Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[ltwin]

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

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.

Prophecy is not solely the ability to tell the future. Telling the future was a very small part of the prophet’s job description. Paul says, when describing the gift of prophecy, said " On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (1 Cor. 14:3). Prophecy is speaking on behalf of God. That can include predictive prophecy, but it can also mean other kinds of revelation.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

I agree, jmj. The Church does not teach that non-Catholics are on an equal footing at all. If memory serves, the catechism says that there are elements of truth in the Protestant communities, which I would agree with. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is not at all accurate to state, as one advocate of CCR has recently posted, that…“The Holy Spirit is valid wherever it is found, whether in the camp, or outside the camp.” This statement presumes that anyone and everyone is qualified to judge as to whether the Holy Ghost is truly at work in Catholic or non-Catholic communities, but that’s not what the Church teaches.

 

[jmj1984]

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??

Really? Where does the church teach we should all be saints? We cannot force God to make us saints nor are we all going to be saints, at least not in the sense of canonised saints nor are we going to be as holy as them. Why? Because not everyone is given the graces or called to the same type or degree of holiness. What we need to do is save our souls and help save those of others. In the light of this I do confess I find your objections quite confusing and pointless.

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.

Except that they are not apostles nor as people have made repeatedly clear is their any need for the gift of tongues today. I do confess that apart from this I don’t see the point of your objection.

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.

Catholics have long been forbidden to pray with and attend the gatherings of non-catholics because The Church has long recognised the risk of their faith being contaminated with heresy. This has been shown to you time and time again so you cannot deny it. Aside from this fact, the retreatants came back from the retreat displaying the exact same gifts of the non-catholic movement whose name they adopted and by whom they were taught as well from which they took inspiration. That suffices to show Heresy was being taught. Who is foolish enough to believe that catholics go to a retreat for which they are told to read non-catholic religious literature, have been spoken to by those who attended an earlier retreat from which they came back speaking tongues having been prayed over or at least heard of and are spoken to by a non-catholic, these catholics then come back spontaneously manifesting the same ‘gifts’ of the non-catholics and believing much the same and not think heresy was being taught?

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.

The only one grapsing at straws are supporters of the movement who have tried to claim papal speeches and addresses as authority despite being told that these are not authority, something which is a fact and try to claim all mentions of charisma and the holy spirit in the catechism, VII and encyclicals as support for the Charasmatic movement. Your entire argument is based on the premise that the charasmatic movement somehow has a better relationship with the holy spirit than the rest of The Catholic Church, an idea which is not only outrageous but also heretical.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

I have no interest discussing it with you, only rebutting your ludicrous claims.

As for the book 'They speak with Other Tongues’ it is a book explaining the history of the pentecostal movement and dealing with it in depth. Why on earth would catholics be told to read that as retreat material? Lets see what the description of the book says shall we? ‘Filled with both Biblical and historical accounts of speaking in tongues, John and Elizabeth’s book is a deeply personal and moving story, revealing that you, too, can walk in the power of the Spirit every day. (Read the Epilogue to the new edition to learn why John’s name alone is on the title page.)’ So catholics are going to read a book about the pentecostal movement written by heretics that will 'teach them to walk in the power of the spirit every day’? But no of course the books not full of heresy, thats why its written by pentecostals, about pentecostals and aims to teach people how to gain pentecostal books, its completely orthodox **Anyone whos read the book or seen the description knows thats utter nonsense. **

So lets review this again, Catholics go on a retreat whose theme is set on ‘The Holy Spirit’ and for preperation material are told to read 'They speak with other tongues’ a book written by pentecostals, about pentecostals that openly declares it will help others 'walk in the spirit’ as well as 'The Cross and the Switchblade’ A book co-authored by the authors of the former book and written by pentecostals about the efforts of a pentecostal pastor. So to make it absolutely clear, two thirds of their reading material was two books written by pentecostals, about pentecostals and intended to ‘help them walk in the spirit’. The rest was a few chapters of Acts read in the context of these earlier books, seeing as the chapters were essentially used by pentecostals as a justification for their doctrines and would be viewed through the lenses of those earlier books, it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what conclusion would be drawn out does it? Oh and just so no one thinks I’m ‘misrepresenting’ ‘The Cross and the Switchblade’ lets see what its product description on amazon says shall we ? ‘**It was into this world that David Wilkerson stepped, armed only with the simple message of God’s love and the promise of the Holy Spirit’s power. Then the miracles began to happen…The Cross and the Switchblade is one of the most inspiring and challenging true stories of all time. It has sold millions of copies throughout the world and has been made into a feature film. **’ Wonder what it could be about?

And it is in this context that they received a talk from a non-catholic and that they received their gifts and expressed their desires. That my friend is heresy.

 

[Melchior_1]

Stop being a hypocrite

How am I being a hypocrite? I’ve been quite charitable in this thread.

 

[jmj1984]

I agree, jmj. The Church does not teach that non-Catholics are on an equal footing at all. If memory serves, the catechism says that there are elements of truth in the Protestant communities, which I would agree with. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is not at all accurate to state, as one advocate of CCR has recently posted, that…“The Holy Spirit is valid wherever it is found, whether in the camp, or outside the camp.” This statement presumes that anyone and everyone is qualified to judge as to whether the Holy Ghost is truly at work in Catholic or non-Catholic communities, but that’s not what the Church teaches.

I must have missed that quote but truth be told it doesnt surprise me seeing as almost the entirity of the Church’s teaching on the subject is ignored.

 

[vardaquinn]

Really? Where does the church teach we should all be saints? We cannot force God to make us saints nor are we all going to be saints, at least not in the sense of canonised saints nor are we going to be as holy as them. Why? Because not everyone is given the graces or called to the same type or degree of holiness. What we need to do is save our souls and help save those of others. In the light of this I do confess I find your objections quite confusing and pointless.

Ah!! So HERE is the foundation of all our disagreements. The Church has always taught, and especially emphasized since Vatican II in response to your false mentality, that ALL Christians are called to be saints, universally called to holiness and sanctity. Not merely are we all supposed to make it to heaven, but we’re all supposed to live an extraordinary degree of holiness in this life. God does not play favorites with His grace. You have access to just as much grace as any of the canonized saints did. You may not reach the degree of holiness they did in this life, but that is simply due to your own failings in response to that grace. Everyone is given the grace. To claim otherwise undermines the entire reason the Catholic Church exists. Why is it called “catholic”? Because it is universal. Sanctity, grace, salvation… all of this is for every person on this earth, without exception. No matter what. Everyone is called to be a saint, whether you’re Jewish or not, whether you’re a priest or not, whether you’ve taken vows or not, whether you’re male or female, adult or child - everyone is given the task of trying to achieve sanctity in this life. If not, then the entire point of the Catholic Church crumbles and everything is undermined.

To use more mystical terminology, all of us are called to a spiritual ‘marriage’ with God in this life, not simply extraordinary mystics like St. Therese or St. Catherine of St. Teresa… We are all called to be mystics in this regard of pursuing union with God.

Read Chapter V of Lumen gentium. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

“Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity;(4*) by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society. In order that the faithful may reach this perfection, they must use their strength accordingly as they have received it, as a gift from Christ. They must follow in His footsteps and conform themselves to His image seeking the will of the Father in all things. They must devote themselves with all their being to the glory of God and the service of their neighbor. In this way, the holiness of the People of God will grow into an abundant harvest of good, as is admirably shown by the life of so many saints in Church history.” (Lg 40).

This was the main theme of the papacy of Bl. John Paul II. It is the main message of such saints as St. Josemaria Escriva (who was often called a heretic for expressing this view).

Not only is this simply the vocation of every person, but it is an absolute necessity for our world. Our world is in a crisis, which is a crisis that demands saints. All of us must be saints. The reason we are not all saints is simply this: we do not wholly want to be (to paraphrase William Law). When asked why more people didn’t have the intense union with Jesus that St. Teresa had, she responded “More people don’t have it because more people don’t want it”.

God does not play favorites. He does not call some to an extraordinary degree of holiness, and others to a lesser degree. He says, be perfect as I am perfect. He does not give grace only to an elite few, but to all. God wants you to be a saint, He commands you to be a saint.

That doesn’t mean all of us will be canonized, but it does mean all of us become “little Christ’s”, that all of us live the fullness of the Christian life.

To deny this is to deny the purpose of the Catholic Church and to undermine every single one of her teachings.

 

[jmj1984]

Ah!! So HERE is the foundation of all our disagreements. The Church has always taught, and especially emphasized since Vatican II in response to your false mentality, that ALL Christians are called to be saints, universally called to holiness and sanctity. Not merely are we all supposed to make it to heaven, but we’re all supposed to live an extraordinary degree of holiness in this life. God does not play favorites with His grace. You have access to just as much grace as any of the canonized saints did. You may not reach the degree of holiness they did in this life, but that is simply due to your own failings in response to that grace. Everyone is given the grace. To claim otherwise undermines the entire reason the Catholic Church exists. Why is it called “catholic”? Because it is universal. Sanctity, grace, salvation… all of this is for every person on this earth, without exception. No matter what. Everyone is called to be a saint, whether you’re Jewish or not, whether you’re a priest or not, whether you’ve taken vows or not, whether you’re male or female, adult or child - everyone is given the task of trying to achieve sanctity in this life. If not, then the entire point of the Catholic Church crumbles and everything is undermined.

To use more mystical terminology, all of us are called to a spiritual ‘marriage’ with God in this life, not simply extraordinary mystics like St. Therese or St. Catherine of St. Teresa… We are all called to be mystics in this regard of pursuing union with God.

Read Chapter V of Lumen gentium. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

“Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity;(4*) by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society. In order that the faithful may reach this perfection, they must use their strength accordingly as they have received it, as a gift from Christ. They must follow in His footsteps and conform themselves to His image seeking the will of the Father in all things. They must devote themselves with all their being to the glory of God and the service of their neighbor. In this way, the holiness of the People of God will grow into an abundant harvest of good, as is admirably shown by the life of so many saints in Church history.” (Lg 40).

This was the main theme of the papacy of Bl. John Paul II. It is the main message of such saints as St. Josemaria Escriva (who was often called a heretic for expressing this view).

Not only is this simply the vocation of every person, but it is an absolute necessity for our world. Our world is in a crisis, which is a crisis that demands saints. All of us must be saints. The reason we are not all saints is simply this: we do not wholly want to be (to paraphrase William Law). When asked why more people didn’t have the intense union with Jesus that St. Teresa had, she responded “More people don’t have it because more people don’t want it”.

God does not play favorites. He does not call some to an extraordinary degree of holiness, and others to a lesser degree. He says, be perfect as I am perfect. He does not give grace only to an elite few, but to all. God wants you to be a saint, He commands you to be a saint.

That doesn’t mean all of us will be canonized, but it does mean all of us become “little Christ’s”, that all of us live the fullness of the Christian life.

To deny this is to deny the purpose of the Catholic Church and to undermine every single one of her teachings.

Sorry? What was the point of this? My belief that the charasmatic movement is fundamentally unsound has to do with the movement being born out of heresy, embracing heretical doctrines and engaging in heretical practices. It has nothing to do with the above disagreement if you want to discuss that, deal with it on another thread and stop derailing this frankly pointless one. As usual you desperately clutch at any straw rather than deal with the issue at hand

Your statement ‘the church has always believed…’ would probably have more weight if you actually had any theological knowledge but you have consistently displayed your ignorance of Catholic Theology on this thread so your words have little weight.

As for the rest of what you have stated it is clear you have never read the works of St Maria Faustina, St Margaret Mary Alcoque or Sr Josefa Fernendez or even ‘The Story of a soul’. I have no desire to debate the idea that ‘all are called to be saints’ because the idea is inherently absurd, alien to catholic tradition and little to do with this thread.

 

[vardaquinn]

Except that they are not apostles nor as people have made repeatedly clear is their any need for the gift of tongues today. I do confess that apart from this I don’t see the point of your objection.

They are called to live Apostolic Christianity. There was no need for the Apostles to speak in tongues on Pentecost either, except that it was to show the presence of God the Holy Spirit.

Aside from this fact, the retreatants came back from the retreat displaying the exact same gifts of the non-catholic movement whose name they adopted and by whom they were taught as well from which they took inspiration. That suffices to show Heresy was being taught.

Displaying exactly the same gifts as were evident in the lives of the Apostles, see Acts of the Apostles. This suffices to show that the heretics were for once right about something.

You have not established that these gifts are heretical. To claim so would be to openly contradict Church teaching and the Scripture.

these catholics then come back spontaneously manifesting the same ‘gifts’ of the non-catholics and believing much the same and not think heresy was being taught

Again, you are avoiding the question. You simply claim heresy was being taught, but provide no evidence of it. The most you can point to is a breach of the current Church discipline.

As for the book ‘They speak with Other Tongues’ it is a book explaining the history of the pentecostal movement and dealing with it in depth. Why on earth would catholics be told to read that as retreat material?

Because it proves that what happens in their other reading material, Acts of the Apostles, still happens today.

But no of course the books not full of heresy, thats why its written by pentecostals, about pentecostals and aims to teach people how to gain pentecostal books, its completely orthodox Anyone whos read the book or seen the description knows thats utter nonsense.

Cop out, you’re avoiding the question. Just because it’s written by heretics doesn’t mean that the main gist of what it is expressing is heretical. That doesn’t make any logical sense.

So to make it absolutely clear, two thirds of their reading material was two books written by pentecostals, about pentecostals and intended to ‘help them walk in the spirit’. The rest was a few chapters of Acts read in the context of these earlier books, seeing as the chapters were essentially used by pentecostals as a justification for their doctrines and would be viewed through the lenses of those earlier books, it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what conclusion would be drawn out does it?

No, doesn’t take much imagination, but that still doesn’t point to any heresy whatsoever. You have yet to establish that the conclusion is heresy. It isn’t.

'It was into this world that David Wilkerson stepped, armed only with the simple message of God’s love and the promise of the Holy Spirit’s power. Then the miracles began to happen…The Cross and the Switchblade is one of the most inspiring and challenging true stories of all time. It has sold millions of copies throughout the world and has been made into a feature film. ’ Wonder what it could be about?

Seems to be a book about miracles. Are those heretical?

And it is in this context that they received a talk from a non-catholic and that they received their gifts and expressed their desires. That my friend is heresy.

How? Is walking in the power of the Holy Spirit heretical? No. Is believing that miracles still happen heretical? No. Is believing that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still around heretical? No. Is experiencing the Holy Spirit heretical? No. Is experiencing the reality of Pentecost heretical? No. So I fail to see the heresy. Again, you avoid the question and assume that simply because heretics were involved that it was heretical. That may be the case, but you have not produced any evidence that there was heresy, merely evidence that there were heretics.

 

[vardaquinn]

I agree, jmj. The Church does not teach that non-Catholics are on an equal footing at all. If memory serves, the catechism says that there are elements of truth in the Protestant communities, which I would agree with. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is not at all accurate to state, as one advocate of CCR has recently posted, that…“The Holy Spirit is valid wherever it is found, whether in the camp, or outside the camp.” This statement presumes that anyone and everyone is qualified to judge as to whether the Holy Ghost is truly at work in Catholic or non-Catholic communities, but that’s not what the Church teaches.

The statement, if I am guessing properly, was referring to an instance in the book of numbers in which individuals in the camp to be named prophets for the Lord and individuals outside experienced the power of the Lord. Joshua objected that the elders who were not in the meeting were prophesying, and Moses responded “would that all would be prophets of the Lord”.

Further, it as in the Gospels when the Apostles rebuke someone for casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and He in turn rebukes them saying that whoever is not against you is for you. They weren’t with the Apostles, but they were with Jesus and they were still casting out demons.

Anyone and everyone may judge this according to their own reason and the grace of the Holy Spirit, only the Church may judge this infallibly however. But we should not be against anything that is doing good and promoting the work of the Holy Spirit, even if it is outside the Church.

 

[jmj1984]

They are called to live Apostolic Christianity. There was no need for the Apostles to speak in tongues on Pentecost either, except that it was to show the presence of God the Holy Spirit.

Displaying exactly the same gifts as were evident in the lives of the Apostles, see Acts of the Apostles. This suffices to show that the heretics were for once right about something.

You have not established that these gifts are heretical. To claim so would be to openly contradict Church teaching and the Scripture.

Again, you are avoiding the question. You simply claim heresy was being taught, but provide no evidence of it. The most you can point to is a breach of the current Church discipline.

Because it proves that what happens in their other reading material, Acts of the Apostles, still happens today.

Cop out, you’re avoiding the question. Just because it’s written by heretics doesn’t mean that the main gist of what it is expressing is heretical. That doesn’t make any logical sense.

No, doesn’t take much imagination, but that still doesn’t point to any heresy whatsoever. You have yet to establish that the conclusion is heresy. It isn’t.

Seems to be a book about miracles. Are those heretical?

How? Is walking in the power of the Holy Spirit heretical? No. Is believing that miracles still happen heretical? No. Is believing that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still around heretical? No. Is experiencing the Holy Spirit heretical? No. Is experiencing the reality of Pentecost heretical? No. So I fail to see the heresy. Again, you avoid the question and assume that simply because heretics were involved that it was heretical. That may be the case, but you have not produced any evidence that there was heresy, merely evidence that there were heretics.

You fail to see because you are blind. If you cannot see that reading well known pentecostal propoganda before a retreat is imprudent and that these heretical books set the tone of the retreat then there is nothing I or anyone else can do to help you, only God can help you see the truth.

 

[jmj1984]

The statement, if I am guessing properly, was referring to an instance in the book of numbers in which individuals in the camp to be named prophets for the Lord and individuals outside experienced the power of the Lord. Joshua objected that the elders who were not in the meeting were prophesying, and Moses responded “would that all would be prophets of the Lord”.

Further, it as in the Gospels when the Apostles rebuke someone for casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and He in turn rebukes them saying that whoever is not against you is for you. They weren’t with the Apostles, but they were with Jesus and they were still casting out demons.

Anyone and everyone may judge this according to their own reason and the grace of the Holy Spirit, only the Church may judge this infallibly however. But we should not be against anything that is doing good and promoting the work of the Holy Spirit, even if it is outside the Church.

And this is a good example of why I say you have no understanding of catholic theology whatsoever.

 

[vardaquinn]

I have no desire to debate the idea that ‘all are called to be saints’ because the idea is inherently absurd, alien to catholic tradition and little to do with this thread.

Then, sir, I am forced to name you a heretic. If we are not all called to be saints, then what is the point?

I see this as something essential to understanding the movement. If you deny this, you will never see our point.

It is rather you, when faced with clear Church teaching, that makes the cop out.

The issue at hand is this: the Holy Spirit is for everyone, the grace of Pentecost is for everyone, everyone are called to live lives of extraordinary holiness, and something essential in that is the charismatic dimension of the faith. This has everything to do with this thread.

I have read St. Faustina, and sections of Story of a Soul. I have also read St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Augustine, St. Francis de Sales, St. John Chrysostom, St. Josemaria Escriva, and a good deal more. If you consider this no theological understanding in the tradition of the Church, so be it. I think we are in different Churches.

It is rather you who are rooted in pre-Christian tradition. Before Christ, not all were called to be saints, and not everyone could experience the grace of God in a direct manner - even amongst the Jews, and certainly not amongst the uncircumcised. After Christ, this was now for everyone. This is evident in Peter’s speech at Pentecost.

If you deny this, then you deny the “Catholic” Church. I think at heart you do not deny this, but rather are filled with a lot of misunderstandings and confused terms. But if you truly deny the universal call to holiness, then you undermine all that is Catholic.

 

[vardaquinn]

You fail to see because you are blind. If you cannot see that reading well known pentecostal propoganda before a retreat is imprudent and that these heretical books set the tone of the retreat then there is nothing I or anyone else can do to help you, only God can help you see the truth.

Imprudent perhaps, but you have not proven that they are heretical. So you simply avoid the question. Were they heretical? What was taught on the retreat that was heretical? You have not provided any evidence of heretics. Simply calling me blind won’t win any arguments. Maybe I am blind. Would you care to enlighten me? Show me the heresy that was taught.

 

[vardaquinn]

And this is a good example of why I say you have no understanding of catholic theology whatsoever.

Bare assertion. You are not even bothering to contradict us now, simply to call us absurd, ignorant, blind and dishonest. Perhaps we are, but that doesn’t prove you right.

 

[jmj1984]

Then, sir, I am forced to name you a heretic. If we are not all called to be saints, then what is the point?

I see this as something essential to understanding the movement. If you deny this, you will never see our point.

It is rather you, when faced with clear Church teaching, that makes the cop out.

The issue at hand is this: the Holy Spirit is for everyone, the grace of Pentecost is for everyone, everyone are called to live lives of extraordinary holiness, and something essential in that is the charismatic dimension of the faith. This has everything to do with this thread.

I have read St. Faustina, and sections of Story of a Soul. I have also read St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Augustine, St. Francis de Sales, St. John Chrysostom, St. Josemaria Escriva, and a good deal more. If you consider this no theological understanding in the tradition of the Church, so be it. I think we are in different Churches.

It is rather you who are rooted in pre-Christian tradition. Before Christ, not all were called to be saints, and not everyone could experience the grace of God in a direct manner - even amongst the Jews, and certainly not amongst the uncircumcised. After Christ, this was now for everyone. This is evident in Peter’s speech at Pentecost.

If you deny this, then you deny the “Catholic” Church. I think at heart you do not deny this, but rather are filled with a lot of misunderstandings and confused terms. But if you truly deny the universal call to holiness, then you undermine all that is Catholic.

Universal call to holiness, yes
Universal call to be saints, no.
Simples.

As for the rest getting called a heretic by a someone who probably isnt even a heretic because he lacks the theological knowledge in order to be blameworthy of being a heretic.

 

[jmj1984]

Imprudent perhaps, but you have not proven that they are heretical. So you simply avoid the question. Were they heretical? What was taught on the retreat that was heretical? You have not provided any evidence of heretics. Simply calling me blind won’t win any arguments. Maybe I am blind. Would you care to enlighten me? Show me the heresy that was taught.

Pentecostalism, thats what.

 

[jmj1984]

Bare assertion. You are not even bothering to contradict us now, simply to call us absurd, ignorant, blind and dishonest. Perhaps we are, but that doesn’t prove you right.

Because you can’t deal with facts or contradictions, you just ignore and rave.

 

[Melchior_1]

Pentecostalism, thats what.

This is a long thread, so it may have been covered, but how about you give some examples of this.

I still haven’t heard a satisfactory response about how this movement can be so very wrong, yet our current Pope wrote the forward of a book called “Renewal and the Powers of Darkness” back in 1983?

 

[vardaquinn]

This is a long thread, so it may have been covered, but how about you give some examples of this.

I still haven’t heard a satisfactory response about how this movement can be so very wrong, yet our current Pope wrote the forward of a book called “Renewal and the Powers of Darkness” back in 1983?

Yeah, in which he says:

“…** to those responsible for the ecclesiastical ministry - from parish priests to bishops - not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully**; and on the other (hand) … to the members of the Renewal to cherish and maintain their link with the whole Church and with the charisms of their pastors.”

I mean… he’s telling priest and bishops to welcome the Renewal fully. Plus, all he and Bl. John Paul II and Paul VI said… Maybe it’s not infallible teaching, but if my personal opinion about something happens to be the same as the personal opinion of the last three Popes, I think we’re in pretty good shape…

Universal call to holiness, yes
Universal call to be saints, no.

We should examine the origins of the word “saint”. Early 12c., from O.Fr. seinte, altering O.E. sanct, both from L. sanctus “holy, consecrated”. Notice St. Paul writes his letters to the “saints” or to the “holy ones” in various cities. Holiness = sanctity. That means, if we’re called to be holy, we’re called to be saints. Obviously you have a different idea of the word saint. If you mean simply a canonized person, then fine. We don’t have a universal call to be saints, in that not all of us will be canonized. Though all of us should lead lives of such holiness that we very well could be candidates for the process.