The Traditionalists on this thread believe that those who are involved and support the CCR have embraced heresies.
You called the movement filled with heresies and deception. I am a participant of the movement that is apparently filled with heresies. That makes me a heretic. So despite not knowing me at all, you did call me a heretic.
No, Melchior, this is not accurate. The Catechism states that most persons who have embraced heresies cannot qualify for the term 'heretic". A heretic is a person who has been taught and accepted the Truth, then willfully rejects that Truth.
I think the biggest difference would be that Neo-Catholics believe the the post-councilor church is in some sort of “springtime” - for lack of a better word, and a traditional Catholic feels as if the church is in a very dark era. Indeed, there are far more differences and shades of grey, but my infraction list is already lengthy, and I don’t care to lengthen it today.
I don’t think anyone really thinks the Church is in a springtime (except people who don’t read the news, or who aren’t remotely orthodox), though I think the “Neo-Catholics” as you call them might be more likely to concede that one is on the horizon. Bl. John Paul II constantly called for and expressed his great hope that the 21st century would lead to a new springtime of the human spirit, and that divine providence occurs in history not merely in spite of seemingly horrible events, but even through them. Or, to use a popular turn of phrase, things get worse before they get better. The post-concilar Church is experiencing many turmoils, which, if the Church is indeed the true Church of Christ, are in some way even part of God’s divine providence.
Just playing devils advocate here but simply because Church leaders and influential people support and defend a movement is really kind of meaningless in and of itself… For example: The Arian heresy which dominated for decades included among its supporters,the family of the Roman Emperor, the nobility of the Roman Empire the bulk of upper level clergy,some allege at least one Pope,and huge numbers of local priests, bishops and laity throughout the empire. Some estimates put the number of it’s adherants at more than 75% of all Catholics at the time.
Ah, yes, and this is what is drawing so many protestants to the Catholic faith, this openess to God’s moving through His Holy Spirit in the Church. Don’t deny His moving. It may not be something you are comfortable with, fine. But He is present and moving, YES!
Ha! Because there have been so many conversions after the 1960’s haven’t there?
Its a known fact there was a marked drop off in conversions throughout the world after the 60’s, a decline the charasmatic movement hasn’t stopped nor has it stopped the decline of mass attendance. Protestants are drawn by the sacraments, not some quasi-sacramental nonsense called ‘Baptism in the spirit’ and certainly not by something thats identical to a movement they have in their own sects i.e the pentecostal movementWell, the number of people who left the Church in the postconciliar Church has been totally ridiculous, but there have and continue to be many many conversions, and the charismatic movement has definitely contributed to many conversions, changes of heart, and probably most of all a great renewal and strengthening of individuals’ faith and union with God (including my own). It’s also attracted LOADS of vocations to the priesthood (and religious life and diaconate) in many areas, which even Pope Benedict (speaking as Cardinal Ratzinger) noted from his own pastoral experience. I mean, whether you agree or not, the baptism in the Spirit is leading people back to the sacraments. I can tell you many stories from people I know and myself who have experienced the “baptism in the Spirit”, received things like the gift of tongues, and then turned their life around and started going to daily Mass as often as possible. The charismatic movement has helped to fight the decline of Mass attendance. Definitely. I am one example. I would of course go to Mass on Sundays, and sometimes during the week. After encountering the charismatic movement, and receiving the “baptism in the Spirit” I started going everyday. I also received the “baptism in the Spirit” sitting before the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle.Ha! Because there have been so many conversions after the 1960’s haven’t there?
Well, I’m not saying that automatically means it’s fully orthodox, but it’s certainly a good indication when a handful of vibrant leaders and “heavy hitters” in the Church today, all otherwise fully orthodox people, are either involved with it or give it such strong approval. Arianism is a pretty obvious heresy, whereas this clearly isn’t.
In retrospect we can say that Arianism is pretty obviously a heresy. However at the time it managed to fool hundreds of thousands maybe millions, for many years and draw them into it’s clutches. Who can say that in one or two hundred years the same thing doesn’t happen to the CCR?
Where did we get the idea that the FIrst Pentacost came when the first Christians were in adoration in front of the Blessed Sacrament? That is extremely interesting, what are the references.
If you will read the post, you will see that it is not referencing the first Pentecost, but the New Pentecost prayed for by Pope John XXIII. This fell upon Catholic laypersons gathered for a retreat at Duquesne University.
Well, you mentioned that a Pope supported this, and I’d want to see evidence of that. I don’t think that’s so.
Just to help Mike out a bit.
). And that was an actual order which is a big deal compared to CCR.Once again I see that my words aew twistwed by supporters of the movement. I never said a Pope supported it.I said that some people allege that in addition to the majority of the clergy at least one Pope supported it. That my friend is what I said.
Well, the Legionaries are a bit different. And the Popes were right to give them support, they were (and still are, though it seems they’re really falling apart) doing a lot of good things. And right, as you say, it’s an actual order. The CCR can almost not even be classified as a “movement” per se. It has no specific leaders, founders, structure… It’s a bit nebulous, which is good, because it’s not supposed to be its own entity. So yeah, I agree that at some point the CCR will have to go through reform. There needs to be much more done with it, it cannot simply exist as it is now. It’s purpose isn’t to be its own entity, and it needs to be absorbed into the structure of the Church.
I agree, but this is a problem more for individuals than the movement in general. When I first got involved with CR (not that I’ve really had much involvement, very little actually) I confused charisms with all miraculous activity of God and spiritual phenomena. Which is a huge mistake. This was due really to my own lack of knowledge of the subject. So I did go after seeking extraordinary consolations, spiritual phenomena, and gifts (to a certain extent).
No, absolutely not. They don’t need to be part of a CCR movement. It might help, depending on the person. The baptism and the spirit and the charisms are for everyone, but joining up with a charismatic group isn’t.
Yes, I know what you said, I’m sorry should have been more clear.
Well, to be fair, we do kind of get the same objections over and over and over.
Again, I’m not saying that they are automatically right. That would commit two logical fallacies - argument by authority, and argument by majority. But I am saying that it is a point in its favor. For instance. The majority of people in the world have always believed in some sort of a God. Does this prove that there is a God? No. But it is a point in favor of their argument for a God. So if a whole bunch of otherwise incredibly good and orthodox people in the Church support this movement, does that automatically mean it’s orthodox? No. But it is a point in its favor.
No, I didn’t think you thought the CCR was necessarily heretical, given many of your previous posts.