Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

I think you are right, at least in your case, jmj. Since you have rejected all the confirmations of the movement I mentioned in my last popes, and the normal instruction to the movement by the successors of Peter, I don’t really think there is any source that can be provided that you can accept.

I am glad that you are able to admit that your perception about “the pre-occupation with tongues” is just your deduction. I do see something very different when I read the account.

Curious…no mention or “pre-occupation” with tongues here…

Gee…no mention of tongues here either…

Gee…no mention of tongues here either…

Which one of these is the “heterodox instruction” you were talking about?

How are any of these not “orthodox practices”?

No mention of “pre-occupation with tongues” here either. Hmmm.

I notice that Catholics renew their baptismal vows during liturgy. Do you think doing so outside of liturgy is inappropriate?

No mention of tongues here either.

Any tongues here?

No?

It may be that this “pre-occupation” is in the eye of the beholder?

I have actually quoted the quote in its entirity not relied on sandwiching my opinion amongst individudal snippets as you have. Aside from calumnies I’m not really sure what the point of this post, there clearly was pre-occupation with seeking the ‘gifts’ of pentecost according to pentecostal i.e heretical beliefs as demonstrated by the reading material and theme of the retreat.

 

[jmj1984]

I agree. Anyone can be in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and have “an experience”. Fortunately, just like everything else, we can discern these “experiences” by submitting them to the authority of the Church, which was later done, and has continued to be done. they can be validated. We can also look at the fruit of the Spirit that has emanated from the lives of those present over the last 40 years.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you had one too many nightcaps?

The Church says that non-Catholics are not necessarily heretics, and that the HS works through Protestant ecclesial communities to bring souls to Himself.

Yes. elements of Truth does not equate to “equal footing”. But their nature, these ecclesial communties are deficient, and are lacking the marks of the True Church.

Not by any means, Denise. Perhaps I did not express myself well. What I am trying to say is that the HS is not bound by the visible boundaries of the One Church.

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

All I am saying is that the work of the HS is valid, whether it happens in these ecclesial communties, or inside the visible boundaries of the CC.

Maybe you can help me understand how you see that the statement presumes this. I don’t see that in what I said, or in the Catechism. The fact that the Spirit moves, and that this movement is valid says nothing about who is qualified to judge this. The Catholic Church has judged that the HS validly works among people not visibly Catholic.

Individuals, whether Catholic or not, do not have the authority to make judgements about which movements are valid, and which are not. This is why we look to our bishops, and in particular, the successor of Peter.

Another load of calumnies and insults, how surprising

Your argument is… ‘the movement must be good because I say its produced good fruits’ Your argument has been refuted both by St Thomas Aquinas and St Vincent Ferrer, which you haven’t dealt with.

 

[jmj1984]

All these threads can be distilled into the following:

Is the movement heretical? If yes, then we have three Popes and several documents in error. We have the Papal Preacher in error. We have hundreds of thousands of Catholics being led into heresy, including our current Pope. One could say the gates of Hell are prevailing.

I will address the latter statement, its hardly something new. The church has experienced similar problems in the times of St Athansius, St Benedict, St Dominic and St Francis, St Vincent Ferrer, St Louis de montfort etc…

These crisis are not new.

Is the movement something to be embraced? If yes, then we have something which leads hundreds of thousands closer to the Sacraments and Christ Jesus. We have Popes and Cardinals who fully endorse the movement and those who practice it. We have Societies of Apostolic Life being formed around this movement.

Or it’s simply benign, which means it falls under

Which one of these is it? HINT;
*
At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms - which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit - is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.*

Should probably give you an answer.

This is all just your opinion and does not deal with the problematic origins of the movement or its practices.

 

[Melchior_1]

I will address the latter statement, its hardly something new. The church has experienced similar problems in the times of St Athansius, St Benedict, St Dominic and St Francis, St Vincent Ferrer, St Louis de montfort etc…

Several of whom displayed charismatic gifts. Brother JR was talked about Francis’ gifts on several occasions.

These crisis are not new.

Are you calling the charismatic renewal a crisis?

This is all just your opinion and does not deal with the problematic origins of the movement or its practices.

That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of our current Pope. And he’s pretty clear on his stance with this.

 

[jmj1984]

Several of whom displayed charismatic gifts. Brother JR was talked about Francis’ gifts on several occasions.

It does not surprise me that he had such gifts, but he was after all a saint and the order he founded did not encourage these ‘gifts’ in the way the charasmatic movement does. Attempting to draw support from him then is pointless.

Are you calling the charismatic renewal a crisis?

It is a result of the liturgical and theological crisis in the church and adds to it.

That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of our current Pope. And he’s pretty clear on his stance with this.

It rather is your opinion, it may also be The Holy Fathers, he may share that view, but that does not make it any less your view. When perhaps he issues an encyclical or some authoritative document on the subject I will believe it has papal approval until then it merely has the positive opinion of a pope which is not the same thing.

 

[Melchior_1]

It does not surprise me that he had such gifts, but he was after all a saint and the order he founded did not encourage these ‘gifts’ in the way the charasmatic movement does. Attempting to draw support from him then is pointless.

Ever hear of Steubinville University? Renowned school run by Franciscans. And very charismatic. Brother JR can most likely give further details about the Franciscans and charisms.

It is a result of the liturgical and theological crisis in the church and adds to it.

I see. That means our last two Popes aided, abetted, and encouraged this crisis in the faith.

It rather is your opinion, it may also be The Holy Fathers, he may share that view, but that does not make it any less your view. When perhaps he issues an encyclical or some authoritative document on the subject I will believe it has papal approval until then it merely has the positive opinion of a pope which is not the same thing.

You’ve been passing a lot of things off that aren’t encyclicals yourself, so does that mean that your points are merely “opinions that happen to be the same”?

 

[jmj1984]

Ever hear of Steubinville University? Renowned school run by Franciscans. And very charismatic. Brother JR can most likely give further details about the Franciscans and charisms.

And? We are here referring to the saint and the movement when it was founded not where some people 700 years later have taken part of the movement or interpreted the saints teachings.

I see. That means our last two Popes aided, abetted, and encouraged this crisis in the faith.

Not entirely what I was saying but hey ho

You’ve been passing a lot of things off that aren’t encyclicals yourself, so does that mean that your points are merely “opinions that happen to be the same”?

Firstly I reference a long list of things not just papal encyclicals so no idea where you got the idea from that I was only accepting those as authority And you appear to be completely missing the point so thats not much point continuing the discussion.

 

[Melchior_1]

And? We are here referring to the saint and the movement when it was founded not where some people 700 years later have taken part of the movement or interpreted the saints teachings.

Franciscans have been involved in charismatic type things for some time, even before the movement. Brother JR, an expert in Franciscan spirituality, has said this before.

You’re also discounting that a school the Vatican thinks highly of is charismatic. If it was something terrible they’d shut the school down.

Not entirely what I was saying but hey ho

You have called the movement heretical and have recently said it has aided the crisis within the Church. If someone endorses this, how else should we take it?

Firstly I reference a long list of things not just papal encyclicals so no idea where you got the idea from that I was only accepting those as authority And you appear to be completely missing the point so thats not much point continuing the discussion.

When presented with reasoned points, it’s much easier to say “you’re missing the point, no use talking”. I should try that some time.

 

[guanophore]

They weren’t very bright professors if they could not look to the rich tradition of the Church.

It is not necessary to insult the intelligence of others, just because they are lacking spiritual formation. During that periof of time, the nations Catholic universities had become so absorbed into Modernism is is a wonder that any of them have survived as Catholic at all. We can still see, by Notre Dame, giving a person who has the most pro abortion attitude ever to occupy the presidential office an honorary degree just how far they have slid into Modernism.

They were looking to the rich tradition of the Church. That is why they were making Acts of consecration to the HS, singing Veni Creator Spiritu, practicing the Sacramental life of the Church and frequenting the Blessed Sacrament Chapel.

Since the Renewal is the result of the prayers of recent Popes (in the last 100 years) there is no “rich tradition” for it. That is why the Holy Father called it “a New Pentecost”.

Instead they sought sources outside of the Fullness Of Truth.

They were seeking the movement of the Holy Spirit. He is the Fullness of Truth.

Why seek for something the Church never taught in the first place?

I can’t imagine why one would. However, you have to keep in mind that they were reading the book of Acts. Unlike certain persons on this thread, they considered the book of Acts inspired, inerrant, and infallibly applicable to our lives today. They had no reason to believe what they were reading “did not apply” to them, since the Church has always held and taught the Charisms described in the New Testament.

Where in the rich tradition of the Church is this “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” taught prior to the 1960’s?

The term is irrelevant, and for my money, should be jettisoned. The phenomena, though, of being filled (dipped/immersed) in the HS can be consistently followed through the life of the Church, beginning at Pentecost, until now. This was established by Christ. It is He who went to the Father, so that the HS could come to us.

Of course they received Baptism in the Holy Spirit "in an entirely different manner."
That’s because it did not exist in the Catholic Church prior to their introducing it in the 1960’s.

If this were true, then the New Testament needs to be thrown out. along with the writings of many of the saints and doctors of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I have explained the difference between ‘formal’ and ‘material’ heretic to you several times now, if you cannot grasp it perhaps you should leave the discussion. If you don’t like the term heretic you can likewise criticise all the saints up to the 20th century that have used the term as well as the 1962 missal and breviary

I have no arguement with the definition. It is not a term that is allowed here on CAF, and the way you are using it is contrary to the Teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The 1962 missal and beviary, while containing infallible material, are not infallible documents in themselves. The Church has the authority to promulgate teaching in this matter, and that teaching is currently found in the Catechism, which you are rejecting.

The rest of your post consist of the usual misquotes and calumnies and so isnt worth responding to.

LOL.

I am not surprised.

Well, that is ok, because I created that post for persons here who are open minded to the truth. In fact, I copied the entire article, and edited it down for space. Those are the actual words from the historical account. It is clear that your accusations do not have any merit.

There is no calumny in that post. There is a call for you to substantiate your baseless assertion that the people involved at the birth of the Renewal were engaged in heterodoxy and “fanatical obsession with tongues”. It is not worth a response from you because there is not response you can make. Your accusations are completely without merit.

 

[Denise1957]

I agree. Anyone can be in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and have “an experience”. Fortunately, just like everything else, we can discern these “experiences” by submitting them to the authority of the Church, which was later done, and has continued to be done. they can be validated. We can also look at the fruit of the Spirit that has emanated from the lives of those present over the last 40 years.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you had one too many nightcaps?

The Church says that non-Catholics are not necessarily heretics, and that the HS works through Protestant ecclesial communities to bring souls to Himself.

Yes. elements of Truth does not equate to “equal footing”. But their nature, these ecclesial communties are deficient, and are lacking the marks of the True Church.

Not by any means, Denise. Perhaps I did not express myself well. What I am trying to say is that the HS is not bound by the visible boundaries of the One Church.

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

All I am saying is that the work of the HS is valid, whether it happens in these ecclesial communties, or inside the visible boundaries of the CC.

Maybe you can help me understand how you see that the statement presumes this. I don’t see that in what I said, or in the Catechism. The fact that the Spirit moves, and that this movement is valid says nothing about who is qualified to judge this. The Catholic Church has judged that the HS validly works among people not visibly Catholic.

Individuals, whether Catholic or not, do not have the authority to make judgements about which movements are valid, and which are not. This is why we look to our bishops, and in particular, the successor of Peter.

Quote from the above post:

“All I am saying is that the HS is valid, whether it happens in these ecclesial communities, or inside the visible boundaries of the CC.”

Guanophore, #819 that you provided from the catechism does not state that the Holy Ghost is valid in the non-Catholic communities; it says that they have elements of sanctification and truth. It also says that they have other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Notice that the catechism says, “elements.” I take this to mean that they do not have the fullness of truth, which you would probably agree with.

What the catechsim does not say is that we have to learn from these non-Catholic communities, or that Catholics or the Catholic Church should look for these “elements” to enrich or teach the Catholic Church, as the CCR folks seem to believe. If the Catholic Church truly has the fullness of faith, then there isn’t anything which the Church needs from the non-Catholic communities.

I think that there are many Catholics who have been drawn to CCR because they were not raised in a family that practiced the Catholic faith properly, or did not pratice it in a loving manner. I’m thinking that CCR is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

 

[guanophore]

Quote from the above post:

“All I am saying is that the HS is valid, whether it happens in these ecclesial communities, or inside the visible boundaries of the CC.”

Guanophore, #819 that you provided from the catechism does not state that the Holy Ghost is valid in the non-Catholic communities; it says that they have elements of sanctification and truth. It also says that they have other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Notice that the catechism says, “elements.” I take this to mean that they do not have the fullness of truth, which you would probably agree with.

Yes. The only validity to the graces and elements of sanctification in these ecclesial communities is because the Holy Spirit is active in producing them.

What the catechsim does not say is that we have to learn from these non-Catholic communities, or that Catholics or the Catholic Church should look for these “elements” to enrich or teach the Catholic Church, as the CCR folks seem to believe. If the Catholic Church truly has the fullness of faith, then there isn’t anything which the Church needs from the non-Catholic communities.

The charismatic gifts of Pentecost are the birthright of the Catholic Church. If other ecclesial communities enjoy them at all, it is because they came through and for the CC.

I think that there are many Catholics who have been drawn to CCR because they were not raised in a family that practiced the Catholic faith properly, or did not pratice it in a loving manner. I’m thinking that CCR is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

This is certainly true in my case.

I agree with Varda that there should not be a “need” for a Renewal. Since the gifts of Pentecost are a normal function of the Christian life, a “movement” should not be necessary.

 

[Denise1957]

Yes. The only validity to the graces and elements of sanctification in these ecclesial communities is because the Holy Spirit is active in producing them.



The charismatic gifts of Pentecost are the birthright of the Catholic Church. If other ecclesial communities enjoy them at all, it is because they came through and for the CC.

This is certainly true in my case.

I agree with Varda that there should not be a “need” for a Renewal. Since the gifts of Pentecost are a normal function of the Christian life, a “movement” should not be necessary.

A movement which was formed from annointing from non-Catholic communities is not necessary for the Church; however, it may be necessary for some individuals, in order to keep their faith, to participate in this movement. Perhaps this is why some popes have given personal assent to it, along with precautions, that are only sometimes adhered to.

 

[jmj1984]

Franciscans have been involved in charismatic type things for some time, even before the movement. Brother JR, an expert in Franciscan spirituality, has said this before.

You’re also discounting that a school the Vatican thinks highly of is charismatic. If it was something terrible they’d shut the school down.

You have called the movement heretical and have recently said it has aided the crisis within the Church. If someone endorses this, how else should we take it?

When presented with reasoned points, it’s much easier to say “you’re missing the point, no use talking”. I should try that some time.

They are not reasoned points, your argument is based on supposition and presumption, mine is based on cold hard facts and evidence. Of those types of argument yours is inherently more shaky, either present some authoritative evidence or leave the discussion.

All sorts of abuses go on throughout the church, movements and things are taught and said which are often wrong, sometimes merely erroneous and on occassion heretical, the fact that the Vatican does not act against this or even that some people approve of this self-evidently does not mean what these people say or do is right or Catholic. We establish that from the Magisterium not supposition and what is allowed to go on, which may not be known about, may be allowed to go on for some particular reason or may even be personally approved of but still wrong as has happened many times in the past.

 

[guanophore]

A movement which was formed from annointing from non-Catholic communities is not necessary for the Church;

I agree. I think this is why the HS chose to move on a group of Catholics who had been making prayers of devotion and consecration to the HS, were fresh from the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and were in a state of adoration before the Blessed sacrament. This event, not attended by any protestants, makes it clear that the HS is the one doing the anointing.

however, it may be necessary for some individuals, in order to keep their faith, to participate in this movement. Perhaps this is why some popes have given personal assent to it, along with precautions, that are only sometimes adhered to.

You make a good point. There are many charismatics that are unfamiliar with the magesterial instructions and those of the Popes. I see this as an area that requires more catechesis, and more obedience.

 

[jmj1984]

I have no arguement with the definition. It is not a term that is allowed here on CAF, and the way you are using it is contrary to the Teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The 1962 missal and beviary, while containing infallible material, are not infallible documents in themselves. The Church has the authority to promulgate teaching in this matter, and that teaching is currently found in the Catechism, which you are rejecting.

No its not, you don’t grasp the distinction between the types of heretic, thats not my problem thats yours. This is why it is pointless to get into discussions with people who have no knowledge of theology, their arguments are often bad and pointless because they simply can’t grasp the concepts necessary to have a discussion on the subject.

LOL.

I am not surprised.

Well, that is ok, because I created that post for persons here who are open minded to the truth. In fact, I copied the entire article, and edited it down for space. Those are the actual words from the historical account. It is clear that your accusations do not have any merit.

There is no calumny in that post. There is a call for you to substantiate your baseless assertion that the people involved at the birth of the Renewal were engaged in heterodoxy and “fanatical obsession with tongues”. It is not worth a response from you because there is not response you can make. Your accusations are completely without merit.

There is substantial calumny and insult as there is on almost every post you have written. Your running commentary on each individual part of the account is a clear attempt to confuse what actually happened with your view of what happened.

 

[jmj1984]

If this were true, then the New Testament needs to be thrown out. along with the writings of many of the saints and doctors of the Church.

Rubbish. None of them mention Baptism in the spirit as you do, stop engaging in dishonesty and accept the truth, the term DOESNT exist!

 

[jmj1984]

I agree. I think this is why the HS chose to move on a group of Catholics who had been making prayers of devotion and consecration to the HS, were fresh from the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and were in a state of adoration before the Blessed sacrament. This event, not attended by any protestants, makes it clear that the HS is the one doing the anointing.

Ability to discern spirits = non-existent.

 

[guanophore]

Rubbish. None of them mention Baptism in the spirit as you do, stop engaging in dishonesty and accept the truth, the term DOESNT exist!

I am not defending the term, jmj. Personally, I dont’ care for it either. I think it is misleading. However, the activity of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who are filled with the HS is clearly documented in the NT.

Ability to discern spirits = non-existent.

No, jmj, it does not. The lack of a person present to discern the spirits does not make any phenomena “non-existent”. The Holy Spirit moves authentically in Protestant eccseslical communities. There may be no one there able to discern this movement, but the HS is always calling people to Catholic unity. If you listen to any of the testimonies of Protestants who have come home to the Catholic faith, it is clear that many of them resisted the Catholic Church for a long time because they had been given misinformation about the faith. However, when they began to study, and be open to the work of the HS in drawing them, it became clear to them that they had been on a Journey Home long before they “discerned” what was happening.

 

[vardaquinn]

They weren’t very bright professors if they could not look to the rich tradition of the Church. Instead they sought sources outside of the Fullness Of Truth. Why seek for something the Church never taught in the first place? Where in the rich tradition of the Church is this “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” taught prior to the 1960’s?

Why then did Thomas Aquinas turn to Aristotle, Plato, and even Muslim authors in his endeavor to show the balance between faith and reason? Why did he sometimes even contradict previous saints writings (such as St. Anselm)? He was often criticized for this.

Why should someone study the writings of any non-Catholic? Like C.S. Lewis? Because simply because it is not written by a Catholic does not mean it isn’t true. In this way, the work belongs to the fullness of truth. No matter the source, as long as it is true then it’s true. To say otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy. One might argue that one is more likely to find truth from the writings of Catholics, which may be true. But plenty of Catholics write heretical statements as well.

Check out this, it’s short books.google.com/books?id=5K1e2kr3GGAC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=fanning+the+flame+kilian+mcdonnell&source=bl&ots=nh1ou_hkrj&sig=zpezPINHNssgbmgG2raf2mmMsrg&hl=en&ei=JDSLTpTeCuGtsAKh6pGsBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Examines the historical teaching of Baptism in the Holy Spirit from many Church fathers. Or check out their larger work, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, which examines it in more detail. You should find plenty of information there to demonstrate this is part of the traditional teaching of the church.