Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[guanophore]

If you think I am reading heretical literature in order to elucidate what is self-evident than you are sadly mistaken

jmj, you have admitted that you have not read the material that you are asserting is “pregnant with heresies”. You are also erroneously applying this term to persons that do not qualify for it, in violation of Church teaching, and forum rules. You are right, I have sadly mistaken you for a person of integrity. All I am asking you to do is substantiate your assertions with evidence, and you can’t.

As for sensational, we can both read and write, you know what the word means and so do i.

Your posts have demonstrated some vast disparity between what you understand of what you read, and what others do. I would like you to give YOUR definition of “sensational”.

I am accusing YOU of being deceived and deceiving the faithful, no one else.

Yes. It seems that you cannot defend your attacks upon the recommended reading, since you are unwilling to read the books cited, so you are turning your attack on me instead.

The Church the entire supposed purpose of the Charasmatic movement falls apart, as does the motives and wishes of its founders.

Your posts demonstrate that you are unable to grasp their motives and wishes. You keep copying and pasting their words, but you misconstrue them to squeeze them into your fantasy.

How exactly does the charasmatic movement help people seek these gifts?

Through prayers to the Holy Spirit, such as those offered by the Holy Fathers. Through the instructions of the Bishops, and those appointed by them to give instruction. Through the reading of Church documents, statements from the Popes, and Scripture study. If you look at the National Service Committee website you can see why they were commissioned by the Vatican.

I don’t see the founders seeking or desiring 'The Apostolate’ or 'the gift of governing’ or ‘the office of teaching’. What I see them desiring and seeking are the stereotypical charasmatic gifts such as tongues and prophecy, something they have said with their own words!

I understand that you can’t see it, jmj. You have your anti-charismatic blinders on, so it is not possible for you to understand what you are reading. But the truth is, Apostolates, teaching, and governing are exactly what they got, and that is what they have been doing for 40 years now. They were seeking to yield themselves fully to the work of the Holy Spirit, and these are the gifts that followed. They consecrated themselves. They did this in their own words, and in the words of the ancient hymn "Veni Sanctus Spiritus".

 The movements stated purpose is to 'renew these gifts within the church' 'to help rediscover the charasmatic gifts' **but these gifts were never rare therefore there was no need either to renew or rediscover these gifts!**

Ya really gotta make up your mind here, jmj. On the one hand, you discredit the gifts and claim they don’t exist, are faked or are not from God. Then you claim they are rare, now you claim they were never rare. At least you are wrestling with the whole thing, and that is good.

I didnt know you could remotely access my internet history! Sadly I havent done any of those things, I have based my views on what the founders and the movement itself says as well the teaching of the church, therefore this is merely another thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

I am glad you are not watching those crazy youtube videos.

It is a mystery how you came to such negativity about this matter, and why you are so hostile about it. Hoewever, I am glad that you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article. I am still waiting for your definitions of “sensational” and “consolation”. You did not mention if you read the other article on the states of prayer. I am also looking forward to your substantiation of “pregnant heresies” in the two books.

 

[guanophore]

  " 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.'

There is nothing here that indicates any desire for tongues or anything “sensational”. She sees a person who has a vibrant and empowered Christian walk, and wants this in her own life. What is heretical about this? If the speaker was a Catholic, not a Presbyterian, would it be ok for her to have this reaction? That is why I asked you about bigotry. You seem so prejudiced by the fact that the speaker was not Catholic that you have lost the content.

So the holy spirit wasn’t real for her before? I think not, she clearly lacked basic catechesis.

I think we could certainly assume this. And such is the case with many Catholics who were poorly catechized. They are leaving in droves for “bible churches” because they don’t know their own faith.

Lets read the rest of the story
'**Saturday night a birthday party was planned for a few of our members, but there was a listlessness in the group. I wandered into the upstairs chapel…not to pray but to tell any students there to come down to the party. Yet, when I entered and knelt in the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I literally trembled with a sense of awe before His majesty. I knew in an overwhelming way that He is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. I thought, “You had better get out of here quick before something happens to you.” **But overriding my fear was a much greater desire to surrender myself unconditionally to God.

What is it in this passage that seems “uncatholic” or heretical to you? Here is a woman in front of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, knowing that, when she gives her life completely to her Lord, she will have to surrender everything.
jmj1984;8425117:

I prayed, “Father, I give my life to you. Whatever you ask of me, I accept. And if it means suffering, I accept that too. Just teach me to follow Jesus and to love as He loves.”

Here is another mystery. When I read this, I see the prayer of a person consecrating their life to God. When you read it, you see someone “obsessed with tongues”.

In the next moment, I found myself prostrate, flat on my face, and flooded with an experience of the merciful love of God…a love that is totally undeserved, yet lavishly given

. Yes, it’s true what St. Paul writes, “The love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.” My shoes came off in the process. I was indeed on holy ground. I felt as if I wanted to die and be with God. The prayer of St. Augustine captures my experience: “O Lord, you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.” As much as I wanted to bask in His presence, I knew that if I, who am no one special, could experience the love of God in this way, that anyone across the face of the earth could do so.

So, which part of this is “uncatholic”?

  I ran down to tell our chaplain what had happened and he said that David Mangan had been in the chapel before me and had encountered God’s presence in the same way. Two girls told me my face was glowing and wanted to know what had happened. I wasn’t familiar enough with the Scripture to know that passage in II Corinthians where it describes Moses whose face shone when he returned from the mountain. St. Paul writes: “All of us, with unveiled faces, beholding the beauty of the Lord are being transformed from one degree of glory to another.” I led these two students into the chapel and began to pray, “Lord, whatever you just did for me, do it for them!” That was probably the shortest Life in the Spirit Seminar on record!

Not tongues here either. Just a “glow”. Is that “uncatholic”? Heretical?

 

[guanophore]

 Within the next hour God sovereignly drew many of the students into the chapel. Some were laughing, others crying. Some prayed in tongues, others (like me) felt a burning sensation coursing through their hands. One of the professors walked in and exclaimed, “What is the Bishop going to say when he hears that all these kids have been baptized in the Holy Spirit!”

’

No Protestants here, no “pregnant heresy books”. Just seekers before the Blessed Sacrament.

So surprise, surprise after reading all about tongues, being talked to by people or at least having met those who prayed in tongues and setting the theme of the retreat for the holy spirit they started praying in tongues. If you honestly think that after all that they didn't seek the gift ot tongues then you need to brush up your deduction skills.

They are seeking, but I just can’t see the preoccupation you have with the tongues thing. It seems like a very minor part of the whole experience.

Aside from this this testimony is based on feelings, ‘I felt awe… I felt this… I felt that’ feelings mislead, there is a complete lack of discernment or caution. ‘It felt good and it happened in church so it must be right’ is essentially her logic and those of the people who followed her in.

You asked (rhetorically I am sure) what you could learn from your separated brethren. This is one example. They are very good at giving testimonies, a skill that is not much taught in the Catholic Church (until recently). When a person has an experience with God, one gives a testimony of their perspective. Of course it includes feelings, actions, and thoughts. I notice that you have totally ignored the pull she described to be in the presence of God, and being overwhelmed by His presence. You are discounting the validity of her encounter with the holy. Awe, as you apparently have forgotten, is also one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There is no safer place on earth than before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer, so yes, essentially her “logic” is solid. When you go before Jesus in this way, and offer yourself to HIm, you will not be disappointed.

Then the heretical idea of baptism in the spirit is repeated again, there is no such thing as baptism in the spirit, there is only baptism and confirmation NOTHING ELSE.

“Baptism” means to dip or immerse. We need to be constantly dipped and immersed in the HS. This is one purpose of the Sacraments, but the immersion is not restricted to the Sacraments.

 

[ClayPots47]

I had the good fortune to purchase a book on St Vincent Ferrers life a few days ago which arrived today and included his spiritual treatises in which he says the following which is relevant to this subject…

If only Charasmatics would apply the words of this wise saint.

If only anti-Charismatic Traditionalists would apply the words of P6, JP2 and B16 and the 22+ addresses they have given, as well as the talks given by JP2 and B16’s Papal Preacher, on the CCR and charisms. BTW, St Vincent Ferrer is discussing mystical experiences here, this is standard Mystical Theology; while Mystical Theology is useful to various aspects of the CCR (which is why the Life in the Spirit seminars cover an introduction to Mystical Theology and Discernment of Spirits), charisms as experienced in the CCR are not mystical experiences. And, as I pointed out to you previously, the writings of the saints hold no more authority than those of the pope.

Here again is the link (ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm and the relevant passages.

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.

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.

You can keep quoting all of the private revelation from any saint or doctor you want, in order to bolster your feeble attempts to discredit the CCR, while ignoring the over 22 addresses made by P6, JP2 and B16. The RCC teaches that private revelation is not authoritative (the very claim you make about the addresses by the popes), so none of us have to pay any iota of attention to your numerous “saint” and “doctor” posts, just like you refuse to pay any attention to the addresses of the pope.

PS Still waiting for your proof of your claim in regards to the following quote below. You have repeatedly called vardaquinn and guanophore liars, you either have proof to back up your claim, or you yourself lied about it. Which is it? You also continued to twist and lie about the facts of the birth of the renewal, but cry how dishonest vardaquinn and guanophore are. You whine about how the charismatics engage in ad hominem, while you post plenty of ad hominem yourself.

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?

 

[guanophore]

Oh now I’m bigoted?

Only God knows. Perhaps He will reveal this to you? All I can do is notice that your comments about our separated brethren have a bigoted sounding tone.

You’re clearly completely ignorant of church history, you read all those ‘bigoted’ statements about their being no salvation outside the church? You know the odd 50 or so statements over 2000 years that are still repeated today.

You are mistaken. The infallible teaching of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in no way bigoted. It is simply a statement of fact, and it was made to safeguard the faithful. Unlike the Magesterium, you are not authorized to make infallible statements. Therefore your characterization of your Christian brethren as “heretics” comes across as bigoted, and breaks the forum rules while it goes against the Teaching of the Church.

Jesus only founded One Church, and He only has One Body. Therefore, all who are connected to Him as Head are members of His one Body, the Church. We don’t know who all of them are, but we do know that some are not visible as Catholics.

And yes by defintion non-catholics cannot have a closer relationship with God than Catholics.

How is that?

How is it that you can set aside the Catechism of the Church, that accepts valid baptism as putting those so baptized on equal footing as those baptized in the Church?

If Catholics have such a close relationship with Jesus, how come they don’t know it? Why are they joining evangelical churches in droves, seeking a more “personal relationship” with Jesus?
Some Bible Churches are comprised of primarily former Catholics!

Because of course the fact she was there at the birth of the movement, helped give birth to it, is therefore a founding member and her interview is on a prestigious CCR website is completely irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Relevant, but just does not say what you want it to say. The testimonies of Catholics involved in the CCR NEVER detract from the CC. This account does NOT say that the woman had a better understanding of a relationship with the Lord than the CC. She is speaking of her own experience, only. But yes, the woman read about the Acts of the Apostles in that Catholic book, and shared their faith.

You have twisted what was written to squeeze it into your anti Charismatic agenda.

Really? Perhaps you should treat his authoritative words with a bit more respect then :thumbsup:

Yes. Unlike yourself, I believe that the Successors of Peter are placed over the flock of God to care for and feed the sheep. When they give instruction and direction (even if it is just a speech), I consider that part of the ordinary magesterium.

Who said anything about disdain and bigotry? :shrug: I'm just stating facts, doesn't really matter whether you like facts or not they remain true.

It is not a matter of my liking, or not liking, jmj. It is a matter of what the Church teaches. People that embrace heresies are not necessarily heretics, and in most cases our separated brethren are not. To qualify as a heretic, a person needs to first embrace the true faith, then willfully reject it. Most of our separated brethren have never been exposed to the fullness of the faith. Rather than your disdain and bigotry, they require catechesis and evangelization. I can assure you that you will not get very far bringing them into the fullness of faith with this kind of name calling.

Does the catechism say catholics should draw water from communities that only have parts of the truth? **No? I thought not. Stop lying and accept the facts. You cannot provide a shred of evidence or authority to back up your movement. **

The Catechism states that any truth and valid doctrine present in these ecclesial communties first came from the Catholic Church. It is valid because it is part of the once for all deposit of faiththat was given to the Church. The saving water of Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is valid wherever it is found, whether in the camp, our outside the camp. Your position of denying that the HS works through these communities is contrary to the catechism.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

LOL. GIven the current cultural climate, I think we to want for a better word. I like “unwrap”, as these gifts are given in baptism/confirmation, but most Catholics are not taught how to open them and use them. It is like having a new flat screen TV that just sits in the box because no training has been provided in how to connect and work it. When I was in confirmation preparation classes, only the Isaiah gifts were mentioned.

Well, how is this unwrapping taught, then? What the procedure?

The gift of prophesy is the gift of speaking the timeless Truth of God into the present circumstance. All of us are to have this gift functioning in our daily lives, so that we are able to represent God’s point of view to the Church, and to the world. This gift is at the core of the sensus fidelum.

I’m afraid this sounds a bit woolly. I meant prophesy in the common sense: foretelling the future. A standard way to spot a false prophet is if they predict something that doesn’t come true e.g. Bayside.

I recall reading in a book about exorcism that one mark of diabolic influence is people spouting hidden knowledge which, while true and interesting is useless, spiritually e.g. “You’ve lost a loved one recently. There’s 20 bucks hidden in such-and-such a place. A murder occurred here ten years ago” And so on. It also tends to have mistakes in it. Just enough truth to get people hooked and then they get diverted from the path to sanctity.

 

[jmj1984]

That’s just a derail, and an ad hominem attack. Your posts are filled with such statements, and I please ask you to refrain from them because they’re really adding nothing to the discussion.

You have not established that the works are “pregnant with heresy”. Sure, it had an agenda. That’s generally the case with meetings.

No, she had a better understanding of the gifts and the Holy Spirit than many of the people she was speaking to. That’s why they asked her to come. A few retreatants do not equal the Catholic Church. And I have seen no evidence of heresy in what she actually said. So she is simply stating Church teaching.

The sensational gifts get press because they’re the subject of the most controversy.

Perhaps you should take a break and learn some basic theology then your posts wouldn’t be so pointless. Also stop engaging in hypocrisy as regards ad hominem attacks both you and gunaophore seem to have as your sole reply ad hominem attacks or misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[jmj1984]

Then why aren’t you a saint?

So all people who are baptised and confirmed become saints? Yeah as I was saying about learning basic theology, it might be an idea to read some.

 

[jmj1984]

You avoided the question. Nobody was calling you a bigot. The statement was -

Obviously expressing guanaphore’s trouble following what exactly you’re saying, and hoping that was seemed to be simply bigoted statements were part of guanaphore’s misunderstanding of what you’re saying.

Please, answer the question.

Sorry but someone clearly was stop engaging in dishonesty and the question was answered.

 

[jmj1984]

I say the Rosary, the Crown of the Blessed Virgin, and the Sacred Heart devotion is a big part of my spirituality… I also do what you would call the “practices of heretics” (I speak in tongues, pray over people, try to use whatever charisms God has given me - extraordinary or no). In my personal spiritual experience, these things were the fruit of my experience of the charismatic dimension. Nobody is forsaking these things. Many of the charismatics I know all practice exactly what you give examples of.

Then perhaps they should just stick to those orthodox practices rather than copying those of heretics

 

[jmj1984]

We have given you authoritative (pretty much as authoritative as it gets) that shows that what we believe about the Holy Spirit, charisms, and the experience of Pentecost is precisely what the Church itself teaches.

We have also given you statements from Popes, bishops, priests and leading theologians that give extraordinarily strong approval to the movement.

We have produced many numerous quotes (which I will repost for you if you have not read them) from Scripture, catechisms, Church documents, decrees, Popes, bishops, priests, theologians, doctors of the church, church fathers that back up what we’re saying.

If you have nothing further to say beyond name calling, then I see this discussion as over.

No, may of them didn’t. It came as a surprise to many of them. Listen to his talk… ctkcc.libsyn.com/holy_spirit_dave_mangan He wasn’t expecting to speak in tongues at that moment, but it happened.

Name calling? Yet more hypocrisy. You havent produced any authorities as we have all made repeatedly clear in this discussion. And I’m looking at objective facts namely
1)The events prior to the retreat that inspired the latter one
2)The reading material for the retreat
3)the theme of the retreat
4)Those giving talks at the retreat

All of this based on an eye witness account. Not whether one person was subjectively or claims not to have been expecting to speak in tongues.

 

[jmj1984]

No, it is beyond “a” mistake. You read the accounts of those who were present, and understand them differently than every one else who reads them. You have repeatedly posted an account by Patti Gallagher-Mansfield, and keep insisting that she was “seeking gifts”, when there is nothing like that in the account.

jmj, I know it is probably hard for you to understand this, but Catholics have been gathering in homes to pray since the Upper Room. Gathering with others to pray is not a “practice of heretics”. It happens to be one of the Catholic practices that was retained by our separated brethren.

In February, 1967, during a Duquesne University student retreat at The Ark and the Dove Retreat House outside of Pittsburgh, PA, one of the students, Patti Gallagher-Mansfield felt drawn to pray before the Blessed Sacrament in the chapel. She, and a number of other students who had joined her were later found prostrate before the Tabernacle. There, before Jesus’ Eucharistic presence, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was born. They had all been overwhelmed by the majesty, power and presence of God. The movement spread rapidly throughout the United States and the world. It is estimated that today in excess of 75 million Catholics worldwide have had contact with this renewal and have experienced their own personal Pentecost.

This may also come as a surprise to you, since you seem to know little about Protestants, but Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, and other Evangelicals don’t believe in the Blessed Sacrament. They do not have Blessed Sacrament Chapels, and they do not prostrate themselves before a Tabernacle. These practices are uniquely Catholic.

It is against the forum rules to call names, jmj, and the use of the word heretic in relation to our separated brethren is strictly prohibited. In using it, you also persistently defy the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly indicates that persons who are reared in separated communities cannot be charged in this way. David Wilkerson was never Catholic, and was never associated with the One, Holy, and Aposotlic Church. This being the case, he cannot be charged with willful rejection of that which he has never known.

Have you read it recently? Now might be a good time.

No, jmj. We are all in agreement that there are other sources of such phenomena besides God. We shall know them by their fruits. Patti Gallagher-Mansfield has lived the last 40 years of her life in service to the Church, just as she promised to do when she was prostrate on the floor in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, she has used the gifts that were given to her for this purpose, but the fruit of the Spirit does not always follow the gifts.

You did not answer my question, jmj. What is it about the desire to have the Holy Spirit more present in one’s life that is “heretical”? Do you find this prayer heretical?

On my knees before the great multitude of heavenly witnesses, I offer myself soul and body to Thee, Eternal Spirit of God. I adore the brightness of Thy purity, the unerring keenness of Thy justice, and the might of Thy love. Thou art the Strength and Light of my soul. In Thee I live and move and am. I desire never to grieve Thee by unfaithfulness to grace, and I pray with all my heart to be kept from the smallest sin against Thee. Mercifully guard my every thought and grant that I may always watch for Thy light and listen to Thy voice and follow Thy gracious inspirations. I cling to Thee and give myself to Thee and ask Thee by Thy compassion to watch over me in my weakness. Holding the pierced Feet of Jesus and looking at His Five Wounds and trusting in His Precious Blood and adoring His opened Side and stricken Heart, I implore Thee Adorable Spirit, helper of my infirmity, so to keep me in Thy grace that I may never sin against Thee. Give me grace O Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Father and the Son, to say to Thee always and everywhere, Speak Lord, for Thy servant heareth. Amen.

Let’s look again at the source you are using, since you seem to have trouble comprehending what is written:

“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.”

They experienced a life changing encounter with the Holy Spirit, and people noticed their joy. Do you think it is uncatholic or heretical to radiate joy?

The only unable to read accounts is you I’m afraid, I wont answer the rest of your baseless assertions because they’re not worth the effort.

 

[jmj1984]

That is not what the text says, jmj. It appears that you are projecting your own prejudices into the story.

I think you left something out…

“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.”

Is that second recommendation “pregnant with heresies”?

Let’s look at what else they did to prepare:

“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.”

Is this preparation “pregnant with heresies”?

“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.”

Oh my goodness! What a terrible “protestant” practice!

You can see why we are concerned that you have a reading comprehension problem. Not only are the things you claim not in the text, but you cannot seem to accept what IS in the text!

.

There is no dichotomy for me between what is in Scripture, and the Creed, and the beliefs I espouse.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

You seem to be confused, jmj. I don’t know if re-reading this article can help you, but just to clarify for others reading the thread:

“The students who attended the retreat, were not prayed over by anyone. It was when they entered the Adoration Chapel, during the nightly Exposition, of the Blessed Sacrament…”

And again, you are inappropriately applying the term “heretic”. Both because the definition does not fit, and because it is against the forum rules.

There was no “non-Catholic dogma” taught at the retreat. It is clear from the text what was taught and practiced.

Catholics are sealed by the HS in baptism, but they do not retain a state of “immersion”. Any form of sin, but especially mortal sin, will interfere with the indwelling presence of God in the soul. Sin separates us from God. We are continually called to repentance and reconciliation precisely because we do not remain “immersed”. I agree, though, speaking gibberish does not increase someones immersion in the HS. Tongues are not gibberish, though they may seem like it to others. Falling over is just something that happens sometimes when a person is overcome by the presence of God. This happened to the temple guards that came to arrest Jesus in the garden.

You referred to the two books they were asked to read to prepare for the retreat. One of those was the first four chapters of the book of Acts. I can see from this post that you erroneously thought one of them was “They Speak with Other Tongues”. Be that as it may, I am still waiting for you to post the “pregnant heresies” in that book, as well as the Cross and the Switchblade.

I posted the story in its entirity, the only one who has had to misquote it, is you. And reading the book of acts after reading two heretical books which place their own interpretation on said book is hardly prudent.

The rest of your post shows your lack of knowledge of basic catholic theology, heretic as I have defined is the correct definition and that can easily be verified.

We are also still waiting for that authority for the movement

 

[jmj1984]

jmj, you have admitted that you have not read the material that you are asserting is “pregnant with heresies”. You are also erroneously applying this term to persons that do not qualify for it, in violation of Church teaching, and forum rules. You are right, I have sadly mistaken you for a person of integrity. All I am asking you to do is substantiate your assertions with evidence, and you can’t.

Your posts have demonstrated some vast disparity between what you understand of what you read, and what others do. I would like you to give YOUR definition of “sensational”.

Yes. It seems that you cannot defend your attacks upon the recommended reading, since you are unwilling to read the books cited, so you are turning your attack on me instead.

Your posts demonstrate that you are unable to grasp their motives and wishes. You keep copying and pasting their words, but you misconstrue them to squeeze them into your fantasy.

Through prayers to the Holy Spirit, such as those offered by the Holy Fathers. Through the instructions of the Bishops, and those appointed by them to give instruction. Through the reading of Church documents, statements from the Popes, and Scripture study. If you look at the National Service Committee website you can see why they were commissioned by the Vatican.

I understand that you can’t see it, jmj. You have your anti-charismatic blinders on, so it is not possible for you to understand what you are reading. But the truth is, Apostolates, teaching, and governing are exactly what they got, and that is what they have been doing for 40 years now. They were seeking to yield themselves fully to the work of the Holy Spirit, and these are the gifts that followed. They consecrated themselves. They did this in their own words, and in the words of the ancient hymn "Veni Sanctus Spiritus".

Ya really gotta make up your mind here, jmj. On the one hand, you discredit the gifts and claim they don’t exist, are faked or are not from God. Then you claim they are rare, now you claim they were never rare. At least you are wrestling with the whole thing, and that is good.

I am glad you are not watching those crazy youtube videos.

It is a mystery how you came to such negativity about this matter, and why you are so hostile about it. Hoewever, I am glad that you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article. I am still waiting for your definitions of “sensational” and “consolation”. You did not mention if you read the other article on the states of prayer. I am also looking forward to your substantiation of “pregnant heresies” in the two books.

It appears the person who lacks basic reading comprehension is you, your consistent inability to read and understand the basic and ordinary words used in this discussion or follow simple arguments puts you outside the pale of this discussion. You are unable to effectively defend your movement or provide authority for it because of your fanaticism, you insult anyone who doesnt agree with you and twist or completely misread what they post and then to add insult to injury are consistenly dishonest.

 

[jmj1984]

There is nothing here that indicates any desire for tongues or anything “sensational”. She sees a person who has a vibrant and empowered Christian walk, and wants this in her own life. What is heretical about this? If the speaker was a Catholic, not a Presbyterian, would it be ok for her to have this reaction? That is why I asked you about bigotry. You seem so prejudiced by the fact that the speaker was not Catholic that you have lost the content.

I think we could certainly assume this. And such is the case with many Catholics who were poorly catechized. They are leaving in droves for “bible churches” because they don’t know their own faith.

What is it in this passage that seems “uncatholic” or heretical to you? Here is a woman in front of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, knowing that, when she gives her life completely to her Lord, she will have to surrender everything.

Here is another mystery. When I read this, I see the prayer of a person consecrating their life to God. When you read it, you see someone “obsessed with tongues”.

So, which part of this is “uncatholic”?

Not tongues here either. Just a “glow”. Is that “uncatholic”? Heretical?

You havent actually addressed my argument here or the source or my commentary on it just posted your own opinion and misrepresented my view. You are clearly incapabale of dealing with other peoples arguments.

 

[Melchior_1]

jmj1984, you’re not winning anyone over to your side here. If anything, you’re probably driving people away. Calling people heretics and telling people they lack “basic reading comprehension” is hardly what I would consider charitable. If all you’re going to do in this thread is run around posting “no u” and stopping short of insulting others, then maybe it’s time to step away from the thread for a bit.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph wouldn’t respond the in the fashion you did, would they?

 

[jmj1984]

No Protestants here, no “pregnant heresy books”. Just seekers before the Blessed Sacrament.

They are seeking, but I just can’t see the preoccupation you have with the tongues thing. It seems like a very minor part of the whole experience.

You asked (rhetorically I am sure) what you could learn from your separated brethren. This is one example. They are very good at giving testimonies, a skill that is not much taught in the Catholic Church (until recently). When a person has an experience with God, one gives a testimony of their perspective. Of course it includes feelings, actions, and thoughts. I notice that you have totally ignored the pull she described to be in the presence of God, and being overwhelmed by His presence. You are discounting the validity of her encounter with the holy. Awe, as you apparently have forgotten, is also one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There is no safer place on earth than before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer, so yes, essentially her “logic” is solid. When you go before Jesus in this way, and offer yourself to HIm, you will not be disappointed.

“Baptism” means to dip or immerse. We need to be constantly dipped and immersed in the HS. This is one purpose of the Sacraments, but the immersion is not restricted to the Sacraments.

If you can’t see the pre-occupation with tongues then you have some serious deduction skill problems. Your last statement regarding baptism of the spirit is self-evident heresy and no I’m sorry having a particular experience before the blessed sacrament does not necessarily vindicate her experience or point of view. Especially not given the consistent diet of heterodoxy she was fed during the retreat.

 

[jmj1984]

Only God knows. Perhaps He will reveal this to you? All I can do is notice that your comments about our separated brethren have a bigoted sounding tone.

You are mistaken. The infallible teaching of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in no way bigoted. It is simply a statement of fact, and it was made to safeguard the faithful. Unlike the Magesterium, you are not authorized to make infallible statements. Therefore your characterization of your Christian brethren as “heretics” comes across as bigoted, and breaks the forum rules while it goes against the Teaching of the Church.

Jesus only founded One Church, and He only has One Body. Therefore, all who are connected to Him as Head are members of His one Body, the Church. We don’t know who all of them are, but we do know that some are not visible as Catholics.

How is that?

How is it that you can set aside the Catechism of the Church, that accepts valid baptism as putting those so baptized on equal footing as those baptized in the Church?

If Catholics have such a close relationship with Jesus, how come they don’t know it? Why are they joining evangelical churches in droves, seeking a more “personal relationship” with Jesus?
Some Bible Churches are comprised of primarily former Catholics!

Relevant, but just does not say what you want it to say. The testimonies of Catholics involved in the CCR NEVER detract from the CC. This account does NOT say that the woman had a better understanding of a relationship with the Lord than the CC. She is speaking of her own experience, only. But yes, the woman read about the Acts of the Apostles in that Catholic book, and shared their faith.

You have twisted what was written to squeeze it into your anti Charismatic agenda.

Yes. Unlike yourself, I believe that the Successors of Peter are placed over the flock of God to care for and feed the sheep. When they give instruction and direction (even if it is just a speech), I consider that part of the ordinary magesterium.

It is not a matter of my liking, or not liking, jmj. It is a matter of what the Church teaches. People that embrace heresies are not necessarily heretics, and in most cases our separated brethren are not. To qualify as a heretic, a person needs to first embrace the true faith, then willfully reject it. Most of our separated brethren have never been exposed to the fullness of the faith. Rather than your disdain and bigotry, they require catechesis and evangelization. I can assure you that you will not get very far bringing them into the fullness of faith with this kind of name calling.

The Catechism states that any truth and valid doctrine present in these ecclesial communties first came from the Catholic Church. It is valid because it is part of the once for all deposit of faiththat was given to the Church. The saving water of Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is valid wherever it is found, whether in the camp, our outside the camp. Your position of denying that the HS works through these communities is contrary to the catechism.

Another post of misquotes, misrepresentation and several out and out calumnies. Nowhere does the church non-catholics are on an equal footing with heretics, this is a heresy and again if you had any grasp whatsoever of catholic teaching you would know this.

 

[vardaquinn]

So all people who are baptised and confirmed become saints? Yeah as I was saying about learning basic theology, it might be an idea to read some.

No, they don’t. That’s precisely my point. They should all be saints. Shouldn’t just receiving the sacraments already make them saints? Why should there need to be anything else, any other experience of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit? Why even have confirmation prep classes??

Then perhaps they should just stick to those orthodox practices rather than copying those of heretics

Alright then. Read the Acts of the Apostles, and stick to what they do there. Which is what they were doing on the retreat. And the “heretics” were doing what the Apostles were doing, and that served to show that - this is for today. It is not merely ancient past history, over and done with.

Your last statement regarding baptism of the spirit is self-evident heresy and no I’m sorry having a particular experience before the blessed sacrament does not necessarily vindicate her experience or point of view. Especially not given the consistent diet of heterodoxy she was fed during the retreat.

You have not actually established there was any heresy being actually taught. Your claim rests on the fact that there was association with Protestants, who are heretics, and thus there must be heresy. And you also claim, without providing rational explanations, that our idea of baptism in the Holy Spirit is heresy (even though we have shown you how the last two popes share our idea of this). Why don’t you give some concrete examples of “CLEAR OMG HERESY AND HETERODOXY!!!” that were discussed during the retreat? All you’ve said is “They broke canon law by associating with Protestants, and therefore what they were saying necessarily is heretical” which doesn’t follow logically.

jmj1984, you’re just grasping at straws now and name calling and claiming that we’ve been dishonest. At the very least, that’s just bad argumentation skills. This is just becoming hopelessly repetitive.

Maybe if you can produce something more than “HERESY, JUST BLATANT HERESY!!!”, by going through our posts and showing, using the Catechism or other church documents, how what we are saying is indeed a matter of “self evident heresy”. Otherwise it’s just a bare assertion of “HERESY!!!” and you sound like an excitable fundamentalist or a Monty Python sketch. I’m still willing to discuss this with you, but only if you actually say something to back up your claims, other than quotes from a saint (who is still fallible) that we agree with anyway, and claiming that what you are saying is simply “self evident”. Obviously it isn’t. If it was self-evident, we wouldn’t be having this argument. Since you aren’t backing up your claims, I’m left with the conviction that you really don’t have anything to back them up with.

 

[jmj1984]

jmj1984, you’re not winning anyone over to your side here. If anything, you’re probably driving people away. Calling people heretics and telling people they lack “basic reading comprehension” is hardly what I would consider charitable. If all you’re going to do in this thread is run around posting “no u” and stopping short of insulting others, then maybe it’s time to step away from the thread for a bit.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph wouldn’t respond the in the fashion you did, would they?

Stop being a hypocrite