Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

1. It was not. And even it was, this does not automatically mean it is evil.

Actually it was '**In 1966, the discovery of Evangelical Pentecostal practice and teaching through the books of “The Cross and the Switchblade” and “They Speak With Other Tongues” was examined closely by four Catholic laity in the Eastern United States. Ralph Keifer and William Storey of the faculty of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and Steve Clark and Ralph Martin of the staff of an East Lansing, Michigan parish began to meet to discuss not only the fascinating aspects of Pentecostal power as the two books related them, but their own personal Catholic faith as well. They came to the conclusion that there was something direly needed in the life of the Church as well, and that it had to be an experience with the Holy Spirit – which would “fill the void left by human effort” (3) – that followed the direction of the radical new movement that was then beginning to take hold in mainline Protestant denominations, the charismatic movement. Certainly, the examples of the ministries of Protestant clergy like James Brown, David DuPlessis, and Dennis Bennett were in mind , as well as the compelling promise of a vitally defined and practiced faith.

In January 1967, Keifer and Stoney attended an interfaith prayer meeting where they requested prayer to receive the Holy Spirit. This weekend retreat was unlike any other Catholic retreat, however: religious experiences were openly shared and open prayer was made for this “baptism of the Holy Spirit” by the laying on of hands in prayer groups. Most of the individuals involved in these events left them profoundly changed by these “infillings of the Spirit” - the change in their lives and their own testimonies began to spread word of the happenings.** ’ spiritwatch.org/firecath.htm That story is then repeated on numerous other websites. And yes if something is done by those outside the church which the church itself does not do it can be assumed to be evil.

1. True in some places, sadly.

I’m glad you agree

1. This may be so, but define what you think “false ecumenism” is. Charismatics have made enormous progress, I would say more than anyone else, in bringing about unity. The gifts of the Spirit, according to the Church, are a powerful force of unity.

As Pope Pius XI said in Mortalium Animos ‘**But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?
**’

1. You obviously don’t accept Vatican II, in which case you can hardly accuse the charismatics of heresy. Read Lumen Gentium.

I reject certain interpretations of Vatican II and I do not entirely agree with everything it says, luckily as a pastoral and arguably not inflalible council I can do so. Besides the Pope has made it clear that criticial discussion of Vatican II is acceptable this being laid down in the statutes of the Institute of the Good Sheperd, a traditionalist group in good standing with The Holy See.

 

[jmj1984]

1. Absolutely not true in some places.

But very true in most places.

1. What?? They’re not “usurping the clergy”. They have their own ministries and roles and vocations distinct from the clergy. The laity aren’t just supposed to warm the pews and pay the bills by their donations in the collection basket, you know. Yeah, you really don’t accept Vatican II.

Read what I’ve said above on V II or what any number of traditionalists in good standing with the holy see have said. It is certainly not the the place of laity to be leading these meetings.

1. This an absolute bare assertion which you cannot possibly prove, and which I myself can disprove. I am a charismatic. I know many charismatics. All of them accept the reality of the cross. Many of them better than anyone else I know.

What else can we say about a movement that is based around the receving of extraordinary gifts, baptism in the spirit and so on. One never hears about suffering or humulity being the hallmarks of the movement.

1. Um… yeah, read the New Testament, how about. Jesus did quite a few of those. And asked the Apostles to. And they did.

You should have probably read my statement on antiquarinism before writing this. Regardless Jesus was jesus, lay people are neither Jesus nor acting in his place nor saints. And of course jesus never held healing services, people came to him, often when he wanted to be left in peace and on occassion he only healed them after they persistently asked him so lets not misrepresent the gospel

1. Well, Pope John Paul II doesn’t see that as a bad thing.

Antiquaranism has been condemned, the words of popes being equal, I prefer that of Pope Pius XII and numerous others to that of a Pope who in these matters has got things wrong. For example Assisi I and 2 which were universally condemned by traditionalist theologians and clergy and which the current pope could not attend in good conscience. Indeed both meetings remain so controversial that the current pope has had to distance Assisi III from either of the earlier meetings and asure people it would not be the same.

I’m seeing you bordering on heresy there, my friend.

Heresy is the obstinate denial of something De Fide, something as nothing the charasmatic movement does is supported by De Fide dogmas I cannot be a heretic.

 

[jmj1984]

You cited two Church doctors. And neither of them were relevant. Try again.

It really isn’t my problem if you can’t see how they’re relevant.

Seeing as they both condemn behaviour that is commonplace and indeed intrinsic to the charasmatic movement how you can say they’re not relevant is beyond me

Oh and for reference, the beliefs of saints also has significant authority, so passing off what the saints have written on the subject isn’t going to wash with me, nor is ignoring the words of a universally lauded theologians such as Msgr Knox.

 

[jmj1984]

Now I will quote the Doctors and Father’s of the Church, the Catechism, documents of the Church, and the Popes. For the hundreth time, in this thread alone.

“If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” - Justin Martyr

“For the prophetical gifts remain with us [Christians], even to the present time. And hence you [Jews] ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us” (Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 82 [A.D. 155]).

• St. Ireneus

For by your word you have both provided those things about which we
have been taught the least and strengthened us to bear up under the
sufferings which we are experiencing, being certain of the heavenly
reward, the martyrs’ crown, and the kingdom of God as a result of the
prophecy which you, being full of the Holy Spirit pledged to us in your
letter - Cyprian (250)

The prophetic charisms must exist in the church until the final coming. - Eusebius (father of Church history, 350 AD).

“so that all may more clearly recognize the talents with which God has enriched their souls, and then exercise the charismatic gifts which the Holy Spirit has conferred on them for the good of their sisters and brothers. Apostolicam actuositatem, # 30

They are to test the spirits to see whether they are of God, discern with a sense of faith the manifold gifts, [charismata multiformia] both exalted and ordinary, that the laity have, acknowledge them gladly and foster them with care.” Presbyterorum ordinis, #9

“Accordingly, by means of the Holy Spirit, Who distributes His gifts [charismata] as He wishes for the good of all, the Lord Christ stirs up a missionary vocation in the hearts of individuals…." Ad gentes, #23

The epistles of St. Paul, among other sources, tell us of charisms in the early Church. Vatican II recalls this teaching of the Apostle and applies it to the Church’s daily life. In the people of God, both the hierarchy and the laity share in charismatic gifts that enable them to perform ‘different works and offices’ for the good of mankind and of all Christians. Wojtla, Karol. Sources of Renewal The Implementation of Vatican II. 342-343.

See CCC paragraphs 799 to 801

See what I linked you to the Popes saying. See also vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920624en.html which is useful. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19940921en.html

St. Thomas Aquinas has a long chunk on charisms in his ST.

Useful, from the preacher to the papal household: catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/Cantalamessa/Cantalamessa_002.html a leader in the charismatic movement. The only one allowed to preach the Pope. He was handpicked by Bl. Pope John Paul II.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CHARS.HTM

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_01071998_en.html
From JP 2…

And not to mention THE SACRED SCRIPTURE. 1 Corinthinas 12-14. St. Paul says “to each given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (meaning those charisms he just mentioned in the last sentence). This is at the heart of Paul’s theology, his idea of the Mystical Body of Christ. In the Body, we all have our own roles and our own gifts from the Holy Spirit. These supplement each other and build up the Body of Christ.

So… if you don’t accept that the charismatic gifts are a normal part of the Church’s life, and you disagree with the Pope’s here, then you might try going off and founding your own Church. But that’s not how we do things here in the Catholic Church. If you don’t like it, you can leave.

Of all the attempts to misrepresent the charasmatic movement as some sort of Dogma this has to be the most amusing, the Charasmatic movement has no dogmatic or doctrinal approval. So no one has to leave because they don’t like, though judging by how little the movement has in common with catholic tradtion maybe they should leave instead.

So to support your view you have

1)A few quotes from the early church which serve no purpose but to show that these gifts existed in the early church something no one is disputing. What we are disputing is whether these gifts are needed today. Some of your quotes in fact prove nothing, no one says the church shouldnt have prophetic gifts because the church has always had mystics in every age but no one says we need people running around talking gibberish either
2) Quotes from Vatican II that don’t actually support your view but thats only because they translated it wrong and you know better Well who know you had better Latin than the Vatican
3)Several badly applied quotes from papal decrees and encyclicals which in fact also condemn the movement because the endemic failure to discern spirits is one of the hallmarks of the movement
4)Misinterpretations of scipture
5)The opinion not the teaching of a Pope
6) The Opinion of a Preacher

You claim the support of The Angelic Doctor but in fact have no such support, St Thomas doesnt understand tongues as speaking a language that no one can understand but speaking in many different tongues of man, a marked difference from the charasmatic definition. Nor does his section on ‘miracles’ help you, in fact there is no support from St Thomas Aquinas, The Angelic Doctor and Doctor of The Universal Church for any of your opinions.

 

[Warrenton]

There isn’t room for picking and choosing which pieces of Catholicism you will agree with and which you won’t.

With all respect, I could not disagree more. The ability to choose which parts we like or don’t like is the essence of Catholicism, and sets us apart from almost all other churches.

Catholics are free to pray the rosary daily, or not pray it at all. They are free to take communion every day, or only once a year. Free to fast a third of the year, or hardly at all. The creed states almost everything we are bound to believe, and even with there, there is room for conscience.

If I am skeptical of speaking in tongues, that’s my right. I can even harbor the feeling that it is not in keeping with the best Catholic traditions, just as eastern Catholics may harbor the feeling that the filioque is not quite right. What I cannot do is deny that the people who are engage in the practice within the boundaries set by episcopal authority are Catholic.

The function of the pope is not to dictate the consciences of the faithful. He is the pastor, but the pastor does not tell the sheep what to think. Mostly, the pastor tells them where not to go, and keeps the wolves at bay. Again, that is what makes us unique.

If we understand Catholic in its true sense - “universal” we will readily see that Charismatic Christians fall within the set of Christians generally. There are Catholics from the desert, Catholics from the jungle, Catholics from the frozen wastes, Catholics who pray in Latin and ones who don’t. Who would assert that conceptually, no Charismatic could ever be a Catholic?

The concept of Catholicity is, I think, the key to resolving the question the OP initially posed.

 

[Simpleton]

Actually it was 'In 1966, the discovery of Evangelical Pentecostal practice and teaching through the books of “The Cross and the Switchblade” and “They Speak With Other Tongues” was examined closely by four Catholic laity in the Eastern United States. Ralph Keifer and William Storey of the faculty of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and Steve Clark and Ralph Martin of the staff of an East Lansing, Michigan parish began to meet to discuss not only the fascinating aspects of Pentecostal power as the two books related them, but their own personal Catholic faith as well. They came to the conclusion that there was something direly needed in the life of the Church as well, and that it had to be an experience with the Holy Spirit – which would “fill the void left by human effort” (3) – that followed the direction of the radical new movement that was then beginning to take hold in mainline Protestant denominations, the charismatic movement. Certainly, the examples of the ministries of Protestant clergy like James Brown, David DuPlessis, and Dennis Bennett were in mind , as well as the compelling promise of a vitally defined and practiced faith.

Wow and Catholics dont find it disturbing that the CCR was inspired by Protestant Pentecostal liturature and not by any Catholic literature?

The other thing I find interesting is the excuse that these gifts are being used to build up the Church. Maybe someone can tell me why the Church hasn’t been built in 200o years or why the Holy Spirit would be trying to build up (with the same gifts) the Catholic Church and the Protestant Pentecostal Church at the same time?

 

[jmj1984]

Wow and Catholics dont find it disturbing that the CCR was inspired by Protestant Pentecostal liturature and not by any Catholic literature?

The other thing I find interesting is the excuse that these gifts are being used to build up the Church. Maybe someone can tell me why the Church hasn’t been built in 200o years or why the Holy Spirit would be trying to build up (with the same gifts) the Catholic Church and the Protestant Pentecostal Church at the same time?

A just question

 

[vardaquinn]

@ gaunaphore: I must thank you again for clarifying what I say in my posts for me!! I often put things rather poorly.

Wow and Catholics dont find it disturbing that the CCR was inspired by Protestant Pentecostal liturature and not by any Catholic literature?

The other thing I find interesting is the excuse that these gifts are being used to build up the Church. Maybe someone can tell me why the Church hasn’t been built in 200o years or why the Holy Spirit would be trying to build up (with the same gifts) the Catholic Church and the Protestant Pentecostal Church at the same time?

It was inspired also by Catholic literature. Like Lumen gentium, and not to mention obviously the Scripture.

You don’t understand how that works. Has everyone in the Catholic Church reached the highest degree of earthly perfection possible, automatically? Nope. Is everyone on earth on board with the Catholic Church? Nope. Until then, the Church needs building up. The Church is made up of members in need of sanctification.

 

[vardaquinn]

At Warrenton: I kind of see what you’re implying, but as far as matters of doctrine… Catholics with “options” are called Protestants. You don’t pick and choose your doctrine. You can pick and choose devotions, you can be called to different spiritualities (see the diversity of religious orders: Carmelites, Fransiscans, Dominicans, etc. all with different spiritualities). The Truth is objective, and unchanging. Either one thing is true, and part of Church teaching, or it isn’t. It can’t be both. Thus, there’s not really a lot of options. Either you believe the truth, or you don’t.

 

[vardaquinn]

Actually it has little to do with cafeteria catholicism and everything to do with looking at the tradition of the Catholic Church, within this tradition there is no supplier from the movement. Again when you speak of approval you refer to the popes addressing charasmatic meetings, no encyclical has been written on the matter and no definitive authoritative document on the subject exists. Of all the forms of authority a papal speech is the lowest. Further you exagerate there are not 20+ statements.

And no, when a movement has been condemned it is condemned both because of the movements doctrines and its actions, if another movement comes along espousing much the same doctrine and doing much the same things it is equally likely to be erroneous and false.

No, you’re picking and choosing what’s part of Catholic teaching and what’s not. That’s called cafeteria Catholicism. Like a buffet. You like some aspects, but not all. It doesn’t work that way, it’s called “voluntary doubt” From the Catechism:

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

There doesn’t need to be an encyclical on the matter.

There are. Would you look at the links we provide?

 

[vardaquinn]

I will condemn things he said in that book. They’re wrong. Yep. He argues through much of the book that “enthusiasm” is always associated with heresy, and looks rather poorly on it. Though he wavers a bit in the end. Enthusiasm itself is good. Look at the root word: en-theo (to be filled with God).

The movements are right in encouraging people to seek the gifts, and St. John of the Cross would agree. That’s necessary for them to work.

Nope, speaking in tongues is not in the same category of consolation. I’m usually extremely “dry” when I pray in tongues and feel nothing. It’s a specific gift for a purpose.

Is this merely a quote from a statement he made in Pentecost? Because I see no reference to the charasmatic movement in it at all, rather I see reference to sound Catholic Theology

So it’s sound Catholic Theology if the Pope says it, but sound heresy if the charismatics say it? Even if it’s the same thing?

Well, if “non-Catholic assemblies” meant getting together in dorm rooms and praying… and that’s sinful… However, it is allowed now. So it’s not a matter of faith and morals, merely discipline. So that’s a lower case t for tradition, not an upper case T. You obviously don’t understand that essential distinction.

 

[vardaquinn]

Actually it was 'In 1966, the discovery of Evangelical Pentecostal practice and teaching through the books of “The Cross and the Switchblade” and “They Speak With Other Tongues” was examined closely by four Catholic laity in the Eastern United States. Ralph Keifer and William Storey of the faculty of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and Steve Clark and Ralph Martin of the staff of an East Lansing, Michigan parish began to meet to discuss not only the fascinating aspects of Pentecostal power as the two books related them, but their own personal Catholic faith as well. They came to the conclusion that there was something direly needed in the life of the Church as well, and that it had to be an experience with the Holy Spirit – which would “fill the void left by human effort” (3) – that followed the direction of the radical new movement that was then beginning to take hold in mainline Protestant denominations, the charismatic movement. Certainly, the examples of the ministries of Protestant clergy like James Brown, David DuPlessis, and Dennis Bennett were in mind , as well as the compelling promise of a vitally defined and practiced faith.

In January 1967, Keifer and Stoney attended an interfaith prayer meeting where they requested prayer to receive the Holy Spirit. This weekend retreat was unlike any other Catholic retreat, however: religious experiences were openly shared and open prayer was made for this “baptism of the Holy Spirit” by the laying on of hands in prayer groups. Most of the individuals involved in these events left them profoundly changed by these “infillings of the Spirit” - the change in their lives and their own testimonies began to spread word of the happenings. ’ spiritwatch.org/firecath.htm That story is then repeated on numerous other websites. And yes if something is done by those outside the church which the church itself does not do it can be assumed to be evil.

I don’t see a problem with this…The Protestants simply are recalling aspects of our own teaching we’ve forgotten about. If you consider being filled with the presence and power of the Holy Spirit “evil”… you have other problems.

And yet, you consider it alright for you to disagree with the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, but not for charismatics?

 

[vardaquinn]

You should have probably read my statement on antiquarinism before writing this. Regardless Jesus was jesus, lay people are neither Jesus nor acting in his place nor saints. And of course jesus never held healing services, people came to him, often when he wanted to be left in peace and on occassion he only healed them after they persistently asked him so lets not misrepresent the gospel

And you see a problem with getting together and praying for healing? WHY? You seem to depict Jesus as a stingy miracle worker. He didn’t want to work miracles, just be left in peace and do His own thing. The omnipotent Holy One of Israel is not stingy, my friend. By any means. How many baskets were left over from the multiplication of the loaves and fishes?

 

[vardaquinn]

It really isn’t my problem if you can’t see how they’re relevant.

Seeing as they both condemn behaviour that is commonplace and indeed intrinsic to the charasmatic movement how you can say they’re not relevant is beyond me

Oh and for reference, the beliefs of saints also has significant authority, so passing off what the saints have written on the subject isn’t going to wash with me, nor is ignoring the words of a universally lauded theologians such as Msgr Knox.

Neither Augustine nor John of the Cross are condemning anything. Augustine is questioning why tongues isn’t commonplace at his time.

Knox is wrong if he thinks tongues is always a sign of diabolical possession. If that’s the case, Mary, the disciples of Christ, and the majority of the early Christians were all demonically possessed.

 

[justtryin]

At Warrenton: I kind of see what you’re implying, but as far as matters of doctrine… Catholics with “options” are called Protestants. You don’t pick and choose your doctrine. You can pick and choose devotions, you can be called to different spiritualities (see the diversity of religious orders: Carmelites, Fransiscans, Dominicans, etc. all with different spiritualities). The Truth is objective, and unchanging. Either one thing is true, and part of Church teaching, or it isn’t. It can’t be both. Thus, there’s not really a lot of options. Either you believe the truth, or you don’t.

I don’t see a problem with this…The Protestants simply are recalling aspects of our own teaching we’ve forgotten about. If you consider being filled with the presence and power of the Holy Spirit “evil”… you have other problems.

And yet, you consider it alright for you to disagree with the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, but not for charismatics?

How do you slam Catholics by acusing them of Protestant practices…Only to turn around and praise Protestant practices?

 

[vardaquinn]

Of all the attempts to misrepresent the charasmatic movement as some sort of Dogma this has to be the most amusing, the Charasmatic movement has no dogmatic or doctrinal approval. So no one has to leave because they don’t like, though judging by how little the movement has in common with catholic tradtion maybe they should leave instead.

So to support your view you have

1)A few quotes from the early church which serve no purpose but to show that these gifts existed in the early church something no one is disputing. What we are disputing is whether these gifts are needed today. Some of your quotes in fact prove nothing, no one says the church shouldnt have prophetic gifts because the church has always had mystics in every age but no one says we need people running around talking gibberish either
2) Quotes from Vatican II that don’t actually support your view but thats only because they translated it wrong and you know better Well who know you had better Latin than the Vatican
3)Several badly applied quotes from papal decrees and encyclicals which in fact also condemn the movement because the endemic failure to discern spirits is one of the hallmarks of the movement
4)Misinterpretations of scipture
5)The opinion not the teaching of a Pope
6) The Opinion of a Preacher

You claim the support of The Angelic Doctor but in fact have no such support, St Thomas doesnt understand tongues as speaking a language that no one can understand but speaking in many different tongues of man, a marked difference from the charasmatic definition. Nor does his section on ‘miracles’ help you, in fact there is no support from St Thomas Aquinas, The Angelic Doctor and Doctor of The Universal Church for any of your opinions.

You don’t understand what the charismatic movement is. The movement is there to provide a renewed focus on the charismatic dimension of Christianity, on the charisms, and on really living out the grace of Pentecost. There have been other movements throughout church history - scriptural movements, liturgical movements, etc. These are based OFF of Catholic doctrine, trying to bring important aspects of the Church back into focus.

1. You obviously have never seriously evangelized to anyone in your life, in which case you are not living the Christian faith. The gifts are absolutely needed. You can see what the Church is saying on that matter. They are needed today.
2. Check it out yourself. Sorry, it’s a mistranslation. All other translations I’ve seen have used that adverb - not only in English, but in many other languages.
3. There is not an endemic failure to discern spirits. Bare assertion and straw man. Take a logic class.
4. Bare assertion.
5. There’s enough there that is Church teaching. Like… the Catechism, and Church documents.
6. Who has high standing with the Pope, and the ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO PREACH TO HIM. If you think you’re a better theologian than Pope Benedict, who is probably one of the most brilliant of all time…

St. Thomas Aquinas says this:

“[St. Paul] rightly divides charismata; for some belong to the perfection of knowledge, as faith, the word of wisdom, and the word of science; some belong to the confirmation of doctrine, or the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits; some belong to the faculty of expression, as kinds of tongues and interpretation of speeches.” St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, Q. cxi, a. 4

That supports my opinion. But you know better of course than the Angelic Doctor.

 

[vardaquinn]

How do you slam Catholics by acusing them of Protestant practices…Only to turn around and praise Protestant practices?

Unfortunately, a lot of Protestants, for all their heresy, live out the faith better than a lot of Catholics. But I don’t support them picking and choosing “protesting” Catholic teaching. As you yourself are doing.

 

[vardaquinn]

I’m curious as to why you disagree with the Popes, the Magisterium, Church documents, Doctors of the Church, Church Fathers, high standing theologians and preachers, and the charismatic movement. Why would you prefer the Holy Spirit not to do anything these days? I’m curious.

And please, some of my posts may sound heated, but I do not wish to cause offense by any means. I am under the impression that the people on this thread are intending to discuss with complete charity.

 

[Tomster]

So we have approval from Pope John Paul II and an approval of sorts from Pope Paul VI. I’m going to go out on a limb and say (along with many traditionalist catholics and theologians) I disagree with them on this matter. We should also be careful not to represent this approval as dogmatic or doctrinal, its not, nor should we represent this as some sort of authoritative document approving the movement its not.

Setting then statements made by the Popes as persons i.e their opinions, not in anyway their teaching against the condemnation of movements similar to the charasmatic movement by numerous saints, theologians and doctors of the church I’ll retain my suspicion of the movement.

And no, I’m afraid you cannot deny that the movement owes its existence to the protestant charasmatic movement. The belief that it came from Vatican II or the holy spirit is your opinion , it is however a fact that it came from the pentecostal movement, a protestant movement.

The fact is that in general, any gift that the benevolence of God grants man; in particular, a gratuitous and transitory supernatural gift conferred on an individual in view of the general good, for the building of the Church, the Mystical body of Christ is a called a charism.

The prophet Joel (2:28; cf. Acts 2:16 ff.) had predicted for the Messianic epoch an abundant effusion of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus, before ascending into heaven, promised to the disciples that singular marvels would accompany and confirm their preaching (Mark 16:17-18).

St. Paul gives four lists of gifts bestowed on the nascent Church, but they are neither alike nor complete (1 Corinthians 12: 8-10, 28-30; Romans 12: 6-8; Ephesians 4:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:26).

Lack of sufficient elements makes identification of the individual gifts difficult. He speaks of the gifts of apostolate, prophecy, discernment of spirits, teaching, exhortation, canticles, tongues, interpretation; and of a gift of evangelist. In virtue of these gifts, which could invest any of the faithful, the Christian communities were instructed and edified with discourses of various kinds. Other gifts were intended for the spiritual direction and charitable assistance of the faithful: gifts of government, of ministry, of alms, gifts of patronate (of orphans and widows), of hospitality, of faith (effective of miracles), gifts of healing, of power (e.g., the resurrection of the dead).

The gifts were very important in the life and constitution of the primitive Church, contributing efficaciously to the growth and propagation of the faith.

This is the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. It absolutely cannot be said that the Holy Spirit has stopped His work among men since our Lord Himself promised to send us the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Comforter, who will be with us until the end of time.

 

[justtryin]

I’m curious as to why you disagree with the Popes, the Magisterium, Church documents, Doctors of the Church, Church Fathers, high standing theologians and preachers, and the charismatic movement. Why would you prefer the Holy Spirit not to do anything these days? I’m curious.

And please, some of my posts may sound heated, but I do not wish to cause offense by any means. I am under the impression that the people on this thread are intending to discuss with complete charity.

It’s not a matter of disagreeing with those you’ve listed. Many times quotes are taken out of context. Many times vague passages are misquoted so that meaning can be inferred into it, meaning which isn’t really there.

It’s not a disagreement with the source of the quote. It’s a disagreement with the interpreter and explainer of the quote.

You can see it everywhere in life. Quotes and teachings are stretched and twisted to suit an agenda. Actions are treated the same way. Popes have had audiences with the dalai lama. Does that mean an endorsement? Am I free to embrace Tibetan Buddhism?

As far as the Holy Spirit, or as I like to say it, God, Noone says He is not active in the world or peoples daily lives. Just because someone does something in God’s Name does not make it true. I think history speaks to this.

Many people can see an agenda. Why shouldn’t they? They’ve seen it many times before.