Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[vardaquinn]

1. The bishops are the successors to the Apostles in a special vocational way, but all of us are called to participate in their mission of evangelizing of the entire world. For this purpose (and others) we are given the sacrament of confirmation which, like Pentecost, instills us with gifts and graces and prepares us to meet this task. Your claims seriously diminish the role and necessity of the sacrament of confirmation. You are also claiming a shift in the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Remember, God is unchanging. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do not be led astray by all kinds of strange teaching. Stick to what was taught in Scripture and by the Apostles. This is part of why we call our Church “apostolic”. If we are not living in an apostolic age, then the Church has failed, and Jesus Christ was not God.

I can also see clear signs of an anti-evangelical mentality, a mentality that clearly has no place in Christianity. Just try and evangelize effectively on a regular basis without the charisms. Try it. You will either get no where, or be forced to conclude that they are necessary for evangelization as you see them manifested in your own life.

1. Bl. John XXIII called for a new Pentecost, for the Holy Spirit to renew in the Church His miracles as of a second Pentecost. After this, and on a CATHOLIC RETREAT the CCR was born. Simply because this happened among Protestant groups first should really be a cause of rejoicing.
2. I fail to see the point of your statement. Why on earth should you seek to claim that God no longer works in extraordinary ways with His people? What is at all good about that? You are putting God into your own box. God is not a tame lion. He does what He likes. He leaves people astonished. He is a God of shock and awe, of wonder. You don’t seem to be using much common sense in this area.
3. Any position or argument that is rooted in disagreeing with the opinions of Popes, bishops and high ranking Church officials is cause for great concern and serious reconsideration. Either most of the Magisterium is wrong (which is bad) or you’re wrong. So you have to prove, using official Church teaching, that the Popes and bishops are in error.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Do you agree with jmj that the Popes and Bishops are misguided, and supporting/tolerating heresy in the Church by giving approval to the CCR?

If you share his position that the Popes have fallen into error, do you think it was an error for John XXXIII to ask for an outpouring of the HS for a “New Pentecost”?

Just out of curiosity and speculation, if the Popes were actually acting in the best interest of the Church, and prayed for a “New Pentecost” do you think it is possible that God might positively answered such a prayer?

  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.

Indeed. At that time he was head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (the remodeled Inquisition office). It would have been his duty to root out and purge heresies from the Church.

  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?

No. Just ordinary pastoring authority given to the flock.

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.

Yes, there are many levels of authority. The fact that it is not an infallible proclamation, though, does not mean it is without any merit. He is making a very true statement about the music, as I am sure you will agree.

God has appointed over us shepherds to guide us. These statements are part of that guidance.

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?

I understand that the possibiliity exists.

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.

Do you not believe these are part of the birthright of the Church at Pentecost? Did you think they became someone elses’ property?

 This was never held by mainstream Catholicism throughout two millenia of Church history and you have not demonstrated thus far that this is untrue.

History demonstrates that these gifts have always been present and functioning in the Church. I will stipulate, though, that it has been rare.

  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.

Can you say some more about this? do you seek the CCR in disobedience to the Bishops and the Pope?

The fact that a movement is the occasion of much division or controversy does not equate to schism.

**

Portrait:
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)?**

Indeed he does. I see that certain charismatic catholics may create difficulties and dissentions, but the movement itself does not do this.

 

[guanophore]

... 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.

The CCR is not a wish to return to immaturity, but to passion for evangelism and service. When the Pope prayed for an outpouring of the HS as a New Pentecost, he was not wanting a return to infancy, but to purity, freedom from modernism, and a return to a level of commitment to the Church that we read about in the NT.

I disagree, I don’t think liberals want to return to the primitive Church. I think they want the Church to abandon her moral imperatives so they can live a life of license. the Catholic faith has never wavered from the practices of the primitive church, especially with regard to moral imperatives.

We do not need apostles today because we have the apostolic succession in the Holy See of St. Peter.

This is kinda strange to read, after you have just implied that the occupant of that See is encouraging heresy in the flock.

 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.

Would that this were true! As the modern world rapidly slips into Neo Paganism, the holy teaching that has been infallibly preserved in her by the HS is only espoused by a very small minority of those who call themselves Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Realistically the term ‘fanning the flames of the spirit’ merely means living in accordance with your baptismal promises,

You hit that nail on the head jmj! this is exactly what the CCR is. Most Catholics are baptized as infants, and are not aware of the promises made on their behalf by their parents and Godparents. Unfortunately, many of us were not well formed in the faith, and found ourselves in families that did not live out their baptismal promises, so we did not pick up on this by osmosis.

In the Latin Rite, Catechesis for Confirmation is supposed to prepare the candidates for taking responsibility for their own faith, for making the commitment to live out their baptismal promises. As a person who has served in several parishes on preparation teams for these youth, I can testify that most of the candidates unfortunately have no intention of living out the baptismal promises. I once had a group of 60 youth at a Confirmation retreat. There was so much opposition and arguement from some of the youth that we were unable to proceed with the material, so the team met for some quick strategizing. We invited those who were interested in getting it over with so they no longer had to be dragged to CCD classes to go to another room. We were left with 9 young people who were interested in living out their baptism.

it hardly needs ther term ‘fanning the flames of the spirit’ as if somehow the holy spirit needed to made more effective.

I am glad that you and all others on this Traditional area do not need this. Unfortunately, you are in the minority.

And it is not about making the Spirit more effective. It is about making ourselves more pliable to His will in our lives. It is we that need to become more effective, not Him! We are all in agreement here that the Sacrament is efficacious. That does not equate to the recipient living out the graces that have been conferred. That is why the Apostle writes the the young Bishop Timothy:

1 Tim 4:13-14
13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.

2 Tim 1:5-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

The gifts that have been conferred in Sacraments can be neglected, and need to be rekindled.

The consistent use of this bizzare terminology is what turns me decisively against the movement.

It is strange to hear a committed Catholic who has been well exposed to Scripture refer to terms used in Scripture as “bizarre terminology”.

Mark 1:7-8
. 8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:4-5
he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[ClayPots47]

A reading comprehension problem, you could just say a ‘mistake’ but then lack of charity is the hallmark of those who defend this bizzare movement.

Indyann didn’t say you had a reading comprehension problem, but rather you could be confused perhaps due to one. As for lack of charity, you and a few others posting on this thread are just such perfect examples of Christian Charity… NOT!!!

 

[guanophore]

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.

I know this is a struggle for some people, because they have pastors that are not interested in helping them with their spiritual formation. Some priests have not been given any instruction themselves on how to help the faithful to discern their spiritual gifts, so are put in a difficult position. This is one reason that the Holy Fathers commissioned persons to minister to the Laity, and the National Service Committee.

There is certainly nothing taught in the Renewal that does not support the authority of the apostolic succession. I think your point is valid about the anticlericalism among our separated brethren.

On the contrary, I think that there is more anticlericalism among our lukewarm dissident Catholics that want to call themselves “Catholic”, yet refuse the Teachings of the Church.

Notwithstanding CCR attempts to make personal endorsements of high-ranking Church officials into approbation by Holy Mother Church, such approbation is non-existent.

Clearly we are not being discouraged by those who God has appointed over us to shepherd us in the faith.

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.

Why would there be a need for such? Statements of that kind are made if people are in danger of falling away from the faith.

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.

I appreciate your charitable and eloquent position, even though I disagree with it.

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.

Yes, there can be no arguement about this. I think you will find, though, that persons involved in the CCR passionately attend to the reading of Scripture, prayers, and service both in and out of the Church. There may be some for whom it is just “emotionalism”, but when we talk about the gifts functioning as in the NT, it means activity!

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.

While I agree that the deceptions of the devil will result in the road to hell, I disagree that we are not congnizent of other sources of supernatural phenomena. I don’t think you will find more material anywhere on discernment of spirits, and recognizing the demonic than you will in the CCr.

 

[ClayPots47]

Which they got by copying the practices of heretics? Maybe they should have started saying the rosary or the crown of the blessed virgin mary or practicing the Sacred Heart Devotion or indeed any of the many, many approved and CATHOLIC devotions that the Church possesses. Why you would forsake this and follow the practice of heretics is beyond me

They did. Or isn’t ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ Catholic? They meditated on the Blessed Virgin Mary. They prayed before the Blessed Sacrament. They read scripture (First 4 chapters of Acts). What they didn’t do, was copy the practices of heretics, no matter how much you repeat the buzzword “heretic”. Vatican II never uses the word “heretic” in it’s DECREE ON ECUMENISM.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection…that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church

And pray tell me how do they judge whether they have this work in their lives? Oh thats right by having the gifts

No. By discernment. The CCR has never taught that one must have the gifts/charisms as a sign. They judge by the fruits, which help too discern the spirits.

A prayer meeting between catholics and heretics that lasted for several days and during which catholics were prayed over by non-catholics and taught non-catholic dogma? Yes I’m pretty sure thats forbidden.

Why do you continue to twist the facts from Patty Mansfield’s story. The professors attended a prayer meeting. No where in the account was it ever stated that it lasted several days. Also, you might want to read the DECREE ON ECUMENISM.

On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren.

Pentecost and the charisms are part of our common heritage.

Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church./

They weren’t taught non-catholic dogma, they were introduced to the charisms, which are truly christian, and not contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith. They were certainly a help to the edification of both the professors who attended the Chapel Hill prayer group meetings, and later the students on retreat.

In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”.(

Nothing in this document forbids praying with the protestants, in fact such prayer is not only allowed, it is encouraged. None of the professors, nor any of the students, left the RCC and joined the protestants. And the protestants were from mainline church’s. not fringe Pentecostal groups. The accounts mention two Anglicans and one Presbyterian. The mainline church’s are not only close to the RCC, they have a valid Baptism. They therefore have received the graces of Baptism as we have. Finally, the bishop of Pittsburgh (John Wright) gave his support very early on. He attended Vatican II and contributed towards the DECREE ON ECUMENISM. Most likely knowing this, the professors exclaimed, “What is the Bishop going to say when he hears that all these kids have been baptized in the Holy Spirit!” The fledgling movement had the support of Bishop Wright, which allowed it to grow and spread. If what the professors had done was forbidden, would the bishop have allowed the students on retreat, and others attending the events that followed, to take place in his diocese?

 

[Grace_Angel]

Funny. Every charismatic event I have ever been to was full of ecstatic uttrences, speaking in tongues, attempts at prophesy, which were generally fairly humorous and attempted healings. If and if these things didnt occur there was definite disappointment among the members and a renewed sense of purpose to correct this at the first available opportunity. After all, how could they be ignored?

Opus Dei has certainly been problematic in many ways over the years in many ways, as has the Catholic Workers Movement. Knights of Columbus are a different kettle of fish entirely being primarily a fraternal society.

I suppose that you are saying then that the CCR does not encourage or permit participation in non Catholic charismatic events. Is that correct?

Mike according to you, are there any movements within the Catholic church which meet with approval? Does the Holy Father meet with your approval. he too must be wrong because he met with the leaders of the Renewal of several weeks ago.
What is your problem because you definitely have one with charisms in the church,
Who needs outside enemies?

 

[ltwin]

I am confused. How can any Catholic subscribe to cessationism? Protestants were using that argument to beat the Catholic Church over the head long before Pentecostalism emerged.

 

[guanophore]

I am confused. How can any Catholic subscribe to cessationism? Protestants were using that argument to beat the Catholic Church over the head long before Pentecostalism emerged.

When you read the thread, you will find writings posted by some theologians and doctors of the Church who has not personally seen the Charisms, and therefore, thought they had ceased. Curiously, these writings don’t have any more authority than the statements of the current Popes, yet they are considered to have more value.

 

[jmj1984]

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.

Have you read the rest of the thread? You know the bit where I showed all the authorities that clearly condemned the practices of the movement? Oh thats right, you did but failed to understand what they were saying.

In all charity Vardaquin, meditate on what it means to be charitable meditate long and hard, so that next time you use the word you’ll know what it means

 

[jmj1984]

You hit that nail on the head jmj! this is exactly what the CCR is. Most Catholics are baptized as infants, and are not aware of the promises made on their behalf by their parents and Godparents. Unfortunately, many of us were not well formed in the faith, and found ourselves in families that did not live out their baptismal promises, so we did not pick up on this by osmosis.

Indeed, I was not even baptised being born into an evangelical family. **BUT I found my way by the grace of God, the intercession of Our Lady, St Joseph, My guardian angel and my name saint, I found my way to more orthodox practices such as devotion to the blessed sacrament, to the sacred heart, the rosary and so on… I did not run off to some pseudo-catholic movement born out of the protestant heresy from which I had come. **

In the Latin Rite, Catechesis for Confirmation is supposed to prepare the candidates for taking responsibility for their own faith, for making the commitment to live out their baptismal promises. As a person who has served in several parishes on preparation teams for these youth, I can testify that most of the candidates unfortunately have no intention of living out the baptismal promises. I once had a group of 60 youth at a Confirmation retreat. There was so much opposition and arguement from some of the youth that we were unable to proceed with the material, so the team met for some quick strategizing. We invited those who were interested in getting it over with so they no longer had to be dragged to CCD classes to go to another room. We were left with 9 young people who were interested in living out their baptism.

This is indeed a shame, but I do not see how this had anything to do with the charasmatic movement

I am glad that you and all others on this Traditional area do not need this. Unfortunately, you are in the minority.

We ALL need the help of the grace of God, but there are many orthodox and undeniably catholic and venerable practices and devotions to help us acquire and increase our faith. We do not need a pseudo-catholic movement to do this as I will say time and time again.

And it is not about making the Spirit more effective. It is about making ourselves more pliable to His will in our lives. It is we that need to become more effective, not Him! We are all in agreement here that the Sacrament is efficacious. That does not equate to the recipient living out the graces that have been conferred. That is why the Apostle writes the the young Bishop Timothy:

1 Tim 4:13-14
13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.

2 Tim 1:5-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

The gifts that have been conferred in Sacraments can be neglected, and need to be rekindled.

I agree that we need to become more responsive to Gods will but I will not speak of gifts as the church does not but of graces, sanctifying grace can lose effectiveness only through sin and its effectiveness can only be restored through confession and the mass not through 'baptism of the spirit’

It is strange to hear a committed Catholic who has been well exposed to Scripture refer to terms used in Scripture as “bizarre terminology”.

Mark 1:7-8
. 8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:4-5
he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

It is bizzare because the term has been interpreted to mean confirmation and thus we use the word confirmation, confirmation IS baptism with the spirit and thus there is no further baptism of the spirit nor is it legitimate to use the word in this way.

 

[vardaquinn]

I am confused. How can any Catholic subscribe to cessationism? Protestants were using that argument to beat the Catholic Church over the head long before Pentecostalism emerged.

No joke. I don’t get it. I mean, WHY would you want to claim that? No more miracles, yay!

 

[vardaquinn]

Have you read the rest of the thread? You know the bit where I showed all the authorities that clearly condemned the practices of the movement? Oh thats right, you did but failed to understand what they were saying.

I did read the whole rest of the thread, and you have not provided any infallible authority condemning the practices of the movement, and all of your arguments were straw mans misunderstanding both our position and the position of the people you were quoting.

I conclude that you have no substantial Church teaching to back up your position.

 

[jmj1984]

I did read the whole rest of the thread, and you have not provided any infallible authority condemning the practices of the movement, and all of your arguments were straw mans misunderstanding both our position and the position of the people you were quoting.

I conclude that you have no substantial Church teaching to back up your position.

And I conclude that you can’t understand the meaning of church documents presented to you and so because of this I like denise will have to place you outwith the bounds of this discussion and simply ignore you.

 

[vardaquinn]

And I conclude that you can’t understand the meaning of church documents presented to you and so because of this I like denise will have to place you outwith the bounds of this discussion and simply ignore you.

What church documents? A writing on mystical theology by St. Vincent Ferrer which doesn’t even contradict what we’re saying is not a Church document. Quotes from the Summa, which also don’t contradict what we’re saying, are not Church documents. The only Church documents you’ve provided were information on dealings with non-Catholics, which - though an important aspect of this discussion, is not the main matter we’ve been dealing with (and again, we’ve debated whether or not the founders of the Renewal were actually in disobedience of these, so it’s certainly not an absolute crystal clear breach of Church discipline).

You don’t have anything to back up your argument.

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Thankyou again for your lengthy responses and for discussing this topic without rancour.

Unfortunately your understanding of the charismata is coloured by your own presuppositions and your zealous devotion to the cause of the CCR. The fact is that our Church did adopt a ceasasionist position until very recent times and that this is correct is taught in the highly respected Baltimore Catechism. Moreover, prior to the birth of the CCR multitudes of Catholics practiced their faith adequately without the aid of the extraordinary endowments and attained to high degrees of holiness. Now it does seem that the faithful had to wait an awfully long time for the CCR to finally arrive and that so many devout souls were severely impoverished because they did not have these extraordinary gifts which you and others believe are indispensable to the healthy life of the Church. This simply does not have the ring of truth and sounds more akin to Protestant argumentation about the ‘rediscovery’ of long neglected truths and a return to vibrant N.T. Christianity.

However, to return to the Baltimore Catechism, this is what it states in relation to the sign gifts:

"Q. 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?

A. These signs are not continued everywhere at the present time, because now that the Church is fully established and its divine character and power proved in other ways, such signs are no longer necessary".

This only confirms what was generally believed by the Church throughout two millenia and also explains why so many Traditional Catholics remain opposed to the CCR and its unsound claims and irreverent practices. The Baltimore Catechism provides the answer as to why the sign gifts ceased in Holy Mother Church and those who appreciate the nature and purpose of such gifts - “the signs of a true apostle” - undestand this perfectly well.

No one is denying for one moment that miracles have occured throughout the noble history of our Church and, indeed, continue to occur. However, that is an entirely different matter to contending that the charismata of the early days of Christianity are the the possession of the Church in the 21st century. Now that is a “silly theory”, old chap, because it woefully fails to distinguish between things that essentially differ, namely, the unique extraordinary sign gifts and miracles.

Contrary to your defective reasoning, it is a logical deduction that these *sign *gifts did in fact cease towards the end of the apostolic period and such a deduction is correctly reflected in the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism - a sure and sound teaching norm if ever there was one.

Will respond to the remainder of your posts in due course.

God bless you, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[guanophore]

 Indeed, I was not even baptised being born into an evangelical family. **BUT I found my way by the grace of God, the intercession of Our Lady, St Joseph, My guardian angel and my name saint, I found my way to more orthodox practices such as devotion to the blessed sacrament, to the sacred heart, the rosary and so on.. I did not run off to some pseudo-catholic movement born out of the protestant heresy from which I had come. **

Good for you, jmj! May God richly bless your devotion and faithful practice.

This is indeed a shame, but I do not see how this had anything to do with the charasmatic movement

The charismatic renewal has been a great gift of grace to persons such as these, to bring them into the practices of orthodoxy and devotion that you enjoy.

We ALL need the help of the grace of God, but there are many orthodox and undeniably catholic and venerable practices and devotions to help us acquire and increase our faith. We do not need a pseudo-catholic movement to do this as I will say time and time again.

You can say it, and indeed, you don’t seem to need it, and that’s great. But there are some people that have not been able to discover what you did, and are able to discover it through the CCR. And, as I have pointed out, it was those undeniably Catholic and venerable practices from which it was born. You dont’ like to read those parts of the account in the Duquensne retreat, but they are there for those who are open to seeing them. There is a summary in post # 809.

I agree that we need to become more responsive to Gods will but I will not speak of gifts as the church does not but of graces

You yourself have posted extensively on the Church’s use ofthe term “gifts”, so this is disingenuous, don’t you think? You posted an excellent summary of the New Advent article a couple pages back, I think distinguishing between hierarchical and charismatic gifts. Yes, they are opportunities for grace, and to help us become sanctified.

sanctifying grace can lose effectiveness only through sin and its effectiveness can only be restored through confession and the mass not through 'baptism of the spirit’

You are just throwing out another strawman, jmj. The CCR teaches this. There has never been any assertion that fanning the flame of the Spirit placed in us at baptism replaces any of the Sacraments.

It is bizzare because the term has been interpreted to mean confirmation and thus we use the word confirmation, **confirmation IS baptism with the spirit** and thus there is no further baptism of the spirit nor is it legitimate to use the word in this way.

No one is using the term this way, jmj. I don’t know why you would interpret it this way. Perhaps this is just another strawman? You will certainly not find anything by the CCR saying this.

The term “baptism” means to dip or to immerse. The term “filled with” is also used. That is what happens to an open container that is dipped or immersed.

 

[vardaquinn]

The Baltimore Catechism, although generally an amazing resource for information, does not have the same level of authority as papal encyclicals, dogmatic constitutions, and the official catechism. It is not wholly wrong in that statement, in showing that the reason the sign gifts became less common was that the Church became more widespread. However, the teachings of encylicals, constitutions and the Catechism contradict that it, saying that whether or not the extraordinary gifts ceased, they are for today and are in use today. You simply contradict the reality: the extraordinary gifts are in use today.

 

[jmj1984]

Good for you, jmj! May God richly bless your devotion and faithful practice.

The charismatic renewal has been a great gift of grace to persons such as these, to bring them into the practices of orthodoxy and devotion that you enjoy.

You can say it, and indeed, you don’t seem to need it, and that’s great. But there are some people that have not been able to discover what you did, and are able to discover it through the CCR. And, as I have pointed out, it was those undeniably Catholic and venerable practices from which it was born. You dont’ like to read those parts of the account in the Duquensne retreat, but they are there for those who are open to seeing them. There is a summary in post # 809.

You yourself have posted extensively on the Church’s use ofthe term “gifts”, so this is disingenuous, don’t you think? You posted an excellent summary of the New Advent article a couple pages back, I think distinguishing between hierarchical and charismatic gifts. Yes, they are opportunities for grace, and to help us become sanctified.

You are just throwing out another strawman, jmj. The CCR teaches this. There has never been any assertion that fanning the flame of the Spirit placed in us at baptism replaces any of the Sacraments.

No one is using the term this way, jmj. I don’t know why you would interpret it this way. Perhaps this is just another strawman? You will certainly not find anything by the CCR saying this.

The term “baptism” means to dip or to immerse. The term “filled with” is also used. That is what happens to an open container that is dipped or immersed.

I never use strawmen. But no matter how you put it the point is that there was no need for the CCR and there is no need for it, there are plenty of completely orthodox and catholic devotions. Those founding the CCR did so not out of necessity but out of desire and founded the movement on the shaky sound of a heretical protestant sect.