Differences between the Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics

[guanophore]

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

No. It has always been clear to me that the charisms are available to those new in the faith.

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

The Catholic Church teaches that neophytes are brought into the One Faith through baptism. For adults, this requires some instruction as Peter gave to the 5000 on Pentecost. For infants and children, all that is required is a profession of faith from the parents/guardian and Godparents. The children need no “reason” to be accepted. Developmentally disabled people are also accepted into faith without reasoning ability.

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

If this were a true statement about the CCR, then I would agree. Such a method is wrong and irrational. However, since that is not how CCR works, your conclusion about it “does not apply”.

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.

I am sure that all the adults involved did involve some reason, but the text does not indicate that. The text says “they were quickened to the heart”. This is the non-rational aspect of the personality.

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.

While I will not dispute that it is possible for a person to grow in faith without reason, this is unusual. Most need to grow by applying study to their faith, so as to seek understanding.

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.

I hope this applies in your case.

The Catholic catechism teaches that human beings are made members of the Church at baptism (are drawn into God and into the Church). For the majority of Catholics, this happens in infancy, long before reasoning ability develops.

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.

The purpose of complimentarity, passer, is working together. Sometimes emotions can provide guidance, but they are not designed to function in a vacuum from reason. A mother was telling me a story yesterday about her daughter who ran and hid under the bed when her estranged father visited the house. She refused to come out from under the bed until he left. This action, led by emotion on her daughter’s part, along with many other clues, substantiated to her the report that the man had sexually abused her daughter, even though her daughter could not rationally talk about what happened. The girls emotions led her to hide to keep herself safe.

Emotions have two main purposes. One is to communicate information to onself and others, the second is to help us get our needs met. Using them for these purposes helps us to become the persons God has created us to be. The only problem that occurs when emotions “lead” is if the reason does not “follow”. Separating either from the other is problematic.

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.

I am glad that works for you, passer_by. I commend you to a fruitful and productive walk with God, and will pray that you are never in a position to have to work with this myriad of persons I see every day who are unable to employ the faculty of reason as you do.

 

[passer_by]

No. It has always been clear to me that the charisms are available to those new in the faith.

The Catholic Church teaches that neophytes are brought into the One Faith through baptism. For adults, this requires some instruction as Peter gave to the 5000 on Pentecost. For infants and children, all that is required is a profession of faith from the parents/guardian and Godparents. The children need no “reason” to be accepted. Developmentally disabled people are also accepted into faith without reasoning ability.

I think you are again misunderstanding what I am saying.

When I mean arrive at Faith, it does not mean baptism. The church is definitely right in baptizing the young. The parents who arrived at their faith had made the decision for their child. So it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

So I am talking about people like you who would have lost the faith at some point. My objection is that these category of individuals should be brought back to the church through reason. Not some emotional high.

Emotional high’s are available in every religion.

If this were a true statement about the CCR, then I would agree. Such a method is wrong and irrational. However, since that is not how CCR works, your conclusion about it “does not apply”.

Sure sure. But from what you said, CCR is exactly that.

What else separates CCR from regular worship? The only difference is that CCR tends to be more geared toward emotional experiences.

I am sure that all the adults involved did involve some reason, but the text does not indicate that. The text says “they were quickened to the heart”. This is the non-rational aspect of the personality.

Um no. Then the Apostles wouldn’t have had to preach.

The point there was that the people evaluated what was being said. They didn’t convert because Peter’s voice sounded amazing. They converted because of the message and the truth in it.

While I will not dispute that it is possible for a person to grow in faith without reason, this is unusual. Most need to grow by applying study to their faith, so as to seek understanding.

I don’t wish to discuss this specific matter though. I was merely thinking of people who grow through prayer life.

You could say that prayer is an implicit form of study.

The Catholic catechism teaches that human beings are made members of the Church at baptism (are drawn into God and into the Church). For the majority of Catholics, this happens in infancy, long before reasoning ability develops.

Yes, no arguments there.

As I said before, I am talking about those Catholics who LEFT the church and are coming back. Those people need reasons. Not emotions. Emotions are on offer in every other religion.

The purpose of complimentarity, passer, is working together. Sometimes emotions can provide guidance, but they are not designed to function in a vacuum from reason. A mother was telling me a story yesterday about her daughter who ran and hid under the bed when her estranged father visited the house. She refused to come out from under the bed until he left. This action, led by emotion on her daughter’s part, along with many other clues, substantiated to her the report that the man had sexually abused her daughter, even though her daughter could not rationally talk about what happened. The girls emotions led her to hide to keep herself safe.

That is a bad example, you do realize that?

And no, the church clearly teaches that Emotions are to be directed by reason. Never does it say that we must follow our emotions.

In that case, the little kid had done what was also the reasonable thing to do. But it was just as possible that she would have done something unreasonable based on her emotions which would have also been immoral.

So I am afraid you are arguing some thing that has been decided on. Emotions are not the guide.

Emotions have two main purposes. One is to communicate information to onself and others, the second is to help us get our needs met. Using them for these purposes helps us to become the persons God has created us to be. The only problem that occurs when emotions “lead” is if the reason does not “follow”. Separating either from the other is problematic.

Separating Reason from Emotion is not problematic. In fact, you sometimes have to do that when making tough moral choices.

This has always been the church’s stance and I am not sure why you are debating this.

I am glad that works for you, passer_by. I commend you to a fruitful and productive walk with God, and will pray that you are never in a position to have to work with this myriad of persons I see every day who are unable to employ the faculty of reason as you do.

To be honest, I don’t think that the problem today is that people are not capable of reason. People have just abandoned reason in day to day life. Instead, people follow emotions. In marriages, in relationships, in religion, its become all about emotions that make you feel happy.

So even religion has become what is emotionally satisfying. Some abandon one religion for another or atheism because religion isn’t making them feel happy anymore.

I think it is critical that we emphasize the value of reason today, precisely for those reasons.

 

[guanophore]

I think you are again misunderstanding what I am saying.

When I mean arrive at Faith, it does not mean baptism. The church is definitely right in baptizing the young. The parents who arrived at their faith had made the decision for their child. So it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

So I am talking about people like you who would have lost the faith at some point. My objection is that these category of individuals should be brought back to the church through reason. Not some emotional high

Ok.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that a person has a powerful emotional experience does not preclude reason. It is just that not all spiritual expereinces can be subject to reason. A simple read of St. Teresa Interior Castle will make it clear that some things defy explanation.

Emotional high’s are available in every religion.

A wise individual will be curious about the source of a supernatural experience that is accompanied by an emotional high.

Sure sure. But from what you said, CCR is exactly that.

If something I said left you with the impression that the CCR is about “emotional high” then I have not communicated well.

What else separates CCR from regular worship?

There is nothing that separates CCR from “regular worship”. People always bring their emotions to Mass with them.

The only difference is that CCR tends to be more geared toward emotional experiences.

I will accept that this is your perception.

Um no. Then the Apostles wouldn’t have had to preach.

You might want to give Acts 2 a read, passerby. It is clear that it was the preaching that kindled their hearts to repentance.

The point there was that the people evaluated what was being said. They didn’t convert because Peter’s voice sounded amazing. They converted because of the message and the truth in it.

Messages,and the Truth that is contained in them, can be just as valid on an emotional level as a rational. It is not necessary to force a false dichotomy between the two.

I don’t wish to discuss this specific matter though. I was merely thinking of people who grow through prayer life. You could say that prayer is an implicit form of study.

Yes. Spiritual growth requires a good prayer life. I agree about the form of study, though it is not rational study, but spiritual. I have a book entitled “With Christ in the School of Prayer”.

As I said before, I am talking about those Catholics who LEFT the church and are coming back. Those people need reasons. Not emotions. Emotions are on offer in every other religion.

I think you are confusing emotions with a transformative religious experience. While I will agree that faith must seek understanding, conversion is something that happens on all planes, not just the mind. This is why the text of Acts 2 states “they were cut to the heart”.

That is a bad example, you do realize that?

Only to a person who places little value on the human function of emotions. As a person who works with children who have not yet reached the age of reason, I find it an excellent example of how people can make good decisions for themselves by listening to the information brought by emotions.

And no, the church clearly teaches that Emotions are to be directed by reason. Never does it say that we must follow our emotions.

This is certainly true of persons who are able to reason. Children and disabled persons, however, cannot function this way.

In that case, the little kid had done what was also the reasonable thing to do. But it was just as possible that she would have done something unreasonable based on her emotions which would have also been immoral.

Yes, it is possible. So the point is that emotions are not necessarily wrong just because they are emotions. They are a valuable source of information and communication.

So I am afraid you are arguing some thing that has been decided on. Emotions are not the guide.

Very well. I commend you to your rational life, and may God bless you in it.

Separating Reason from Emotion is not problematic. In fact, you sometimes have to do that when making tough moral choices.

Yes, this is certainly true.

 

[passer_by]

Ok.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that a person has a powerful emotional experience does not preclude reason. It is just that not all spiritual expereinces can be subject to reason. A simple read of St. Teresa Interior Castle will make it clear that some things defy explanation.

But you are again going around in circles though.

St. Theresa did not convert to Christianity or Catholicism because of her unexplainable emotional experience.

She was already a practicing Catholic.

We were talking about those who were not Catholic or had left the faith. For them, using emotional experiences are not a good way to call them back to the church.

A wise individual will be curious about the source of a supernatural experience that is accompanied by an emotional high.

Exactly. So depending on which religion they get the experience from, according to you, its justified to adopt that religion.

You see, what you say here would have been nice if Catholicism was the only religion with deep emotional experiences. Unfortunately it isn’t.

You might want to give Acts 2 a read, passerby. It is clear that it was the preaching that kindled their hearts to repentance.

OF COURSE! What I am telling you is that the people didn’t convert because of the emotional high they got from listening. They converted because of the reasonableness of what the Apostles were preaching.

Messages,and the Truth that is contained in them, can be just as valid on an emotional level as a rational. It is not necessary to force a false dichotomy between the two.

The problem with emotions are that they don’t say anything right or wrong. They can point you to God and they can point you to Hell. Whereas reason is suppossed to objectively point you to the truth Faith.

I think you are confusing emotions with a transformative religious experience. While I will agree that faith must seek understanding, conversion is something that happens on all planes, not just the mind. This is why the text of Acts 2 states “they were cut to the heart”.

Conversion is from a free choice. I am saying that this free choice should be made objectively using reason. I disagree with trying to use emotional experience inducing prayer services to convert people.

Why?

Because these emotional experiences occur in every other religion. So it is not an indicator that anyone should adopt Catholicism.

Only to a person who places little value on the human function of emotions. As a person who works with children who have not yet reached the age of reason, I find it an excellent example of how people can make good decisions for themselves by listening to the information brought by emotions.

I have seen a lot of teenagers ruin their lives by following their emotions too.

This is certainly true of persons who are able to reason. Children and disabled persons, however, cannot function this way.

If they are unable to reason, they are not culpable. So not sure what you are saying?

 

[guanophore]

 But you are again going around in circles though.

St. Theresa did not convert to Christianity or Catholicism because of her unexplainable emotional experience.

I never claimed she did. What I said was that she was asked by her bishop to describe her experiences. This she did to the best of her ability, but at many points was at a loss for words, and even said to the Bishop that he would probably think she had lost her mind.

She was already a practicing Catholic.

You seem to be suffering from a misapprehension that everyone who becomes interested in the Renewal is a non-practicing or lapsed Catholic. This is not the case. The renewal began with very fervent and devoted Catholic laypersons.

My mentors in the movement have been solid Catholics for 80 years. They grew up in the faith, had 6 kids, godfather went to a Cursillo, and from there to a Charismatic meeting. They never left the Church, or failed to continue in the faith. They are also very thinking, reasonable people. They are not Charismatic because of “emotional highs” as you suppose. You are operating on a false premise.

 We were talking about those who were not Catholic or had left the faith. For them, using emotional experiences are not a good way to call them back to the church.

Suit yourself. It worked for me.

I think God calls every person from right where they are. If they need reason, reason is there. If they need to experience HIm emotionally, they are able. If they need a miracle, he will provide one. If you have to squeeze God into your little box of rationality, then He can work with that too.

Exactly. So depending on which religion they get the experience from, according to you, its justified to adopt that religion.

No, passer, I never claimed this.

You see, what you say here would have been nice if Catholicism was the only religion with deep emotional experiences. Unfortunately it isn’t.

A good reason why emotional experiences, of themselves, are insufficient to come to the True Faith.

OF COURSE! What I am telling you is that the people didn’t convert because of the emotional high they got from listening. They converted because of the reasonableness of what the Apostles were preaching.

I understand why you see it that way. I also never claimed that they did. You seem to have a paucity of understanding about the human organism. Do you understand the content of “soul”?

Acts 2:40-Acts 2:37
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart44
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

43** And fear came upon every soul;** and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

Are you telling me that ther emotions were not involved ?

Maybe you have never needed a conversion experience. I know many Christians who are brought up in Christian homes, raised in the faith, and never wandered from it. Peter was speaking to Jews who were raised in the faith, but they needed conversion. Catholics who are raised in the faith sometimes need conversion. Conversion is something that occurs on all levels, Body, Soul, and Spirit. Of the soul, there is rationality, but also imagination, will, passion (emotion) and affectation. All of these elements of the soul transform together when there is a conversion experience.

The problem with emotions are that they don't say anything right or wrong. They can point you to God and they can point you to Hell. Whereas reason is suppossed to objectively point you to the truth Faith.

Apparently you don’t work with many people whose reason is impaired. I will grant you that this is an ideal situation, but when the ideal does not exist, there are other ways for a person to be led into Truth.

Conversion is from a free choice. I am saying that this free choice should be made objectively using reason. I disagree with trying to use emotional experience inducing prayer services to convert people.

OK.

Apparently you think that reason must be checked at the door of such a service. This is not accurate.

I have seen a lot of teenagers ruin their lives by following their emotions too.

Indeed. They certainly need to be taught to use the brains God gave them. But if you don’t have their attention, they will not learn much. It is called affective education.

If they are unable to reason, they are not culpable. So not sure what you are saying?

I am saying that every living person has the potential to live a Spirit filled life, on fire for God, because the charismatic gifts will function through them no matter what their ability, or disability.

 

[passer_by]

I never claimed she did. What I said was that she was asked by her bishop to describe her experiences. This she did to the best of her ability, but at many points was at a loss for words, and even said to the Bishop that he would probably think she had lost her mind.

And that is fine as I said before.

The problem I am pointing out to you is the idea you present that one arrives at Faith through experiences of this type. St. Teresa clearly did not arrive at her faith using those experiences.

You seem to be suffering from a misapprehension that everyone who becomes interested in the Renewal is a non-practicing or lapsed Catholic. This is not the case. The renewal began with very fervent and devoted Catholic laypersons.

My mentors in the movement have been solid Catholics for 80 years. They grew up in the faith, had 6 kids, godfather went to a Cursillo, and from there to a Charismatic meeting. They never left the Church, or failed to continue in the faith. They are also very thinking, reasonable people. They are not Charismatic because of “emotional highs” as you suppose. You are operating on a false premise.

Actually I am not making a claim that CCR is all about lapsed Catholics.

I am merely criticizing one of the main themes of CCR and your presentation i.e. CCR brings lapsed Catholics back to the faith.

To me, that sounds like a grave misunderstanding. CCR should be for people who have chosen already to be Catholic. How they choose to be Catholic should be guided by REASON.

Otherwise, why shouldn’t someone just convert to Jehovah Witness which gives the same experiences?

Suit yourself. It worked for me.

It worked for you, but it does not mean the way you took was in general right. Praise be to God, it worked for you. But you don’t have to put everyone through such a confusing methodology of arriving at ones faith.

If I were to ask you the above question, why shouldn’t I choose Jehovah’s Witness which gives profound experiences of the Holy Spirit over Catholicism, what would you say?

I think God calls every person from right where they are. If they need reason, reason is there. If they need to experience HIm emotionally, they are able. If they need a miracle, he will provide one. If you have to squeeze God into your little box of rationality, then He can work with that too.

I am afraid this is a grave misunderstanding.

Under your view, there is no way to convince someone who is a Budhist or Hindu due to profound religious experiences that they are wrong. Further, there is no way to convince someone who has left the Catholic faith for Pentecostalism that he is wrong. Why? Because he can merely write back what you wrote above i.e. That God gave him experience and he doesn’t need reason.

No, passer, I never claimed this.

You never did. But you are failing to realize that your position ultimately says that.

I understand why you see it that way. I also never claimed that they did. You seem to have a paucity of understanding about the human organism. Do you understand the content of “soul”?

Acts 2:40-Acts 2:37
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart44
41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

43** And fear came upon every soul;** and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

Are you telling me that ther emotions were not involved ?

I am saying that they evaluated what the Apostles said. They could have become happy after hearing it etc but it was guided by reason.

I don’t convert to Islam because I hear an Imam give a breath taking speech. I evaluate what he says. I would think this is obvious?

 

[passer_by]

Maybe you have never needed a conversion experience. I know many Christians who are brought up in Christian homes, raised in the faith, and never wandered from it. Peter was speaking to Jews who were raised in the faith, but they needed conversion. Catholics who are raised in the faith sometimes need conversion. Conversion is something that occurs on all levels, Body, Soul, and Spirit. Of the soul, there is rationality, but also imagination, will, passion (emotion) and affectation. All of these elements of the soul transform together when there is a conversion experience.

Conversion to Catholicism has to be grounded in reason.

I am not sure you realize this, but for you to be Catholic because your parents baptized you Catholic is actually reasonable unless someone gives you sufficient reason to abandon your faith.

But if you did indeed lapse, then either you should be given reason to come back or you should understand that the reason you left was unreasonable to begin with.

To say that you want to now be Catholic because you feel that the Holy Spirit speaks to you in Catholicism is actually not reasonable.

Apparently you don’t work with many people whose reason is impaired. I will grant you that this is an ideal situation, but when the ideal does not exist, there are other ways for a person to be led into Truth.

But your method can lead people TO the truth and also AWAY from the truth. Hence your method is not very good as a way of leading people to the faith.

This is actually my core objection.

Indeed. They certainly need to be taught to use the brains God gave them. But if you don’t have their attention, they will not learn much. It is called affective education.

You get there attention by getting to know them. There are other ways than CCR events through which you can get to know people.

I am saying that every living person has the potential to live a Spirit filled life, on fire for God, because the charismatic gifts will function through them no matter what their ability, or disability.

I fully agree. All I am saying is that you need to first help them choose the right faith using reason. Then they can actually start believing in the faith and maturing in it by filling their lives with the Holy Spirit.

If you try to lead people to the true faith using charisms, that is irrational. Why? Because other religions promise the same thing in their faiths. So unless the person is ignorant, he/she should really not adopt Catholicism.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I believe, and I think this is what the Church believes, is that the CCR is to renew people by getting the Holy Spirit within them. In order the get the Holy Spirit within them, the Holy Spirit, obviously, must talk to the person coming to Christ. However, the Holy Spirit does not use regular words most of the times. Usually, it communicates with us in a different yet effective way. One of the way is to talk through emotions. Some people in the CCR get a spiritual high because that’s the best way the Holy Spirit can talk to them. When they start to mature, the Holy Spirit starts talking to them in a more efficient and better way and the spiritual high that they loved was gone and hopefully they were content. However, those that aren’t content and want that Spiritual High may feel abandoned and they may leave the Church.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[guanophore]

And that is fine as I said before.

The problem I am pointing out to you is the idea you present that one arrives at Faith through experiences of this type. St. Teresa clearly did not arrive at her faith using those experiences.

I realized when I read this that we are most likely having a semantics problem here. What you seem to mean by “arriving at faith” is different than what I mean. You seem to espouse the definition that “arrive at faith” means to discern the True faith through reason.

I think you are taking this approach because you seem to be assuming that persons in the CCR are not already in the faith, and that they need to get there, and should do so by reason. This is not the case, since persons in the CCR are primarily baptized as infants. Some have had better spiritual formation than others, but all come to prayer meetings and conferences BECAUSE of their faith, not to “get” faith. Faith is a human faculty through which we apprehend the divine. When our faith meets with His grace, we are transformed.

We will both agree that it is possible (and even frequent) for a person to put their faith in that which is counterfeit, whether that be the “emotional high”, money, sex, drugs, power, etc. Faith, when placed in that which is false, will lead a person astray.

Actually I am not making a claim that CCR is all about lapsed Catholics.

Ok, then why the preoccupation of “coming to faith”?

I am merely criticizing one of the main themes of CCR and your presentation i.e. CCR brings lapsed Catholics back to the faith.

Because you seem to believe that having a transformative spiritual encounter with the Holy God that is not the product of “reason” is invalid?

To me, that sounds like a grave misunderstanding.

What is a grave misunderstanding? That reasonable and educated persons seek to be transformed by the Holy Spirit in radical ways?

CCR should be for people who have chosen already to be Catholic. How they choose to be Catholic should be guided by REASON.

I don’t think anyone in the CCR would argue with this. Perhaps you believe that, to be open to the gifts of the HS, one has to abandon reason?

It worked for you, but it does not mean the way you took was in general right. Praise be to God, it worked for you. But you don't have to put everyone through such a confusing methodology of arriving at ones faith.

People that have a transformative encounter with the Holy are not “confused”. They are enriched, centered, and inspired. Their lives become on fire for God, and they develop a love for His Word, and His people. They begin to live out the reality of their baptism. This is what conversion is about.

If I were to ask you the above question, why shouldn’t I choose Jehovah’s Witness which gives profound experiences of the Holy Spirit over Catholicism, what would you say?’

That the JW’s don’t have the Divine Deposit of faith that was delivered once for all to the Church, and they lack the marks of the true church, as they have no Apostolic Succession, no sacramental life, no unity with the successor of Peter. There are probably many hundreds of things I could say. Maybe you don’t realize I spent 20 years among my separated brethren, and I can’t say I have “heard it all”, but I have certainly heard a lot. I spent three years in the Seminary, and studied my way back to the faith into which I was bapitized. I don’t despise reason, study, and intellect. I just know that it is only part of who we are as humans.

I am afraid this is a grave misunderstanding.

Under your view, there is no way to convince someone who is a Budhist or Hindu due to profound religious experiences that they are wrong.

What possible motive would I have for trying to do so? Is there anything in the Gospels that gives you the impression we are to go about finding persons of other faiths and convince them their religious experiences are “wrong”? Is this what you think the Apostles did?

Further, there is no way to convince someone who has left the Catholic faith for Pentecostalism that he is wrong. Why? Because he can merely write back what you wrote above i.e. That God gave him experience and he doesn’t need reason.

Indeed, there are many that erroneously believe that. May God preserve them!

You never did. But you are failing to realize that your position ultimately says that.

I realize that it seems that way to you.

I am saying that they evaluated what the Apostles said. They could have become happy after hearing it etc but it was guided by reason.

I won’t dispute that reason is involved, but that is not what the text says. The text says they were pierced to the HEART! And they responded in “fear” (awe). Of course reason is involved, as we are rational creatures. But the affectations and the reason can easily function together comfortably, and do so in cases of conversion such as this. To say that conversion experiences are invalid because they involve emotion is just not using common sense.

I don’t convert to Islam because I hear an Imam give a breath taking speech. I evaluate what he says. I would think this is obvious?

Yes. But if you felt that the HS had cut into your heart by the words of the Imam, maybe you would be inspired to give it another look?

 

[guanophore]

Conversion to Catholicism has to be grounded in reason.

I am not sure you realize this, but for you to be Catholic because your parents baptized you Catholic is actually reasonable unless someone gives you sufficient reason to abandon your faith.

Yes, I agree. But I think you are assuming that, if other factors are involved, somehow reason is lost.

But if you did indeed lapse, then either you should be given reason to come back or you should understand that the reason you left was unreasonable to begin with.

Yes this is certainly true.

To say that you want to now be Catholic because you feel that the Holy Spirit speaks to you in Catholicism is actually not reasonable.

LOL. Ok. Sorry you feel that way.

I guess Joseph felt the same way, when the angel told Him to take Mary as his wife. I am sure most of the world thought it was unreasonable.

1 Cor 1:20-22

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

1 Cor 1:26-30

26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; 27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

There are many of great faith that you seem to consider unwise and unreasonable.

There is no greater “reason” in all the world than the Holy Spirit speaking through Catholicism. The Church is how He reveals His glory to the world. Those who see it, and are drawn to it, can partake of His divine nature. These spiritual events are arrived at by grace, through faith, not of human knowledge.

But your method can lead people TO the truth and also AWAY from the truth. Hence your method is not very good as a way of leading people to the faith.This is actually my core objection.

I have no “method”, passer. I am not leading anyone anywhere. That means your “core objection” has no basis in reality.

You get there attention by getting to know them. There are other ways than CCR events through which you can get to know people.

Yes, of course. I never claimed that the CCR is the only effective method for renewal. It happens to be one that works well for many people, and probably a certain type of person.

Getting to know people happens in relationship, and relationships are built out of trust, and bonding (attachment). This is something that engages a type of rationality that is not intellectual, but affectual. If you ask someone why they don’t trust someone, they can sometimes give “reasons”. Sometimes they can’t. They intuitively know that the individual is not trustworthy, just as the little girl intuitively knew she needed to hide under the bed. The intellect is not the only source of reason. We can also know things by other means.

I fully agree. All I am saying is that you need to first help them choose the right faith using reason. Then they can actually start believing in the faith and maturing in it by filling their lives with the Holy Spirit.

I commend you to your methods, my dear brother.

If you try to lead people to the true faith using charisms, that is irrational. Why? Because other religions promise the same thing in their faiths. So unless the person is ignorant, he/she should really not adopt Catholicism.

How did Peter know that the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles? (Hint: Acts 10)

 

[passer_by]

LOL. Ok. Sorry you feel that way.

I guess Joseph felt the same way, when the angel told Him to take Mary as his wife. I am sure most of the world thought it was unreasonable.

Joseph was ALREADY A JEW

You are not understanding what I am saying I think. After you choose a faith through reason, you believe in the Divinely Revealed truths even if you can’t explain them. But you can only do so if you have already arrived at your faith through REASON.

1 Cor 1:20-22

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

1 Cor 1:26-30

26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; 27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

You do realize that you are quoting Scripture out of context here?

There are many of great faith that you seem to consider unwise and unreasonable.

There is no greater “reason” in all the world than the Holy Spirit speaking through Catholicism. The Church is how He reveals His glory to the world. Those who see it, and are drawn to it, can partake of His divine nature. These spiritual events are arrived at by grace, through faith, not of human knowledge

Ok let me try one last time at clarifying, and honestly I give up if you still don’t.

These profound experience are not UNIQUE to Catholicism.

So my question is, how does one pick Catholicism just because he got an experience in it? That would be IRRATIONAL.

Therefore CCR is actually not what brings Catholics back. It must be REASON.

I have no “method”, passer. I am not leading anyone anywhere. That means your “core objection” has no basis in reality.

I see.

Yes, of course. I never claimed that the CCR is the only effective method for renewal. It happens to be one that works well for many people, and probably a certain type of person.

And I am actually saying that CCR is the worst way to bring a lapsed Catholic back to the Church. It is unreasonable.

It’s just as equal to asking someone to convert because they like how the church buildings look.

Getting to know people happens in relationship, and relationships are built out of trust, and bonding (attachment). This is something that engages a type of rationality that is not intellectual, but affectual. If you ask someone why they don’t trust someone, they can sometimes give “reasons”. Sometimes they can’t. They intuitively know that the individual is not trustworthy, just as the little girl intuitively knew she needed to hide under the bed. The intellect is not the only source of reason. We can also know things by other means.

Ha? If they “feel” that an individual is not trustworthy, when there is no actual reason, then the person is paranoid.

Whether we like it or not, REASON is how you determine something objectively.

How did Peter know that the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles? (Hint: Acts 10)

The Gentiles had already CONVERTED!!

Why do you keep attacking a straw man? You give example after example of converted people having experiences with the Holy Spirit. That is fine. I am talking about people who try to adopt a certain religion from these experiences. That is not fine because it is unreasonable. It would be like someone having a fear of someone without any actual reason.

 

[passer_by]

I think you are taking this approach because you seem to be assuming that persons in the CCR are not already in the faith, and that they need to get there, and should do so by reason.

I am not talking about baptism.

I am talking about people who lapsed. They lapsed because of some REASON. Either they come back solely on the fact that those reasons were UNREASONABLE or they come back because they were given REASONS to come back.

CCR aims to make them come back by giving them profound experiences. I find that problematic because it is irrational.

We will both agree that it is possible (and even frequent) for a person to put their faith in that which is counterfeit, whether that be the “emotional high”, money, sex, drugs, power, etc. Faith, when placed in that which is false, will lead a person astray.

WHICH is why REASON is important.

Because you seem to believe that having a transformative spiritual encounter with the Holy God that is not the product of “reason” is invalid?

I believe that such experiences say NOTHING about whether someone should be Catholic or Buddhist or whether it is from the Holy Spirit to begin with.

People that have a transformative encounter with the Holy are not “confused”. They are enriched, centered, and inspired. Their lives become on fire for God, and they develop a love for His Word, and His people. They begin to live out the reality of their baptism. This is what conversion is about.

The ones who are already Catholic are enriched yes. But ones who are non-Catholics or lapsed Catholics are not given any foundation through such an experience.

That the JW’s don’t have the Divine Deposit of faith that was delivered once for all to the Church, and they lack the marks of the true church, as they have no Apostolic Succession, no sacramental life, no unity with the successor of Peter. There are probably many hundreds of things I could say. Maybe you don’t realize I spent 20 years among my separated brethren, and I can’t say I have “heard it all”, but I have certainly heard a lot. I spent three years in the Seminary, and studied my way back to the faith into which I was bapitized. I don’t despise reason, study, and intellect. I just know that it is only part of who we are as humans.

Come on, do you really want to defend CCR like a dogma or do you want to actually discuss honestly?

Because you should first ask, why does it matter if someone has a deposit of faith? According to you, its all about the Holy Spirit guiding someone and reason must go out of the window.

Unless someone is ALREADY accepting of the Catholic faith, CCR gives no reason to convert.

What possible motive would I have for trying to do so? Is there anything in the Gospels that gives you the impression we are to go about finding persons of other faiths and convince them their religious experiences are “wrong”? Is this what you think the Apostles did?

YES!! They did that.

And keep in mind, those religious experiences were authentic. They just weren’t from the same source.

I won’t dispute that reason is involved, but that is not what the text says. The text says they were pierced to the HEART! And they responded in “fear” (awe). Of course reason is involved, as we are rational creatures. But the affectations and the reason can easily function together comfortably, and do so in cases of conversion such as this. To say that conversion experiences are invalid because they involve emotion is just not using common sense.

It is using common sense.

Think about it, all religions of the earth claim conversion experiences. So saying that Christianity is true because of your conversion experience is irrational.

Yes. But if you felt that the HS had cut into your heart by the words of the Imam, maybe you would be inspired to give it another look?

And that would be the problem. I would know that these feelings of mine would be irrational and not from the Holy Spirit since I know that Christianity is the one true faith by REASON.

 

[guanophore]

Joseph was ALREADY A JEW

Yes. Like I was already Catholic. My point with Joseph is that the knowledge/insight/guidance came to him from a source other than his conscious rational intellect. He did not “reason” his way into taking Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

There is an element of spiritual experience and wisdom that lies outside the boundaries of the conscious rational mind.

You are not understanding what I am saying I think. After you choose a faith through reason, you believe in the Divinely Revealed truths even if you can’t explain them. But you can only do so if you have already arrived at your faith through REASON.

Oh, I think I do understand what you are saying. I just know there are other ways to come to know divinely revealed truths aside from conscious reasoning.

 You do realize that you are quoting Scripture out of context here?

There is a wisdom that comes from above, not from human intellect, that far surpasses where the human rational abilities can reach. This truth, revealed infallibly in the Scriptures, may be “out of context” for your “reasonable” polemic.

Ok let me try one last time at clarifying, and honestly I give up if you still don’t.

LOL. Do you think maybe I am a lost cause, because I believe in supernatural sources of knowledge?

 These profound experience are not UNIQUE to Catholicism.

I never claimed they were. God reveals Himself to everyone, everywhere. He desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

So my question is, how does one pick Catholicism just because he got an experience in it? That would be IRRATIONAL.

I don’t know why you are even bringing this question on this thread, passer. How did you get on this jag, anyhow? This thread is about the differences between traditional Catholics, and charismatic Catholics. You have created the strawman that charismatics don’t use reason to come to faith, and are trying to refute this product of your own imagination.

The CCR is not about “picking Catholicism”. It is about renewing the baptismal mission and gifts of Catholics. Most of them were baptized as infants, and someone else "picked " for them. Then they got confirmed, and made promises to live out their faith. A lot of us failed to keep those promises, and needed to be brought back to them. We were brought back to them in an experiential apprehension of supernatural grace.

Therefore CCR is actually not what brings Catholics back. It must be REASON.

Well…

Try as you might, I don’t think you are going to be able to squeeze as much humanity into this mold as you would wish.

And I am actually saying that CCR is the worst way to bring a lapsed Catholic back to the Church. It is unreasonable.

Yes, it certainly seems you are saying that. Such a statement might be made by a person who 1) devalues the knowledge of God working in and through the human heart
2) suffers a gross misunderstanding of the nature and function of the CCR 3) performs huge works of evangelism, bringing millions back to the faith through talks on reason.

 It's just as equal to asking someone to convert because they like how the church buildings look.

It has happened. God can meet a person whereever they are. I seem to remember a certain saint who was converted by his conviction that he needed to repair a dilapitated church building.

Ha? If they "feel" that an individual is not trustworthy, when there is no actual reason, then the person is paranoid.

I did not say there was no actual reason, though did I? See how you jump to these conclusions? That false premise of yours is like a trampoline!

Instead, I said that they may not be able to give you a rational explanation. That does not mean one doesn’t exist. The little girl had not reached the age of reason, where she was able to give an intellectual explanation of her fears.

Whether we like it or not, REASON is how you determine something objectively.

Ok. Did Abram use his “reason” when he was talking to that burning bush?

The Gentiles had already CONVERTED!!

Converted from what?

To what?

How did Peter KNOW they had received the HS?

Why do you keep attacking a straw man? You give example after example of converted people having experiences with the Holy Spirit. That is fine.

Because that is what the CCR is. You are the one with the strawman. You have invented an imaginary understanding of what the CCR is, and are trying to refute it. You conception is inaccurate.

I am talking about people who try to adopt a certain religion from these experiences. That is not fine because it is unreasonable. It would be like someone having a fear of someone without any actual reason.

That is not what the thread is about, passer, that is why I say you are pulling the notion out of a place the sun don’t shine. The thread is all about Catholics.

 

[telmab7]

I just stumbled on this thread and was happy to see there WAS a dialogue between the two movements and they ARE movements -despite the fact that the I see the dialogue has regressed some

I have a new twist for you
#1 There is such a thing as Traditionalists that are also Charismatics !!!
Yup
Myself and others attend a Charismatic Parish in NJ the home state in which we live and
a Traditionalist Parish in NYC where we work and commute to
Going to at least 6 or 7 Tridentine Latin Feast Masses a year is a must and we live like traditional Catholics -it’s direct direction from the Holy Father to respect - honor and participate in preserving this part of our Faith as one of it’s centers !

We honor the four fasting seasons of the year and we don’t eat meat year round on Fridays as well as several other core spiritual returns to the center of our Faith and we honor by majority the Traditional Calendar since the one created for 2012 by the USCB for America as per the words of several bishops is so liberal it’s borderline heretical

However #2
We are baptized in the Holy Spirit (which is a deep renewal of your baptismal rights and a natural re-evangelism of the Catholic Faith and when we say we will pray for you if there is tragedy or an illness in you or your family we don’t mean tomorrow or next week maybe
We mean right there and then - in the street if necessary and we do something that is mostly foreign to TLM we are all natural evangelists and it’s also very Marian and very Eucharistic and would have to be if it is authentic Charismatic Catholicism
The whole speaking in tounges debate is silly - very few people are given the gift more so the gift of teachings but it’s valid - To be understood correctly most people are just praying in the Spirit out loud and worshiping Our Triune Lord at assigned times (by the Office of the Bishop) during the mass - not at random
(and …mostly in Latin and Greek by the way )
you know chanting Kyrie Elieso Christie Elieso …Maranatha - Maranthana - Oh Gratsia Maria Plena - Cone Lord …Come Abba Father
I’ve seen people I’ve known bound to a wheel chair healed I’ve seen things invoked by the power of the Holy Spirit - once you see someone get out a wheel chair in a Catholic Church due a group of people laying hands on someone led by the prayers of Holy Priest a time or two - you stop and say ok I’m listening

Lastly I would add that if you study Catholic history in-depth you will find that the promise made through the Holy Spirit that He through the Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ will renew the Church every few generations (100 to 200 years) is a guaranteed reality .!

There is a Catholic renewal that has begun in the Church I tell you it’s alive in NYC
I’ve seen an average of 75+ people in any mid day mass (one of three) in three Parishes separated by a 1/4 mile on any given day of the week for over a year !

If the renewal is to become a reality I have discovered through prayer - fasting and study
It must bridge the gap with the Love and Autthenticity that the actual Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ in this gathered assembly becomes the exact same thing then TLM and Charismatica must network together and take this thing of each out of a grass roots level and make the both an integrated Catholic Cultural revival in the world

Laudetur Jesu Christus Et Maria Immaculata
Your friend .....Mark

 

[telmab7]

I just stumbled on this thread and was happy to see there WAS a dialogue between the two movements and they ARE movements -despite the fact that the I see the dialogue has regressed some

I have a new twist for you
#1 There is such a thing as Traditionalists that are also Charismatics !!!
Yup
Myself and others attend a Charismatic Parish in NJ the home state in which we live and
a Traditionalist Parish in NYC where we work and commute to
Going to at least 6 or 7 Tridentine Latin Feast Masses a year is a must and we live like traditional Catholics -it’s direct direction from the Holy Father to respect - honor and participate in preserving this part of our Faith as one of it’s centers !

We honor the four fasting seasons of the year and we don’t eat meat year round on Fridays as well as several other core spiritual returns to the center of our Faith and we honor by majority the Traditional Calendar since the one created for 2012 by the USCB for America as per the words of several bishops is so liberal it’s borderline heretical

However #2
We are baptized in the Holy Spirit (which is a deep renewal of your baptismal rights and a natural re-evangelism of the Catholic Faith and when we say we will pray for you if there is tragedy or an illness in you or your family we don’t mean tomorrow or next week maybe
We mean right there and then - in the street if necessary and we do something that is mostly foreign to TLM we are all natural evangelists and it’s also very Marian and very Eucharistic and would have to be if it is authentic Charismatic Catholicism
The whole speaking in tounges debate is silly - very few people are given the gift more so the gift of teachings but it’s valid - To be understood correctly most people are just praying in the Spirit out loud and worshiping Our Triune Lord at assigned times (by the Office of the Bishop) during the mass - not at random
(and …mostly in Latin and Greek by the way )
you know chanting Kyrie Elieso Christie Elieso …Maranatha - Maranthana - Oh Gratsia Maria Plena - Cone Lord …Come Abba Father
I’ve seen people I’ve known bound to a wheel chair healed I’ve seen things invoked by the power of the Holy Spirit - once you see someone get out a wheel chair in a Catholic Church due a group of people laying hands on someone led by the prayers of Holy Priest a time or two - you stop and say ok I’m listening

Lastly I would add that if you study Catholic history in-depth you will find that the promise made through the Holy Spirit that He through the Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ will renew the Church every few generations (100 to 200 years) is a guaranteed reality .!

There is a Catholic renewal that has begun in the Church I tell you it’s alive in NYC
I’ve seen an average of 75+ people in any mid day mass (one of three) in three Parishes separated by a 1/4 mile on any given day of the week for over a year !

If the renewal is to become a reality I have discovered through prayer - fasting and study
It must bridge the gap with the Love and Autthenticity that the actual Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ in this gathered assembly becomes the exact same thing then TLM and Charismatica must network together and take this thing of each out of a grass roots level and make the both an integrated Catholic Cultural revival in the world

Laudetur Jesu Christus Et Maria Immaculata
Your friend .....Mark

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Mark,
It is imperative that I understand this combination of Charismatic and Traditional Catholic concept. But I believe it will take me just as long to figure warp drive while I’m in the academy, studying quantum physics.

ussdragonstar.com/utilitycore/warpspeeds.asp

Right now I’m stuck in the Delta quadrant and am trying to find a way back home.

 

[TrueLight]

Hi Telmabb! Welcome!

… and when we say we will pray for you if there is tragedy or an illness in you or your family we don’t mean tomorrow or next week maybe
We mean right there and then - in the street if necessary and we do something that is mostly foreign to TLM we are all natural evangelists

Are all the above foreign to traditional Catholics? I’m too new to be able to tell.

• To be understood correctly most people are just praying in the Spirit out loud and worshiping Our Triune Lord at assigned times (by the Office of the Bishop) during the mass - not at random

When are the assigned times?

Lastly I would add that if you study Catholic history in-depth you will find that the promise made through the Holy Spirit that He through the Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ will renew the Church every few generations (100 to 200 years) is a guaranteed reality .!

When was the last one? Was the last one when the Pentecostal church was born?

There is a Catholic renewal that has begun in the Church I tell you it’s alive in NYC
I’ve seen an average of 75+ people in any mid day mass (one of three) in three Parishes separated by a 1/4 mile on any given day of the week for over a year !

NYC has a pentecostal storefront on every corner in Brooklyn. I am not surprised the movement is alive and well in NYC.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Awesome guys! I was afraid this thread was dead, but it resurrected!

 

[passer_by]

Yes. Like I was already Catholic. My point with Joseph is that the knowledge/insight/guidance came to him from a source other than his conscious rational intellect. He did not “reason” his way into taking Mary and Jesus to Egypt.

There is an element of spiritual experience and wisdom that lies outside the boundaries of the conscious rational mind.

Oh, I think I do understand what you are saying. I just know there are other ways to come to know divinely revealed truths aside from conscious reasoning.

There is a wisdom that comes from above, not from human intellect, that far surpasses where the human rational abilities can reach. This truth, revealed infallibly in the Scriptures, may be “out of context” for your “reasonable” polemic.

LOL. Do you think maybe I am a lost cause, because I believe in supernatural sources of knowledge?

I never claimed they were. God reveals Himself to everyone, everywhere. He desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

I don’t know why you are even bringing this question on this thread, passer. How did you get on this jag, anyhow? This thread is about the differences between traditional Catholics, and charismatic Catholics. You have created the strawman that charismatics don’t use reason to come to faith, and are trying to refute this product of your own imagination.

The CCR is not about “picking Catholicism”. It is about renewing the baptismal mission and gifts of Catholics. Most of them were baptized as infants, and someone else "picked " for them. Then they got confirmed, and made promises to live out their faith. A lot of us failed to keep those promises, and needed to be brought back to them. We were brought back to them in an experiential apprehension of supernatural grace.

Well…

Try as you might, I don’t think you are going to be able to squeeze as much humanity into this mold as you would wish.

Yes, it certainly seems you are saying that. Such a statement might be made by a person who 1) devalues the knowledge of God working in and through the human heart
2) suffers a gross misunderstanding of the nature and function of the CCR 3) performs huge works of evangelism, bringing millions back to the faith through talks on reason.

It has happened. God can meet a person whereever they are. I seem to remember a certain saint who was converted by his conviction that he needed to repair a dilapitated church building.

I did not say there was no actual reason, though did I? See how you jump to these conclusions? That false premise of yours is like a trampoline!

Instead, I said that they may not be able to give you a rational explanation. That does not mean one doesn’t exist. The little girl had not reached the age of reason, where she was able to give an intellectual explanation of her fears.

Ok. Did Abram use his “reason” when he was talking to that burning bush?

Converted from what?

To what?

How did Peter KNOW they had received the HS?

Because that is what the CCR is. You are the one with the strawman. You have invented an imaginary understanding of what the CCR is, and are trying to refute it. You conception is inaccurate.

That is not what the thread is about, passer, that is why I say you are pulling the notion out of a place the sun don’t shine. The thread is all about Catholics.

Ok I think it safe to say that you are convinced that CCR is good. So we can go at this for weeks and I fear we will be at the same spot.

Just to conclude, I am stating the following

The claim:** one may arrive at a true religion from something other than reason**

Reasons why it is objectionable:
1) Unreasonable (simply follows from the position of the statement)
2) Dangerous

Since (1) is just concluding what is claimed i.e. one can arrive at a true religion by unreasonable means.

Let me add a line or two to explain (2)

It is dangerous because such emotional experiences exist in every single religion, Christian and non-Christian. So there is nothing stopping a Catholic who has a profound experience through a Hindu ritual from leaving the church for Hinduism if the claimed statement is true. It might be the most unreasonable thing to do but it doesn’t matter since there are ways to the truth that are not reasonable.

So in my knowledge and ability, I think that CCR events held in hope of bringing lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics back to the faith are a big mistake. In the same token, I cannot see how anyone who has grown in their Catholic faith would prefer such a form of worship over traditional means. Maybe for a change, yes. But to me, when I walk in to a church that is having a charismatic mass, I can’t even get my self to think silently and reflect on anything.

Now some good might come through it like your conversion or growth in faith. But it does not mean CCR is good. As someone stated in some other thread, God can bring about good from the imperfect or bad. Therefore, to conclude that something is good because good came out of it would be erroneous reasoning.

So just to be clear, I am not stating that CCR is immoral. It’s just an inefficient enterprise in my opinion.

Then again, your main premise is that reason is not always necessary. So I am not sure if it matters.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Ok I think it safe to say that you are convinced that CCR is good. So we can go at this for weeks and I fear we will be at the same spot.

Just to conclude, I am stating the following

The claim:** one may arrive at a true religion from something other than reason**

Reasons why it is objectionable:
1) Unreasonable (simply follows from the position of the statement)
2) Dangerous

Since (1) is just concluding what is claimed i.e. one can arrive at a true religion by unreasonable means.

Let me add a line or two to explain (2)

It is dangerous because such emotional experiences exist in every single religion, Christian and non-Christian. So there is nothing stopping a Catholic who has a profound experience through a Hindu ritual from leaving the church for Hinduism if the claimed statement is true. It might be the most unreasonable thing to do but it doesn’t matter since there are ways to the truth that are not reasonable.

So in my knowledge and ability, I think that CCR events held in hope of bringing lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics back to the faith are a big mistake. In the same token, I cannot see how anyone who has grown in their Catholic faith would prefer such a form of worship over traditional means. Maybe for a change, yes. But to me, when I walk in to a church that is having a charismatic mass, I can’t even get my self to think silently and reflect on anything.

Now some good might come through it like your conversion or growth in faith. But it does not mean CCR is good. As someone stated in some other thread, God can bring about good from the imperfect or bad. Therefore, to conclude that something is good because good came out of it would be erroneous reasoning.

So just to be clear, I am not stating that CCR is immoral. It’s just an inefficient enterprise in my opinion.

Then again, your main premise is that reason is not always necessary. So I am not sure if it matters.

Quick question: Do you believe it’s all right for someone to use emotion to find a religion, then use reason to say why it’s true?