Differences between the Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics

[guanophore]

There seems to be so much debate on this thread about the Holy Spirit and Charismatic movements.

I would suggest that one be aware of the heresy known as Montansim when dealing with such issues.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=449541&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Thank you passer_by. This has been brought up extensively on this thread. The Charismatic Renewal does not teach a “new Church of the Spirit”. Nor do Its members “consider themselves prophets of Christ’s Second Coming.”

We do not advocate any “dervish like behavior” or any other manifestations that cannot be controlled by the person who recieves them, for God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and self control.

Unlike the “prophets” of Montanism, Charismatic Catholics are obedient to their shepherds, deacons, priests and bishops.

 

[vardaquinn]

There seems to be so much debate on this thread about the Holy Spirit and Charismatic movements.

I would suggest that one be aware of the heresy known as Montansim when dealing with such issues.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=449541&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Indeed, I am well aware of this. Montanism takes the charismatic dimension to the extreme, by not putting it under the authority of the Church. This was done by many heresies throughout history. This doesn’t mean that everything that was involved with Montanism is foreign to Christianity, but quite the opposite. However, it did lead to many people being turned off from charismatic gifts and is a big contributor to the consequent ignorance and misunderstanding surrounding the gifts for most of Church history.

 

[LinuxUser]

It’s possible. What is “a bad Catholic”?

What does it mean to you to be “a Charismatic Catholic”?

Seems here anyone that is not traditional. Being a Charismatic Catholic is being part of the CCR.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Seems here anyone that is not traditional. Being a Charismatic Catholic is being part of the CCR.

I think most traditional Catholics understand genuine charisms differently then has been espoused by the CCR. So yes, all Catholics should be accepting of the authentic charisms, but, which specific charism are for today, and how extraordinary they are, remains to be seen. And thus far has been undefined be our Magisterium.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I think most traditional Catholics understand genuine charisms differently then has been espoused by the CCR. So yes, all Catholics should be accepting of the authentic charisms, but, which specific charism are for today, and how extraordinary they are, remains to be seen. And thus far has been undefined be our Magisterium.

I agree.

I am hesitant when someone claims they received a gift. However, if it’s pretty big, I’ll let my Bishop decide. If it’s minor, I just shrug it off and pray that that person doesn’t have posession from the occult and it’s actually a gift.

 

[guanophore]

Seems here anyone that is not traditional. Being a Charismatic Catholic is being part of the CCR.

I would characterize this as a very erroneous apprehension of the content of the thread. I don’t think any Traditional Catholics on CAF are saying that non-Traditionalists are “bad Catholics”.

If someone claims that a person must be part of the “movement” to be a Charismatic Catholic, that would be equally erroneous, as charismatic Catholics have always been present in the Church, where the “movement” did not begin till 1967.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I would characterize this as a very erroneous apprehension of the content of the thread. I don’t think any Traditional Catholics on CAF are saying that non-Traditionalists are “bad Catholics”.

If someone claims that a person must be part of the “movement” to be a Charismatic Catholic, that would be equally erroneous, as charismatic Catholics have always been present in the Church, where the “movement” did not begin till 1967.

Agreed. What type of music do CCR liturgies have? Also, why was the CCR created? Was there a conflict in the world that it became necessary to create it?

 

[guanophore]

Agreed. What type of music do CCR liturgies have?

Most of the songs are the same as those in the NO Masses. There is also an emphasis on songs that are made from the book of Psalms. The praise and worship elements from the book of psalms seem prevalent. When I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, I am aware that almost all the Psalms have been made into songs used in the CCR.

Also, why was the CCR created?

Pope John XXIII prayed for a New Pentecost, and God answered his prayer.

Was there a conflict in the world that it became necessary to create it?

I think the answer to this is found in the papal addresses on this topic about the need for the renewal. You can find the links on this thread, or you can go to the Vatican website and search for charismatic. There are about 20 I am aware of that all address the problems in the world and the Church that are being addressed through the work of the HS in the Renewal. Evangelization is one of the main ones.

 

[passer_by]

Pope John XXIII prayed for a New Pentecost, and God answered his prayer.

I was wondering, how do you know the above?

Because at the end of this, if these movements end up taking a lot more Catholics away from the Church to lets say Pentecostalism, then this wouldn’t have been the work of the Holy Spirit, correct?

So wouldn’t you say that this is a bit premature to claim that the CCR is the New Pentecost which was prayed for?

 

[guanophore]

I was wondering, how do you know the above?

This is my experience. We know them by their fruits.

  Because at the end of this, if these movements end up taking a lot more Catholics away from the Church to lets say Pentecostalism, then this wouldn't have been the work of the Holy Spirit, correct?

Correct.

 So wouldn't you say that this is a bit premature to claim that the CCR is the New Pentecost which was prayed for?

No.

In the 45 years since the first Catholics received the New Pentecost, there are far more Catholics who have recovered a fervent faith than those who have left.

Catholics are leaving the Church in droves looking for “something” they think they will find in protestant ecclesial communities. There is a great hunger for an empowered walk in the Spirit. When they look outside the protective rails of the Ark, they fall into error.
I was one of them at one time.

 

[passer_by]

This is my experience. We know them by their fruits.

What are the fruits?

In the 45 years since the first Catholics received the New Pentecost, there are far more Catholics who have recovered a fervent faith than those who have left.

Catholics are leaving the Church in droves looking for “something” they think they will find in protestant ecclesial communities. There is a great hunger for an empowered walk in the Spirit. When they look outside the protective rails of the Ark, they fall into error.
I was one of them at one time.

So do you actually have statistics to show for this? Because I have heard just as many claims to the opposite.

 

[guanophore]

What are the fruits?

Gal 5:21-26
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

I would also add the Apostle Peter’s yardstick for measure…

2 Peter 1:4-11
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[passer_by]

Gal 5:21-26
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.

I would also add the Apostle Peter’s yardstick for measure…

2 Peter 1:4-11
5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I am not sure I still understand. Could you state it in your language? I don’t see how anything above claims something specific to the Holy Spirit or to a non-Catholic.

Also, do you have an answer for the 2nd part of my question in the previous post? Because all of this would be just meaningless debate if we are loosing more people than we are retaining.

I also have a another question for you, what happens if you experience a dark night of the soul like John of the Cross or Mother Theresa? How does this CCR related experience reconcile with the possibility that you might have had to go through something like that?

In essence what I am trying to say is, we are treading a dangerous line with CCR. It seems to be experiential based. In all honesty, a bit of an emotional high. What happens when it runs out? Would you not agree that it is better to come back to the church because the church is true rather than try to find out the church is true through some emotional experience?

 

[guanophore]

I am not sure I still understand. Could you state it in your language?

I have no language that identifies the fruit of the Spirit better than the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

If a person receives authentic gifts from God, those gifts will lead one into devotion, virtue, and growth in the fruit of the HS.

I don’t see how anything above claims something specific to the Holy Spirit or to a non-Catholic.

If you don’t see how the fruit of the HS is specific to the HS then I don’t think I can help you.

I was not claiming anything “specific to a non-Catholic”.

… all of this would be just meaningless debate if we are loosing more people than we are retaining.

I am not sure I agree with this. I would say that an authentic move of the HS will always lead participants deeper into the Church. However, I also agree with the Holy Father, that it is better to have a smaller, but more pure Church. I think the Church is better off divested of those lukewarm persons, dissident, and disobedient persons who claim to belong to her, yet are not obedient to her teachings. They are already “protestant” in faith, so formally exiting and aligning themselves with an ecclesial community that stands in opposition to the One Faith is actually an act of integrity on their part.

I also have a another question for you, what happens if you experience a dark night of the soul like John of the Cross or Mother Theresa?

Then I do what they did. Obey, pray, walk in faith, hope and charity day by day and trust in the sacramental life of the Church to work out my salvation. What do you do?

How does this CCR related experience reconcile with the possibility that you might have had to go through something like that?

For me the CCR led me into a deep confrontation with many unresolved issues in my life that were contributing to lifelong depression and failing to be active in ministry. A dark night of the soul was required of me, since the only way out of such things is through them. In the CCR I learned to walk in the power of the HS, and not fulfill the desires of the flesh. I learned how to have an empowered experience of my Christian faith that did not come from my own willpower, but cooperating with God, who was already at work in me to will and to do His Good Pleasure.

  In essence what I am trying to say is, we are treading a dangerous line with CCR. It seems to be experiential based.

The fact that it manifests itself in experience does not make it “based” in experience. Everything that happened in and through the Apostles the day they experienced the tongues of fire in the upper room was based only in the HS.

In all honesty, a bit of an emotional high. What happens when it runs out?

I think this is a valid point, since God wants us healed in the area of emotions, and to have that we must reach a full range, both joy, and mourning. I think Catholics have an advantage in this area over all the faith traditions of our separated brethren, because we have the inheritance from the Apostles on the meaning of suffering. Charismaticism is not about having an “emotional high”, though they happen. I am sure the Apostles were quite exuberant on the day of Pentecost. But, we can see from what they later suffered that it was not all that way. In the readings the other day, we had this:

Phil 4:11-13
11 Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want. 13 I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

When a person is mature in faith, they are content in whatsoever state they find themselves. When one accepts and uses the gifts that God has provided, one grows in faith.

Would you not agree that it is better to come back to the church because the church is true rather than try to find out the church is true through some emotional experience?

You are making a false dichotomy. You are assuming that people have “left the Church” who have embraced the CCR. This is not the case. I know there are some people who drifted from their faith, and the CCR brought them back to their sacramental life. I was one of those.

For people who have not had severe injury on the plane of emotional experience, it is hard to understand why others need healing in this area. God created human beings with emotion, and He expects us to use ours as He intended. This cannot happen when they are wounded, frozen, or otherwise impaired.

You are also assuming (falsely) that because an experience has an emotional component that this is the only basis for it. Let us take Jesus as our example:

John 11:35-36
5 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Do you see something inherently wrong with His emotional response to death? I think not.

Neither is there anything wrong with people having emotional responses to God’s overwhelming grace and mercy poured out upon us in His beloved Son. Experiencing emotion does not in any way prevent a person from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[passer_by]

I have no language that identifies the fruit of the Spirit better than the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

If a person receives authentic gifts from God, those gifts will lead one into devotion, virtue, and growth in the fruit of the HS.

If you don’t see how the fruit of the HS is specific to the HS then I don’t think I can help you.

I was not claiming anything “specific to a non-Catholic”.

So you can’t express this in your own words?

I think the Church is better off divested of those lukewarm persons, dissident, and disobedient persons who claim to belong to her, yet are not obedient to her teachings. They are already “protestant” in faith, so formally exiting and aligning themselves with an ecclesial community that stands in opposition to the One Faith is actually an act of integrity on their part.

So ok, now you don’t want the church to grow? You actually want it to become smaller?

Then I do what they did. Obey, pray, walk in faith, hope and charity day by day and trust in the sacramental life of the Church to work out my salvation. What do you do?

The question was not meant for you specifically. It was a rhetorical question.

I am asking what one would have done without an emotional experience to make one return? The HS is not there to give emotional experiences.

For me the CCR led me into a deep confrontation with many unresolved issues in my life that were contributing to lifelong depression and failing to be active in ministry. …but cooperating with God, who was already at work in me to will and to do His Good Pleasure.

Here is what I don’t get. You have made an exclusive connection between CCR and your personal spiritual progress. But this is by no means exclusive.

Do you admit that?

The fact that it manifests itself in experience does not make it “based” in experience. Everything that happened in and through the Apostles the day they experienced the tongues of fire in the upper room was based only in the HS.

The experiences by themselves do not say it is from the HS. It could actually be something else or from someone else.

I think this is a valid point, since God wants us healed in the area of emotions, and to have that we must reach a full range, both joy, and mourning. I think Catholics have an advantage in this area over all the faith traditions of our separated brethren, because we have the inheritance from the Apostles on the meaning of suffering. Charismaticism is not about having an “emotional high”, though they happen. I am sure the Apostles were quite exuberant on the day of Pentecost. But, we can see from what they later suffered that it was not all that way. In the readings the other day, we had this:

Phil 4:11-13

When a person is mature in faith, they are content in whatsoever state they find themselves. When one accepts and uses the gifts that God has provided, one grows in faith.

Yes, but this is why it is so essential to understand that you arrive at your faith not through emotions.

You guide your emotions according to reason. Not vice versa.

You are making a false dichotomy. You are assuming that people have “left the Church” who have embraced the CCR. This is not the case. I know there are some people who drifted from their faith, and the CCR brought them back to their sacramental life. I was one of those.

For people who have not had severe injury on the plane of emotional experience, it is hard to understand why others need healing in this area. God created human beings with emotion, and He expects us to use ours as He intended. This cannot happen when they are wounded, frozen, or otherwise impaired.

You are also assuming (falsely) that because an experience has an emotional component that this is the only basis for it. Let us take Jesus as our example:

John 11:35-36
5 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Do you see something inherently wrong with His emotional response to death? I think not.

Neither is there anything wrong with people having emotional responses to God’s overwhelming grace and mercy poured out upon us in His beloved Son. Experiencing emotion does not in any way prevent a person from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Emotional responses have to be directed according to reason. Otherwise they are blind. This is what the church has taught.

So my problem with CCR and other Protestant movements is that they go for the emotion. The emotional high you get in CCR can be achieved in a Jehovahs Witness session or even a Protestant session. Then how do you pick the right faith?

What I am pointing out is that one first needs to pick the faith through reason.

The Apostles, had already chosen their faith. They were just afraid to go out and proclaim it. They weren’t sitting there thinking if they should remain Jew or believe in Christ. They had already decided. So when the HS came to them, they could direct their emotions in the right direction.

I feel that this should be the case today. We must win our young back using reason. Many are atheists today because they see religion as just an emotional high. That needs to change. Many are protestants today because they think its about choosing the faith that gives you inner joy. That needs to change.

Reason has to be used to bring them to faith. Then they can direct their emotions in the right direction.

So I am of the opposite belief, the person has to be mature in faith first before he/she gets in to this kind of thing.

 

[guanophore]

So you can’t express this in your own words?

I am sure I could, but it would pale in comparison. Since you seem to be confused by what the Scripture defines as “fruit of the Spirit” maybe it would be more appropriate for you to come up with your own words to define these things? I am satisfied with the terms used in the Holy Writ, so do not have a desire to replace them with my own.

So ok, now you don’t want the church to grow?

The Church grows when people are faithful to her teachings. She does not ‘grow’ by having large numbers of persons sitting in the pews that don’t embrace what she teaches. These dissident Catholics need to be evangelized.

You actually want it to become smaller?

I think you don’t understand what the Holy Father was saying. The Church is already “smaller” if it is defined by those who are in unity with the One Faith. Great numbers of persons calling themselves Catholic, yet rejecting the doctrine of the faith do not make the Church bigger.

The question was not meant for you specifically. It was a rhetorical question.

You seem to be basing your rhetorical question on the assumption that people in the CCR lack spiritual depth. I think this is very true of many, especially in the beginning. When we read the book of I Corinthians, we do not observe a mature community by any means.

I am asking what one would have done without an emotional experience to make one return? The HS is not there to give emotional experiences.

Again you are making a false assumption. It is not the emotional experience that causes one to return, but the drawing of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life. The work of the HS may cause emotional sequalae. I agree, the HS is there to draw us into unity with Christ.

Here is what I don’t get. You have made an exclusive connection between CCR and your personal spiritual progress. But this is by no means exclusive. Do you admit that?

No, I made no such exclusive connection. I have not shared the other elements of my spiritual formation on this thread. I agree, it is by no means exclusive.

The experiences by themselves do not say it is from the HS. It could actually be something else or from someone else.

I agree. That is why it is so important to discern all things, and retain what is good. That is why it is so important to look for the fruit.

Perhaps when you make your own definitions of fruit, you can also become a fruit inspector, and then you may be able to find contract work at some of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Service Centers.

Yes, but this is why it is so essential to understand that you arrive at your faith not through emotions.

Yes. This is an essential part of spiritual formation through any avenue.

You guide your emotions according to reason. Not vice versa.

Is there something about the CCR that indicates to you that a person should be guided by their emotions, instead of reason?

Emotional responses have to be directed according to reason. Otherwise they are blind. This is what the church has taught.

It seems that you are trying to say that people in the CCR do not exercise reason with regard to their emotions. Is that right?

So my problem with CCR and other Protestant movements is that they go for the emotion. The emotional high you get in CCR can be achieved in a Jehovahs Witness session or even a Protestant session. Then how do you pick the right faith?

Well, since the CCR I have involvement with does not “go for emotion”, nor is it focused on “emotional high” then I cannot provide a very good witness to this strange way of doing things. I don’t doubt that people do get carried way by their emotions, and certianly there are tent revivals among our separated brethren that are intended to fan the flame of emotion.

I guess I don’t see any relation between the beginning of your statement and the end. What does “picking the right faith” have to do with emotional highs? Personally, I don’t think there is any need to “pick the right faith”, since that faith has been infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church. It is my duty to conform myself to the “right faith” that has been handed down through the Apostolic Succession. This duty has nothing to do with emotion. If I have a state of exuberance when conforming myself to the One Faith, well good for me I guess. If I pass through a dark night of the soul, then “though He slay me, yet will I praise Him”, as Job stated.

 

[guanophore]

What I am pointing out is that one first needs to pick the faith through reason.

This is all very well and good for persons who can function by reason. But Jesus taught that we should suffer the little children to come to Him, for of such is the kingdom of God. They have not yet reached the age of reason, yet they can come to Him. There must be some other basis for this coming that is also as valid as reason. Jesus teaches that we must become “as little children” to enter the kingdom, meaning that we sometimes must set aside our reason, as His ways are high above our ways. Infants come to Him and are filled with the HS in Baptism, just as John the Baptist was filled with the HS “from His mother’s womb”. There is an aspect of faith that precedes reason.

The Apostles, had already chosen their faith. They were just afraid to go out and proclaim it. They weren’t sitting there thinking if they should remain Jew or believe in Christ. They had already decided. So when the HS came to them, they could direct their emotions in the right direction.

I feel that this should be the case today. We must win our young back using reason. Many are atheists today because they see religion as just an emotional high. That needs to change. Many are protestants today because they think its about choosing the faith that gives you inner joy. That needs to change.

I don’t disagree with your point of view. But having spent the last 35 years working with teenagers, I also know that the most effective way to reach them is through relationship - relationship that has solid emotional attachment and stability. This is not contrary to reason, but complimentary.

Reason has to be used to bring them to faith. Then they can direct their emotions in the right direction.

You let me know how that works for you.

I will be eagerly awaiting your report from your confirmation class.

So I am of the opposite belief, the person has to be mature in faith first before he/she gets in to this kind of thing.

Such a position is not consistent with the New Testament record. If we all waited until we were “mature in faith” to receive the charisms that are meant to get us there, what would we get done for the Church and the world? The charisms are for service! Beginners in the faith need to get into service immediately. Or will you not have a community service component to your well reasoned confirmation class either?

 

[passer_by]

This is all very well and good for persons who can function by reason. But Jesus taught that we should suffer the little children to come to Him, for of such is the kingdom of God. They have not yet reached the age of reason, yet they can come to Him. There must be some other basis for this coming that is also as valid as reason. Jesus teaches that we must become “as little children” to enter the kingdom, meaning that we sometimes must set aside our reason, as His ways are high above our ways. Infants come to Him and are filled with the HS in Baptism, just as John the Baptist was filled with the HS “from His mother’s womb”. There is an aspect of faith that precedes reason.

Ok you have to be careful here when you start quoting scripture like this. We don’t want to start becoming Protestant by interpreting them the way we feel.

When Jesus says you have to be a child, it means after you decide on your faith. You can’t just be a child from the very beginning. Then you might end up in somewhere entirely different from Christianity depending on where Jesus to begin with etc.

I don’t disagree with your point of view. But having spent the last 35 years working with teenagers, I also know that the most effective way to reach them is through relationship - relationship that has solid emotional attachment and stability. This is not contrary to reason, but complimentary.

Reason has to come first. It can be complimentary in the sense that a person might form emotional attachments as he learns but the learning comes first.

What you have is the Protestant system which contains some errors of Modernism. The idea they have is that religion is picked solely by an profound experience. That is what is problematic.

Such experiences are there in all faiths. One can get such an experience when reading the Lord of the Rings. It does not mean anything unless the person is well catechized.

You let me know how that works for you.

I will be eagerly awaiting your report from your confirmation class.

To be honest, it works well.

Some people even go “I thought Christianity was merely faith”. The problem today is people do want reason to believe. The mere emotional high is rightly shunned upon because they know it exists everywhere else. So most of them loose their faith because they think all religions are not true or all have best estimations of it.

Such a position is not consistent with the New Testament record. If we all waited until we were “mature in faith” to receive the charisms that are meant to get us there, what would we get done for the Church and the world? The charisms are for service! Beginners in the faith need to get into service immediately. Or will you not have a community service component to your well reasoned confirmation class either?

Actually it is. This is what I explained earlier to you.

Pentecost in point. First the Apostles had accepted Christ. They had chosen the faith. They were just afraid and lacked the gifts to go out and proclaim. The HS gave them that.

What many people seem to confuse is that they implicitly think that the Apostles became Catholics/followers of Christ on the day of Pentecost because of their experience. That is false. They already had chosen because it was reason. Peter didn’t say to Christ “To whom else would we go” because Peter was getting emotional highs from Jesus.

So you have to be careful and pay attention to these things when you read the NT.

 

[guanophore]

Ok you have to be careful here when you start quoting scripture like this. We don’t want to start becoming Protestant by interpreting them the way we feel.

No argument there!

When Jesus says you have to be a child, it means after you decide on your faith.

No, I don’t think it does. Children are not equipped to make such decisions. That is why Jewish parents bring their children for circumcision or dedicate the female infants. When Cahtolics (and Orthodox) baptize, there is no expectation that the infant “decide” anything.

You can’t just be a child from the very beginning. Then you might end up in somewhere entirely different from Christianity depending on where Jesus to begin with etc.

Everyone who comes into the faith is a child from the beginning.

1 Peter 2:2-3
Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; 3 for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

Reason has to come first. It can be complimentary in the sense that a person might form emotional attachments as he learns but the learning comes first.

That certainly seems to be true in your case.

God is able to meet you right where you are.

What you have is the Protestant system which contains some errors of Modernism. The idea they have is that religion is picked solely by an profound experience. That is what is problematic.

Actually, this is NOT what I have. I will stipulate, though, that it does indeed contain many errors of Modernism. Not all Protestants think that “religion is picked solely by a profound religious experience”. I agree that it is problematic, but most of the mainline Protestants don’t subscribe to this view. It is primarily found among fundamentalists and evangelicals. The more Pentecostally in clined they are, the more likely they are to fall into such an error.

Such experiences are there in all faiths. One can get such an experience when reading the Lord of the Rings. It does not mean anything unless the person is well catechized.

As a long time avid fan of TLOR I can certainly vouch for the veracity of this statement.

Some people even go “I thought Christianity was merely faith”. The problem today is people do want reason to believe. The mere emotional high is rightly shunned upon because they know it exists everywhere else. So most of them loose their faith because they think all religions are not true or all have best estimations of it.

Faith should always seek understanding through reason.

Actually it is. This is what I explained earlier to you.

Then I shall cordially agree to disagree with you.

Pentecost in point. First the Apostles had accepted Christ. They had chosen the faith. They were just afraid and lacked the gifts to go out and proclaim. The HS gave them that.

This demonstrates that even those who are well formed in the faith can benefit from a New Pentecostal infilling of the HS.

Subsequent to Pentecost, the charismata were given to the newly baptized, who had only a minimal instruction in the faith.

What many people seem to confuse is that they implicitly think that the Apostles became Catholics/followers of Christ on the day of Pentecost because of their experience. That is false. They already had chosen because it was reason. Peter didn’t say to Christ “To whom else would we go” because Peter was getting emotional highs from Jesus.

Not only for that reason, certainly, but you can’t deny that he had these also. The point is that reason and emotion are not, and should not be opposed to one another, but complimentary. When we come to the Lord, all of us comes, the reason and the emotion together. We are to study to show ourselves approved unto God, and to test all our experience, not avoid having them.

So you have to be careful and pay attention to these things when you read the NT.

What you seem to have not paid careful attention to, passer, is that the charisms are given to novices in the faith, as well as to the mature.

 

[passer_by]

No, I don’t think it does. Children are not equipped to make such decisions. That is why Jewish parents bring their children for circumcision or dedicate the female infants. When Cahtolics (and Orthodox) baptize, there is no expectation that the infant “decide” anything.

What you seem to have not paid careful attention to, passer, is that the charisms are given to novices in the faith, as well as to the mature.

Subsequent to Pentecost, the charismata were given to the newly baptized, who had only a minimal instruction in the faith.

Everyone who comes into the faith is a child from the beginning.

1 Peter 2:2-3
Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; 3 for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

So the above are various excerpts from your previous post. I think you are confusing maturity in faith with arriving at faith.

One may not need much analysis using reason to MATURE in faith. But one needs REASON to arrive at faith.

Movements like CCR try to ARRIVE at faith using emotional experiences and that is wrong and irrational.

Just to reconcile the Scripture passages to you, the newborn babies mentioned have already decided on the faith they want to follow. The people who converted on Pentecost had already decided on the faith they want to follow. So they ARRIVED at their faith by judging what they heard about Christ and evaluating them through reason.

After wards, they can of course mature in their faith without doing any analysis using with reason and sticking to prayer. But that is a different.

Actually, this is NOT what I have. I will stipulate, though, that it does indeed contain many errors of Modernism. Not all Protestants think that “religion is picked solely by a profound religious experience”. I agree that it is problematic, but most of the mainline Protestants don’t subscribe to this view. It is primarily found among fundamentalists and evangelicals. The more Pentecostally in clined they are, the more likely they are to fall into such an error.

Exactly, which means that to arrive at the right faith, one must use reason. THEN, the person can move around and embrace those experiences if they occur and use them to be drawn to God and the Church.

This demonstrates that even those who are well formed in the faith can benefit from a New Pentecostal infilling of the HS.

No disagreement here.

Not only for that reason, certainly, but you can’t deny that he had these also. The point is that reason and emotion are not, and should not be opposed to one another, but complimentary. When we come to the Lord, all of us comes, the reason and the emotion together. We are to study to show ourselves approved unto God, and to test all our experience, not avoid having them.

Reason and Emotion are not complimentary. At least in the sense you say above. Because from the above, it seems like you can at times have your emotions guide you.

That is not how it should work. Reason guides you to the truth. Emotions are directed according to reason. So REASON is in the driving seat and emotion has to take the back seat.