a mention in our exchange of anyone anywhere disobeying anything.
I am making shrug because my post does not assume this. I do not agree with this position, so if one of my posts indicated this, then I expressed myself poorly.
I know, but if you go back over the thread, you will see that one of the basic objections to the Charismatic Renewal is that the participants are disobedient to the Church teaching from the beginning.
Really? How did that happen?
I don’t think this is the appropriate thread to address this issue, and I don’t think this subforum is a good one to pursue it.
I will agree to disagree with you, dear sister.
jmj does not consider the expressions of the Holy Fathers with regard to the CCR, or the instructions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be authoritative in any way. They just represent a person’s personal opinion, with which jmj “disagrees”. Jmj also does not consider the New Testament to accurately represent Catholic Tradition. :hypno:
I think you may be reaching there. Where has the Magesterium taught that the Charismatic Renewal is an approved movement of the Holy Spirit?
Now that I realize the Holy Father is not considered part of the Magesterium on this thread, I withdraw my assertion. Ordinary instruction is not considered authoritative here, either, I have learned, so what he has to say seems to have no value in the matter. This being the case, I am indeed “reaching” to accept his support as such.