Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[At_Trent]

Thing is, if someone gets something out of this movement, fine. Coming closer to Christ is a good thing. But to promote it in the mist of those who don’t embrace it here in a subforum devoted to Traditional Catholicism is arrogant and rude.

It is in fact an attempt to put forth the idea that traditionalists are wrong or close minded for practicing Roman Catholicism. Such is of the Devil, not of the Holy Spirit.

 

[vardaquinn]

Thing is, if someone gets something out of this movement, fine. Coming closer to Christ is a good thing. But to promote it in the mist of those who don’t embrace it here in a subforum devoted to Traditional Catholicism is arrogant and rude.

It is in fact an attempt to put forth the idea that traditionalists are wrong or close minded for practicing Roman Catholicism. Such is of the Devil, not of the Holy Spirit.

But we believe that this is Traditional Catholicism, something essential to it. We seek to promote it amongst those who understand the importance of tradition, both divine and human. The fact that so many are against it, to me, merely demonstrates that they are not in fact traditional but modernistic.

If you want to be traditional, speak in tongues. That was the first thing the Catholic Church ever did. See Acts 2.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

Yes, but while they say things like “How could this not be a chance for the whole Church, and the world?” (Pope Paul VI). And calling the dimension of Christianity the movement promotes essential to the nature of the Church? Um, sure.

We did not receive our annointing from non-Catholic communities, but from the Church and from Christ Himself. We received the Holy Spirit not from Protestants but from Christ through His priests and bishops. Some Protestant communities have simply taught us important things about our own faith that we had forgotten, and been there to pray for us. I think this is a silly move for Protestants. Spirit-filled and empowered Catholics are a formidable force to combat with. Weak Catholics who don’t know Christ are easy prey, no?

 

[guanophore]

Thing is, if someone gets something out of this movement, fine. Coming closer to Christ is a good thing. But to promote it in the mist of those who don't embrace it here in a subforum devoted to Traditional Catholicism is arrogant and rude.

I hesitate to judge the motives of the OP, but I find it informative that the OP was abandoned by it’s author.

Earlier up the thread you will find a number of us objecting to the wording of the topic, which inappropriately implies a false dichotomy.

It is in fact an attempt to put forth the idea that traditionalists are wrong or close minded for practicing Roman Catholicism. Such is of the Devil, not of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t agree with this, since many of us in the Renewal are Tradtitionalist, however, I do agree that the implication that persons who are not involved in the Renewal or are not interested in charismatic gifts are wrong or deficient in faith somehow. That position is indeed erroneous an divisive, and has it’s source in the Father of Lies.

 

[vardaquinn]

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.

The early Fransiscans (and Dominicans) were extremely charismatic, and they did promote these gifts, though perhaps not in precisely the same manner. Because St. Francis was a saint should be a good indication that this is for everyone, as we have shown - sanctity is for everyone, not just some elite few.

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.

Well, I think I’m in pretty good shape if my opinion and the Pope’s opinion are the same. I’d think twice before contradicting the Pope, particularly the last two. They’re some of the most brilliant theologians in the history of the Church.

 

[At_Trent]

If you want to be traditional, speak in tongues. That was the first thing the Catholic Church ever did. See Acts 2.

Proved my point. You want your own definition of traditionalist and you want to impose it on others.

The Pentecost was a specific event that involved specific individuals.

 

[jmj1984]

The early Fransiscans (and Dominicans) were extremely charismatic, and they did promote these gifts, though perhaps not in precisely the same manner. Because St. Francis was a saint should be a good indication that this is for everyone, as we have shown - sanctity is for everyone, not just some elite few.

Just no. They had all of nothing to do with the marks of the movement, they certainly were not involved in ecumenicism, nor drawing inspiration from non-catholics, nor encouraging others to speak in tongues or prophecise. As for the sanctity for everyone argument, how you got that from St Francis is anyones guess

Well, I think I’m in pretty good shape if my opinion and the Pope’s opinion are the same. I’d think twice before contradicting the Pope, particularly the last two. They’re some of the most brilliant theologians in the history of the Church.

Only if you have an extremely myopic view of church history. The church has had far better theologians, any of the Doctors of the Church for example.

 

[At_Trent]

If you want to be traditional, speak in tongues.

And that is the issue I have with it all. That supposedly this is something that can be done at will. It’s like a manipulation of the supernatural, as those in the occult think they have the power to do,

 

[vardaquinn]

Just no. They had all of nothing to do with the marks of the movement, they certainly were not involved in ecumenicism, nor drawing inspiration from non-catholics, nor encouraging others to speak in tongues or prophecise. As for the sanctity for everyone argument, how you got that from St Francis is anyones guess

Talk to Brother JR

Proved my point. You want your own definition of traditionalist and you want to impose it on others.

The Pentecost was a specific event that involved specific individuals.

Of course. Just as you want to impose your own definition of traditionalist, no?

Pentecost was not merely ancient past history, an ancient event. It still continues, and it must touch every single person’s lives.

 

[vardaquinn]

And that is the issue I have with it all. That supposedly this is something that can be done at will. It’s like a manipulation of the supernatural, as those in the occult think they have the power to do,

No, but it requires our will to be involved with it. And I will bet you money the Holy Spirit won’t refuse the gift to you if you truly want it. Once you have received the gift, it can be done at will.

 

[jmj1984]

Talk to Brother JR

Thats not an answer. Unless someone is going to show me a factual account where this is shown, your claim is baseless

 

[At_Trent]

Of course. Just as you want to impose your own definition of traditionalist, no?

I’m not the one telling people here what they must do to be traditional. You did though. Do you deny it or admit it ?

 

[At_Trent]

It still continues, and it must touch every single person’s lives.

Sure it does. But we don’t have to re-enact it. We can, and do celebrate it.

It was a special event that was for the benefit of the apostles. Why can’t you enjoy whatever you get out of it and not try to convince others to do it ?

 

[vardaquinn]

I’m not the one telling people here what they must do to be traditional. You did though. Do you deny it or admit it ?

Yes, I am telling people here what they must do to be traditional. More importantly, I’m endeavoring to show how the charismatic dimension is as traditional as anything (and more traditional than many things), and if indeed one wants to be truly traditional, then I say one must also be charismatic. And aren’t you, by disagreeing with me, putting forth your own idea of what traditionalism is?

Sure it does. But we don’t have to re-enact it. We can, and do celebrate it.

And why shouldn’t we celebrate it in the same manner as the Apostles did? By proclaiming in tongues? I mean, why not? Why not speak in tongues? There is no good reason not to!

It was a special event that was for the benefit of the apostles. Why can’t you enjoy whatever you get out of it and not try to convince others to do it ?

For the benefit of all of us. Because I perceive it as my duty to help others in their faith, and when people generally are unaware of all that one can get out of it, I shall do my part to instruct them and show them that there is far more to get out of it than they realize.

 

[At_Trent]

For the benefit of all of us. Because I perceive it as my duty to help others in their faith, and when people generally are unaware of all that one can get out of it, I shall do my part to instruct them and show them that there is far more to get out of it than they realize.

To share and to con are two different things.

 

[guanophore]

We did not receive our annointing from non-Catholic communities, but from the Church and from Christ Himself. We received the Holy Spirit not from Protestants but from Christ through His priests and bishops.

I think this point needs more emphasis, and if the purpose and effects of the Sacraments are emphasized, our language will conform better to Catholic sensibilities. The Charismatic experience is nothing more than unwrapping and using the gifts that were given to us in the Sacraments of initiation.

It is understandible that people like jmj get their sensibilities offended by phrases like “baptism in the Holy Spirit”, since this most often happens to Catholics as infants.

I prefer St. Paul’s language to Timothy with regard to the grace conveyed through his ordination. “Fan into flame the gift that was given to you in the laying on of my hands”.

 

[Portrait]

But we believe that this is Traditional Catholicism, something essential to it. We seek to promote it amongst those who understand the importance of tradition, both divine and human. The fact that so many are against it, to me, merely demonstrates that they are not in fact traditional but modernistic.

If you want to be traditional, speak in tongues. That was the first thing the Catholic Church ever did. See Acts 2.

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well, dear friend.

The CCR is of alien growth within the Catholic Church and is essentially derivative, emerging as it does from the Pentecostalism of Protestant Fundamentalism. It generally revolts against any sort of Catholic traditionalism, which is regards as steeped in clericalism, formalism and a ‘dead orthodoxy’ - precisely what the Protestant Pentecostals believe respecting any form of traditional and reformed Protestantism.

Whilst some of us would freely admit that many of those in the CCR have a religious fervour and are orthodox as touching both faith and morals, we are, nevertheless, bound to say that they are seriously misguided and even, sadly, deluded as regards their bold claim to be in possession of the N.T. extra-ordinary charismata. One could say that they are sincere but, like the Fundamentalists, are sincerely wrong or, in the words of St. Paul, they have a zeal “but not according to knowledge”.

The CCR has gained popularity and indeed respect among the Catholic hierarchy because in times of wide-spread spiriitual declension, it has grown numerically in an astonishing fashion and its adherents are in earnest as regards their religious profession, which is not the norm in the Western Church of today where nominalism is prevalent. However, it is a grave error to equate the numerical strength of any movement with authentic orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism, as the example of Arianism most clearly evinces. When things are at very low ebb anything that shows some signs of life and enthusiasm is very likely to be warmly welcomed if that is what it takes to awaken the allegedly ‘formalistic’ and ‘lifeless’ Church out of its spiritual torpor. Indeed, this is why so many sang its praises within the Protestant communions, for Pentecostalism *appeared *to breathe new life into the Church and revive its fortunes; it really did seem like a return to the spiritual fervour of the primitive Church and ‘saints alive’ - men living out the Gospel in their daily lives and ‘moving in the gifts’.

However, what is problematic for the CCR is that Traditional Catholicism is also beginning to experience wide-spread numerical growth in many of its parishes, witness the increasing popularity of the SSPX and other traditional groupings. Now these firmly reject the claims of the CCR and most certainly do not believe it to be “something essential” to Traditional Catholicism. Indeed, they are among the very few who dare to denounce the CCR as not being consonant with authenic Catholicism. Moreover, they would decidedly believe that their parishes are very much ‘alive’ and would strenuously deny that what they have is nothing more than a dead and barren orthodoxy.

Speaking for myself, old chap, no, I most certainly am not ‘modernistic’. On the contrary, I am decidedly ultra-conservative with respect to faith and morals, yet I am pefectly happy to avoid the charismatic ways of our days as I remain unconvinced that it is a genuine movement of God’s Holy Spirit in our times.

They did indeed “speak with new tongues” in the early days of Christianity, but that was because the Church had yet to aquire a foothold in the world. Moreover, the apostolic proclamation of the then *new *Evangelion needed to be authenticated in a world where there werelord’s many. However, by the very nature of things this situation would not persist indefinetly and with the passing of the apostles the extra-ordinary gifts petered out and passed away, the Christian religion having been firmly planted within the world. This is what we are clearly told by the writer to the Hebrews who, just prior to the sacking of Jerusalem, said, looking back to the early days, “how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God, also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will” (Heb. 2: 3,4, emphasis mine). This is no mere literary device, but the straightforward prose of a man looking back in time to a historical situation that was simply no longer the norm in his day. The fundamental error with all Pentecostalism is that it attempts to make the narrative portions of the book of Acts normative for the Church of the 21st century, which is simply bad theology because it is essentially Fundamentalism and not authentic Traditional Catholicism.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[guanophore]

The Pentecost was a specific event that involved specific individuals.

Yes, it was that, but all one needs to do is read the liturgies and prayers through the season of Pentecost. The Church prays as she believes, and it is clear she believes that we all alike are expected to live the same Pentecostal grace as they did.

As for the sanctity for everyone argument, how you got that from St Francis is anyones guess

The fact that we are all called to be saints did not come from St. Francis, though he did emphasize this. The point Varda was trying to make is that the Charismatic gifts are part and parcel of his saintliness, as they should be for all of us.

And that is the issue I have with it all. That supposedly this is something that can be done at will. It’s like a manipulation of the supernatural, as those in the occult think they have the power to do,

The ability to speak with new tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is sealed within us at baptism. It takes an act of the will, assent of the intellect, and the yielding of one’s body for this gift to function.

I think it is the other way around. It is more a case of being manipulated by the supernatural. The Spirit prays through a person.

Sure it does. But we don’t have to re-enact it. We can, and do celebrate it.

Just as the Passover Lamb, the best way to celebrate it is through re-enactment. You are right, though, you don’t “have to”. But this is what the Holy Fathers were asking of God when they prayed for a New Pentecost.

It was a special event that was for the benefit of the apostles. Why can’t you enjoy whatever you get out of it and not try to convince others to do it ?

I imagine it is like anything else that a person is enthused about, and that works for them. They want to share it with others.

I think there is too much focus on tongue speaking, and that what we need is to be open to how the HS wants to work in our lives to help us toward heaven, and to serve the Church, and evangelize the world. I don’t here Traditionalists complaining that their Spiritual life is listless, so to me, it makes more sense to talk to those who don’t feel alive in the Spirit, and cannot answer the question “what is God doing in your life today”.

 

[jmj1984]

I think this point needs more emphasis, and if the purpose and effects of the Sacraments are emphasized, our language will conform better to Catholic sensibilities. The Charismatic experience is nothing more than unwrapping and using the gifts that were given to us in the Sacraments of initiation.

It is understandible that people like jmj get their sensibilities offended by phrases like “baptism in the Holy Spirit”, since this most often happens to Catholics as infants.

I prefer St. Paul’s language to Timothy with regard to the grace conveyed through his ordination. “Fan into flame the gift that was given to you in the laying on of my hands”.

Except of course I was baptised as an adult convert. So please don’t make anymore presumptions about me as almost all you’ve made so far have been wrong.

The phrase annoys me because it is heretical in trying to seperate baptism from some mystical ‘baptism in the spirit’, sanctifying grace is infused into our soul at baptism ‘**Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory. The doctrine on this subject is found in the seventh chapter on justification in the sixth session of the Council of Trent. Many of the Fathers of the Church also enlarge upon this subject (as St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and others), though not in the technical language of later ecclesiastical decrees. **’ and confirmation which increases this amount of sanctifying grace '**Confirmation imparts

an increase of sanctifying grace which makes the recipient a "perfect Christian";
a special sacramental grace consisting in the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost and notably in the strength and courage to confess boldly the name of Christ;
an indelible character by reason of which the sacrament cannot be received again by the same person.

A further consequence is the spiritual relationship which the person confirming and the sponsor contract with the recipient and with the recipient’s parents. This relationship constitutes a diriment impediment to marriage. It does not arise between the minister of the sacrament and the sponsor nor between the sponsors themselves. **’

I object to baptism of the spirit because it is neither of these two things and comes from a false and heretical sect which doesnt believe in the necessity of baptism or have any understanding of the sacraments.

 

[vardaquinn]

Hi Portrait. Dominus tecum!

The CCR is of alien growth within the Catholic Church and is essentially derivative, emerging as it does from the Pentecostalism of Protestant Fundamentalism. It generally revolts against any sort of Catholic traditionalism, which is regards as steeped in clericalism, formalism and a ‘dead orthodoxy’ - precisely what the Protestant Pentecostals believe respecting any form of traditional and reformed Protestantism.

We’ve already dealt with this. Though elements of it were inspired by Pentecostals, it is not of alien growth. It is a growth of Catholics, and at least all the charismatics that I know are totally orthodox and there is absolutely no revolt against tradition among them, except a revolt against wrong human traditions (like a closed-off mentality to the gifts of the Spirit).

Whilst some of us would freely admit that many of those in the CCR have a religious fervour and are orthodox as touching both faith and morals, we are, nevertheless, bound to say that they are seriously misguided and even, sadly, deluded as regards their bold claim to be in possession of the N.T. extra-ordinary charismata.

The Popes thought otherwise, saying: “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.” - Cardinal Ratzinger

And in any case, the Church teaches the extraordinary charisms are still for the Church today. "These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. "

If you think this is misguided, than the last two Popes are just as misguided as I am. They think the charismatic dimension (both the extraordinary gifts and the simply and widely diffused) are essential for the Church today.

However, it is a grave error to equate the numerical strength of any movement with authentic orthodoxy and Traditional Catholicism

Sure, but you haven’t established that we’re not authentically orthodox.

it really did seem like a return to the spiritual fervour of the primitive Church and ‘saints alive’ - men living out the Gospel in their daily lives and ‘moving in the gifts’.

Yeah, that’s what the Popes have said about it.

what is problematic for the CCR is that Traditional Catholicism is also beginning to experience wide-spread numerical growth in many of its parishes, witness the increasing popularity of the SSPX and other traditional groupings.

I think there’s a lot more evidence of “misguidedness” in the SSPX than in the CCR. At least we aren’t schismatic. I don’t see this as problematic, I support this. Traditional Catholicism is essential. However, many traditional Catholics just aren’t traditional. The Church began in 33 AD, not in the early 1900s or even in the glorious Middle Ages.

yet I am pefectly happy to avoid the charismatic ways of our days as I remain unconvinced that it is a genuine movement of God’s Holy Spirit in our times.

"

Then I must convince you.

However, by the very nature of things this situation would not persist indefinetly and with the passing of the apostles the extra-ordinary gifts petered out and passed away, the Christian religion having been firmly planted within the world.

Which people like St. John Chrysostom saw as a terrible thing, which is contrary to Church teaching, and which isn’t very sensible. Tell me, given the current state of affairs, would you call the Christian religion firmly planted within the world? Really?

The fundamental error with all Pentecostalism is that it attempts to make the narrative portions of the book of Acts normative for the Church of the 21st century, which is simply bad theology because it is essentially Fundamentalism and not authentic Traditional Catholicism.

Yes, this is exactly what we are doing. If we’re not living a New Testament Apostolic Christianity, we’re in the wrong Church. This is exactly what the Church is promoting as well. God knows we need more Apostles today.

I suppose we should ask the question - what is traditional Catholicism?