Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

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.

No, it is neither of these two things, but is something important in Christian initiation and necessary for the fullness of the Christian life. This doesn’t come from a heretical sect, it comes from Catholic tradition. See this 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

 

[guanophore]

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.

No presumptions about you were made, jmj. You seem awfully defensive. On the contrary, I am affirming your objection to the language of “Baptism in the Spirit”. I am not wrong, because the majority of Catholics are baptized as infants. It is during baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, and the potential for all the gifts is written into our hearts.

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.

There is nothing heretical about the term, and no effort is being made by Catholics to separate water baptism from it’s mystical elements. That is why it is not the best terminology. We are all in agreement that the infusion of sanctifying grace, and the supernatural gifts and virtues that emanate from that grace, are sealed in us at baptism.
jmj1984;8432642:

**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.**

Would you not agree that most confirmed persons do not become “perfect Christians”?

Catholic Charismatics are not claiming that something is conferred that was not previously. It is more a matter of an individuals’ disposition toward what was received in the Sacraments. One can receive the gifts of the HS, and yet nto walk according to their grace.

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.

You are objecting to a term, and I will affirm your objection for the reasons you have given.

Fanning the flame of the Spirit, though, is not something that comes from a false or heretical sect. It is necessary for those who do not understand what has occurred in the sacrament. That is why the instruction course is called “Life in the Spirit Seminar”. It teaches participants how to live according to the grace they have already received.

 

[Denise1957]

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

This is a concise and charitable assessment.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think you have a lack of understanding about the CCR. I do agree that Protestant Pentecostals and evangelicals do have a prejudice against clericalism and formalism (especially ritual), but this is not espoused or promoted by the CCR. If you are willing to look at any of the documents produced by the Renewal, they don’t contain any ideas of this kind.
On the contrary, participants are urged to submit to and support their clerics (deacons, priests, and bishops). Although there may be individuals involved that depart from this orthodox position, it is not because that is what is taught.

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".

I am curious to know what your assessment is of the Popes and Bishops who have supported the charismata as valid.

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.

Normally, one would consider this a “good fruit”. Are not faithful Catholics more preferred than lukewarm Catholics?

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.

True. Do you think that the Popes and Bishops have fallen into supporting heresy, as they did in the time of Arius?

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’.

Is it so impossible to believe that this might be the work of the HS?

 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.

I don’t think this is problematic to the CCR. In fact, I don’t see any conflict at all. Charismatic Catholics need to be catechized and spiritually formed so that they understand and appreciate the spirituality of their Traditional siblings. Many Charismatics have no exposure to contempletive spirituality, and don’t understand that something which is silent/quiet and formal can be just as “on fire” as loud and excited praise. I think this lack of spiritual perspective is as much cultural as anything else. It is very hard for modern people of any spiritual pursuasion to appreciate silence as the road to spiritual depth.

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.

What would be convincing?

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 position is contrary to the Scriptures and the Teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

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 Scriptures also say that the HS (along with His gifts) will remain with the Church until the end of the age. That means the Church will be sustained by the Gifts of the Holy Spirit until He comes again.

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.

I think it is the Church that gets to decide how the Scriptures relate to the normative life of the Catholic in the 21st. century. The Church teaches that the gifts of the HS are normative for Catholics.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

By the way, here is an interesting article on authority and lay movements.

 

[jmj1984]

No, it is neither of these two things, but is something important in Christian initiation and necessary for the fullness of the Christian life. This doesn’t come from a heretical sect, it comes from Catholic tradition. See this 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

Yes it does and No it doesnt. There are only two things in the catholic faith that increase sanctifying grace, that are necessary, the sacrament of baptism and that of confirmation. There is no baptism in the spirit

 

[vardaquinn]

Yes it does and No it doesnt. There are only two things in the catholic faith that increase sanctifying grace, that are necessary, the sacrament of baptism and that of confirmation. There is no baptism in the spirit

Well all the sacraments impart sanctifying grace, but we’re not claiming that that’s what this does. You’re just flatting refusing to believe that we believe something different than what you believe we believe about baptism in the Holy Spirit. There is a baptism in the Spirit, though perhaps we should use a different term for it. How about “baptism and confirmation unleashed” or maybe even “renewal in the spirit”. The terminology does make for confusing misconceptions. But remember, even the current Pope and the bishops are on board with this and are using that terminology.

“Today I would like to extend the invitation to all:* let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.” Pope Benedict XVI

"In the Sacraments of Initiation we experience the action of the Triune God. As regards the Third Person of the Trinity, in Baptism we become temples of the Holy Spirit; in Eucharist we share in the Body and Blood of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit; in Confirmation we are empowered with the gifts and charisms of the Spirit to be witnesses for Jesus Christ. In this statement, we want not only to affirm the good fruit of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal but also the grace which is at the heart of this Renewal, namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit, or the fuller release of the Holy Spirit, as some would prefer.

As experienced in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal baptism in the Holy Spirit makes Jesus Christ known and loved as Lord and Savior, establishes or reestablishes an immediacy of relationship with all those persons of the Trinity, and through inner transformation affects the whole of the Christian’s life. There is new life and a new conscious awareness of God’s power and presence. It is a grace experience which touches every dimension of the Church’s life: worship, preaching, teaching, ministry, evangelism, prayer and spirituality, service and community. Because of this, it is our conviction that baptism in the Holy Spirit, understood as the reawakening in Christian experience of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit given in Christian initiation, and manifested in a broad range of charisms, including those closely associated with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, is part of the normal Christian life.". USCCB “Grace for the New Springtime”.

You can assert all you like that this is less than authoritative (though of course it has some authority, it simply not guaranteed of infallibility), but that is merely a cop out to ignore what your Pope and your bishops are saying about this. If the Popes and bishops are wrong, show how they are wrong. Do not simply say “they are wrong because in this case there is a possibility of them being wrong”.

 

[jmj1984]

No presumptions about you were made, jmj. You seem awfully defensive. On the contrary, I am affirming your objection to the language of “Baptism in the Spirit”. I am not wrong, because the majority of Catholics are baptized as infants. It is during baptism, whether as an infant or an adult, that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, and the potential for all the gifts is written into our hearts.

You are wrong because you presumed again and then made an argument based on a false presumption.

There is nothing heretical about the term, and no effort is being made by Catholics to separate water baptism from it’s mystical elements. That is why it is not the best terminology. We are all in agreement that the infusion of sanctifying grace, and the supernatural gifts and virtues that emanate from that grace, are sealed in us at baptism.

I disagree, the term inherently attempts to seperate water baptism from its mystical elements, therefore whether catholics attempt to do this or not doesn’t change this fact, nor am I convinced that there aren’t some catholics who do try to seperate the two things. The fact that it is the only term after 50 years and no other one that has been thought up should tell you something.

Would you not agree that most confirmed persons do not become “perfect Christians”?

None of us are until we’re dead and in heaven. Seeking to conform yourself to the will of God and imitate the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the immaculate heart of Mary does not require some nonsensical experience called ‘Baptism of the spirit’.

Catholic Charismatics are not claiming that something is conferred that was not previously. It is more a matter of an individuals’ disposition toward what was received in the Sacraments. One can receive the gifts of the HS, and yet nto walk according to their grace.

This is total nonsense, as long as the sacrament wasn’t received in a state of mortal sin there is no ‘unlocking’ to be done, no further experience is required. What one must to do is quite simply conform yourself to Gods will, this is a simple fact of Catholic life and does not need to be mixed with several heterodox ideas under the term ‘Baptism in the spirit’

You are objecting to a term, and I will affirm your objection for the reasons you have given.

I’m glad.

Fanning the flame of the Spirit, though, is not something that comes from a false or heretical sect. It is necessary for those who do not understand what has occurred in the sacrament. That is why the instruction course is called “Life in the Spirit Seminar”. It teaches participants how to live according to the grace they have already received.

There is no fanning the flame of the Spirit, what you mean quite simply is that people should live Good Catholic lives people don’t need a charasmatic course or some nonsensical experience called ‘Baptism in the Spirit’ to do this. They need to frequent the sacraments especially the Mass and penance, pray, follow the precepts of the church and its law especially as regards fasting, seek spiritual direction and read edifying books.

 

[jmj1984]

Well all the sacraments impart sanctifying grace, but we’re not claiming that that’s what this does. You’re just flatting refusing to believe that we believe something different than what you believe we believe about baptism in the Holy Spirit. There is a baptism in the Spirit, though perhaps we should use a different term for it. How about “baptism and confirmation unleashed” or maybe even “renewal in the spirit”. The terminology does make for confusing misconceptions. But remember, even the current Pope and the bishops are on board with this and are using that terminology.

“Today I would like to extend the invitation to all:* let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.” Pope Benedict XVI

"In the Sacraments of Initiation we experience the action of the Triune God. As regards the Third Person of the Trinity, in Baptism we become temples of the Holy Spirit; in Eucharist we share in the Body and Blood of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit; in Confirmation we are empowered with the gifts and charisms of the Spirit to be witnesses for Jesus Christ. In this statement, we want not only to affirm the good fruit of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal but also the grace which is at the heart of this Renewal, namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit, or the fuller release of the Holy Spirit, as some would prefer.

As experienced in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal baptism in the Holy Spirit makes Jesus Christ known and loved as Lord and Savior, establishes or reestablishes an immediacy of relationship with all those persons of the Trinity, and through inner transformation affects the whole of the Christian’s life. There is new life and a new conscious awareness of God’s power and presence. It is a grace experience which touches every dimension of the Church’s life: worship, preaching, teaching, ministry, evangelism, prayer and spirituality, service and community. Because of this, it is our conviction that baptism in the Holy Spirit, understood as the reawakening in Christian experience of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit given in Christian initiation, and manifested in a broad range of charisms, including those closely associated with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, is part of the normal Christian life.". USCCB “Grace for the New Springtime”.

You can assert all you like that this is less than authoritative (though of course it has some authority, it simply not guaranteed of infallibility), but that is merely a cop out to ignore what your Pope and your bishops are saying about this. If the Popes and bishops are wrong, show how they are wrong. Do not simply say “they are wrong because in this case there is a possibility of them being wrong”.

No its not a cop out its a statement of fact, unlike you I understand the meaning of the word ‘Authority’ and the sources of it in the Catholic Faith. We have already been over this many, many times, there is no point continuing the discussion because you simply don’t understand basic catholic theology.

 

[vardaquinn]

No its not a cop out its a statement of fact, unlike you I understand the meaning of the word ‘Authority’ and the sources of it in the Catholic Faith. We have already been over this many, many times, there is no point continuing the discussion because you simply don’t understand basic catholic theology.

This is what the people in authority in the Church have to say on it. If you think it’s wrong, then show why it’s wrong. Simply because it is not spoken with infallible authority does not mean it is wrong. If that were the case, we should discount everything the Doctors and Fathers of the Church have said.

No, you are simply unable to answer the statements of your bishops and your Pope, and so you avoid that by saying “it’s not spoken with authority” and then making an ad hominem attack (logical fallacy) claiming I don’t understand theology.

Whether it’s spoken with Authority or not, you must admit at the very least that the opinion of the Pope and bishops on this matter is exactly our opinion, and if you think we are saying things gravely contrary to “basic Catholic theology”, then so are the Popes and bishops.

Let it not be said that we are the ones unloyal to the Pope and bishops. If we are in error here, so are the Popes and bishops.

 

[jmj1984]

This is what the people in authority in the Church have to say on it. If you think it’s wrong, then show why it’s wrong. Simply because it is not spoken with infallible authority does not mean it is wrong. If that were the case, we should discount everything the Doctors and Fathers of the Church have said.

No, you are simply unable to answer the statements of your bishops and your Pope, and so you avoid that by saying “it’s not spoken with authority” and then making an ad hominem attack (logical fallacy) claiming I don’t understand theology.

Whether it’s spoken with Authority or not, you must admit at the very least that the opinion of the Pope and bishops on this matter is exactly our opinion, and if you think we are saying things gravely contrary to “basic Catholic theology”, then so are the Popes and bishops.

Let it not be said that we are the ones unloyal to the Pope and bishops. If we are in error here, so are the Popes and bishops.

No that is not the case at all I am afraid.

There have been several cases in the past where popes opinions have been proven to be not only wrong but actually contrary to faith, such as in the case regarding the beatific vision.

You don’t understand basic theology as has been demonstrated multiple times on this thread, you have a myopic view of the church and appear to think that the multiple statements condemning the practices and beliefs of the moveemnt don’t apply just because later popes in a non-authoritative way said nice things about the movement.

If you are trying to claim that those who are not in the charasmatic movement are disloyal to the pope, I suggest you retract that claim before you are made into a total laughing stock for making such a ridicalous claim.

 

[Portrait]

This is a concise and charitable assessment.

Dear Denise1957,

Cordial greetings, dear sister and thankyou for your support. Have found your own contributions to the current thread interesting and I think that you make some jolly good points.

Warmest good wishes.

Portrait

Pax

 

[guanophore]

Yes it does and No it doesnt. There are only two things in the catholic faith that increase sanctifying grace, that are necessary, the sacrament of baptism and that of confirmation. There is no baptism in the spirit

I think this is just a semantics problem, jmj. Jesus specifically instructed the Apostles that they had been baptized in water, but that they would soon be baptised in the Holy Spirit. Since these are Jesus’ words, it seems that you are contradicting HIm when you make such statements. The Apostles taught that to be born from above by water and Spirit means that we are baptized both in water, and in Spirit. The “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is part of what takes place during water baptism, they are not separated from one another.

That is also why it is not the best choice of terms to apply in the CCR, because it does not well describe Catholic theology. Whereas protestants have become separated from the Apostolic faith, and many don’t understand the sacramental nature of baptism, Catholics believe that “baptism in the spirit” occurs with water baptism.

For the CCR, it is a matter of fanning into flame the gifts that were sealed into us during those sacraments, as infants for most of us, and as adults such as you were when you were received into the Catholic faith.

 

[jmj1984]

I think this is just a semantics problem, jmj. Jesus specifically instructed the Apostles that they had been baptized in water, but that they would soon be baptised in the Holy Spirit. Since these are Jesus’ words, it seems that you are contradicting HIm when you make such statements. The Apostles taught that to be born from above by water and Spirit means that we are baptized both in water, and in Spirit. The “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is part of what takes place during water baptism, they are not separated from one another.

That is also why it is not the best choice of terms to apply in the CCR, because it does not well describe Catholic theology. Whereas protestants have become separated from the Apostolic faith, and many don’t understand the sacramental nature of baptism, Catholics believe that “baptism in the spirit” occurs with water baptism.

For the CCR, it is a matter of fanning into flame the gifts that were sealed into us during those sacraments, as infants for most of us, and as adults such as you were when you were received into the Catholic faith.

Words that are used by the church to refer to confirmation NOT some nonsensical thing called ‘Baptism of the Spirit’ This clearly expounded in any catechism and forms part of basic catholic theology.

 

[guanophore]

Words that are used by the church to refer to confirmation NOT some nonsensical thing called ‘Baptism of the Spirit’ This clearly expounded in any catechism and forms part of basic catholic theology.

Yes, of course. This is the custom of the Church. When the Church talks about the sacraments of intitiation, baptism in the Spirit is encompassed within those sacraments. Jesus told the Apostles “you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and with fire” prior to the onset of Christian baptism, which began on the day of Pentecost. Since that time, it has been understood that to be baptized into Christ is to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. This is why I say it is a matter of semantics. It is an important matter, for the reason you have given. Our separated brethren have strayed from the Apostolic Teaching about Sacraments, and do not understand that the HS has been joined with the water. Since the Reformation, they have drifted further and further away from a sacramental understanding of grace. It is better, in my opinion, for the CCR to use a different term to talk about fanning the flame of the grace of one’s sacrament, so as to avoid misconceptions such as they have embraced.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. vardaquinn

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Thankyou for your charitable response.

The CCR has assimilated Protestant Pentecostalism and given it an unusual Catholic variation or twist, but it remains, notwithstanding, Pentecostalism, albeit in another guise. This being the case, it is surely wishful thinking on the part of the CCR to argue that they are a bona fide Catholic movement. Traditionalist Catholics are shut in to their position on the gifts of the Holy Spirit by the consistent teaching of nearly two millenia, which has always taught that the extra-ordinary gifts belonged to the foundation of the Church and the early days of Christianity. Moreover, some rare exceptions to this do not unseat the uniform teaching of Holy Mother Church and therefore carry no weight whatsoever.

With respect to your Cardinal Ratzinger quote, this has no official authority for the Catholic faithful, since he was he was not even Pope when he made the statement. Are you of the opinion that this statement forms part of the extraordinary magisterium to which all Catholics must submit their wills and be obedient to? If so, then we have a problem because the Holy Father, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, once excoriated rock music as a symptom of contemporary Western cultural decline, as indeed it is, and refered to it as “the expression of the elemental passions”. Now if I bring this quote up in a debate on the evil of rock music, I am frequently told that it is devoid of any authority because it was made by the Pope when he was Cardinal Ratizinger and is merely him expressing his private opinion - ditto with his statement regarding the CCR. In any event, as my fellow poster jmj1984 has observed, even the opinions of Popes have been demonstrated not only to be erroneous but also at variance with the true faith. Why should this not be the case with the CCR?

On the contrary, I think it has been established that the CCR is unorthodox as a movement because it asserts that the extraordinary endowments are the property of the Church today. This was never held by mainstream Catholicism throughout two millenia of Church history and you have not demonstrated thus far that this is untrue.

True, the SSPX is currently in a state of schism, but the Holy Father who you cite as approving of the Renewal, is desirous to bring them back into the fold. Moreover, whilst the CCR may not be in schism it most decidedly is schismatic and has been the occasion of much division in contemporary Catholicism, which is jolly odd, to say the very least, if it is a genuine movement of God’s Holy Spirit in our times. Does not St. Paul exhort us to “take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom.16: 17)?

Our Church did indeed begin in the first century, but it also evolved and did not remain in a state of infancy; the foundation could only be laid but once and the “signs of a true apostle” would gradually come to an end once the Church was firmly planted in the world. Those evidences are still to be read in Sacred Scripture and continue to witness powerfully to the divine origin of our most holy religion, but to want to return to the Church life of those early day’s is immature - a little like a grown man wanting to return to the days of his childhood. Moreover, it is a common liberal tendency to express dissatisfaction with the current Chruch scene and desire to return to the practices of the primitive Church.

We do not need apostles today because we have the apostolic succession in the Holy See of St. Peter. The Church is now firmly estabilshed and has promulgated its holy teaching on faith and morals to the four quarters of the globe and continues to be faithful to the missionary mandate of its founder, Jesus Christ. The everlasting Gospel no longer needs to be authenticated by miracles etc. since the Church has now achieved moral universality.

The CCR is fundamentally un-Catholic and irreconcilable with two millenia of Catholic teaching and when it is weighed in the balances it found seriously wanting.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jmj1984]

Yes, of course. This is the custom of the Church. When the Church talks about the sacraments of intitiation, baptism in the Spirit is encompassed within those sacraments. Jesus told the Apostles “you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and with fire” prior to the onset of Christian baptism, which began on the day of Pentecost. Since that time, it has been understood that to be baptized into Christ is to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. This is why I say it is a matter of semantics. It is an important matter, for the reason you have given. Our separated brethren have strayed from the Apostolic Teaching about Sacraments, and do not understand that the HS has been joined with the water. Since the Reformation, they have drifted further and further away from a sacramental understanding of grace. It is better, in my opinion, for the CCR to use a different term to talk about fanning the flame of the grace of one’s sacrament, so as to avoid misconceptions such as they have embraced.

Realistically the term ‘fanning the flames of the spirit’ merely means living in accordance with your baptismal promises, it hardly needs ther term ‘fanning the flames of the spirit’ as if somehow the holy spirit needed to made more effective. The consistent use of this bizzare terminology is what turns me decisively against the movement.

 

[Portrait]

I think you have a lack of understanding about the CCR. I do agree that Protestant Pentecostals and evangelicals do have a prejudice against clericalism and formalism (especially ritual), but this is not espoused or promoted by the CCR. If you are willing to look at any of the documents produced by the Renewal, they don’t contain any ideas of this kind.
On the contrary, participants are urged to submit to and support their clerics (deacons, priests, and bishops). Although there may be individuals involved that depart from this orthodox position, it is not because that is what is taught./
I am curious to know what your assessment is of the Popes and Bishops who have supported the charismata as valid.

Dear guanaphore,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou, dear friend, for your charitable response to my post.

May I just say first that I respect your’s and vardaquinn’s zeal and love of our most holy faith, which is a welcome and refreshing change from the nominalism that is so prevalent nowaday’s. BTW, my first contact with the Christian faith was through Protestant Pentecostalism (Elim) and I owe my conversion to our Lord to the simple faithful witness of a pentecostal gentleman who told me the old, old story and ‘led me to Christ’. Those times were very precious to me and I remember singing those rousing ditties and the long sermons etc.; I truly did feel very close to Jesus in those far off day’s and was very sincere and earnest in my new found faith. However, I began listening to the ‘Radio Bible Class’ (Richard De Hann and Paul Van Gorder) who were dispensationalists who took the ceassationist position as regards the extraordinary gifts. It was not long before I myself became convinced of this position and became a Baptist, before joining the Church of England and remaining there for 25 years until I crossed the Tiber to Rome in 2009. Even as a Catholic I have seen no good reason to revise my opinion as regards Pentecostalism and whilst I recognise that those in the CCR have a zeal for our Lord it is not according to knowledge.

It is encouraging to hear that most members submit and support the clergy and that they are not anti-clericalism, perhaps this is failing of Protestant Pentecostalism only.

As regards the wide support and approval of the CCR by the Popes and bishops, I have already dealt with that point in my response to vardaquinn above. Notwithstanding CCR attempts to make personal endorsements of high-ranking Church officials into approbation by Holy Mother Church, such approbation is non-existent. Whilst Popes Paul VI and JPII received charismatic brethren many times in audience and spoken of them in their addresses many times, nontheless, no official pronouncement has actually been made respecting the CCR. If you or vardaquinn would contest this, then can you adduce evidence that refutes this please. Charismatics, in common with liberal Catholics, have a tendency to ascribe ‘creeping infallibilty’ to *unofficial *papal prouncements in their favour as much as they disregard authoritative condemnations of other liberal practices and beliefs.

What is certainly true is that there is no dearth of charismatic adherents at any level of the hierarchy or clergy. Deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have been and continue to be great enthusiasts for the charismatic cause, if not actual members themselves of the Renewal. Have already previously given (see # 852) some explanation as to why I believe this has happened, I can only remark further, that men supposedly well-tutored in the sacred sciences should be duped by such sensational and utterly groundless beliefs and practices is a great reproach to this supeficial age in which our lot is cast.

Yes, we want earnest and devout Catholics, but earnest and devout Catholics who are rooted and firmly grounded in the truth and consistent teaching of the Church. A zeal not according to knowledge is mere emotionalism that will not see men through their darkest hours; it is a zeal that will ultimately disappoint as the endless quest for thrills and exciting experiences becomes stale.

With all the good will that one can muster, it demands a great deal of credulity to believe that the CCR is a vital work of God in our day. One of the most glaringly dangerous underlying assumptions of the CCR is that today’s manifestations which resemble the true charismata of the N.T. indeed are the genuine charismata simply by virtue of this resemblance. Then you have another assumption, namely that the Holy Spirit is the author of the current phenomena simply by virtue of the fact that he was the author of the charismata 2000 years ago. To their own peril and to that of the entire Church, the Renewal completely discounts even the possibility that these extraordinary phenomena (which Catholic charismatics are seeking normalize) could be deceptions of the Devil, who has no objection to people praying in the short term if he is more likely to take them to eternal Hell in the end.

Let us be perfectly honest, the CCR sits very comfortably with the spirit of the age which is noisy, superficial and arrogantly self-assertive as opposed to the spirit of Catholicism which is given to adoration, silence and contemplation.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[vardaquinn]

No that is not the case at all I am afraid.

There have been several cases in the past where popes opinions have been proven to be not only wrong but actually contrary to faith, such as in the case regarding the beatific vision.

You don’t understand basic theology as has been demonstrated multiple times on this thread, you have a myopic view of the church and appear to think that the multiple statements condemning the practices and beliefs of the moveemnt don’t apply just because later popes in a non-authoritative way said nice things about the movement.

If you are trying to claim that those who are not in the charasmatic movement are disloyal to the pope, I suggest you retract that claim before you are made into a total laughing stock for making such a ridicalous claim.

1. Calling my view of theology “myopic” is simply a bare assertion. Whatever. Maybe it is. But you’re simply avoiding addressing what I’m saying. I can just as easily say the same of yours. Does merely saying it prove that it is? No. Enough of the bare assertions. It’s a logical fallacy. Right now, you are making no logical arguments.
2. Whether or not papal opinions can be wrong is ultimately irrelevant - are these opinions wrong? If yes, prove them wrong. Again, cop out.
3. I am claiming that anyone who thinks that the popes are simply flat out wrong in what they’ve expressed, authoritatively or no, are disloyal to the Pope. As you clearly do, since you are outright contradicting this statements and calling them openly heretical.

Cop out again. In all charity, jmj, either say something of substance backing up your claims or leave. Please stop avoiding the question, making bare assertions, and ad hominem attacks.

 

[vardaquinn]

I can only briefly address some of your points Portrait, I will try to address them further tomorrow or whenever I have more time. I thank you for making them charitable.

1. You posit that the Church has constantly taught that all extra-ordinary manifestations ceased with the end of the so-called “apostolic age”. Now, already there are several problems here. a) logically you can’t prove such a statement. Universal negatives are impossible to prove. b) it contradicts the facts. Read the lives of the saints. Padre Pio alone should shatter your silly theory. Miracles have happened consistently all throughout church history. God is a God of miracles and wonders and signs. Surely you will admit this. The fact that many miracles, for instance miracles of healing, have been wrought in our day is proof alone that all manifestations did not cease. Your argument has no grounding in reality. c) now I will admit it became less widespread, for many reasons (which I have already dealt with, but you have ignored). This is not necessarily a good thing though, as was expressed by St. John Chrysostom. He saw the ceasing of the extra-ordinary manifestations to be a bad thing. Now, you go on from there to claim that since they ceased at the end of the so-called “apostolic age”, they are no longer meant to be in use and can never be in use. This has NEVER been taught by the Church, and such a claim requires very firm Church teaching.
2. Your claim is contrary to Church teaching.

“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.” (LG 12)

“One must not think, however, that this ordered or “organic” structure of the body of the Church contains only hierarchical elements and with them is complete; or, as an opposite opinion holds, that it is composed only of those who enjoy charismatic gifts - though members gifted with miraculous powers will never be lacking in the Church.” - Pius XII Mystici Corporis (here Pope Pius is clearly demonstrating the balance between the institutional and charismatic dimensions of the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ).

"Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world. " (CCC 799)

All of these statements clearly demonstrate that the extraordinary charisms are in use today. All of these statements are from official Church documents - all exercises of the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium.

Your statements also flatly contradict the Scripture, which claims that the manifestations of the Spirit (i.e. those charisms, extraordinary and ordinary) are given to ALL for upbuilding of the Church. All, not simply people living in an “apostolic age”. The Scripture also clearly tells us to seek to have an abundance of the gifts, emphasizing prophecy (an extraordinary gift).

Therefore, with the weight of infallible Church teaching, you are in clear error.

1. Your argument rests on a bare assertion. You are making a claim, and you must back up your claim with clear Church teaching. I agree you may have room to disagree with many of the statements on CCR from the Popes, cardinals, and bishops, but that alone does not prove your position. The Popes and bishops have offered us instructions on these matters, which may or may not be an exercise of infallibility or full authority, but should not simply be ignored for that reason. Again, you are claiming that a majority of bishops and popes are saying heretical things. This is a big claim to make, so back it up with firm Church teaching, not your own opinion. Given the choice between your personal opinion, and the Popes and bishops, you can bet I’m going to side with the Popes and bishops.
2. Nearly every statement on charisms in Church teaching mention that it is the duty of the Magisterium to discern the charisms as genuine or not. Many of the charisms of members in the renewal have been discerned by priests, bishops, and even popes as an exercise of their role to discern and nurture charisms. If you disagree with them, and think there can be no genuine extraordinary charisms today, then you are again contradicting the Magisterium.