Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

[Irish_Polock]

Originally Posted by justtryin http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
But they do not speak of nine gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Since when has St.Paul lost his position as a teacher in the Catholic Church?

And when has Scripture lost its position as a Catholic Church document?

As a Catholic, you should know that Scripture has to be interpreted in the light of Sacred tradition and the Magisterium, this is what is trying to be established. We can not do otherwise. least we fall into the same errors that protestants have throughout the years.

I feel what justtrying is saying (please correct me if I am wrong justtrying) is that the CCR has been promulgated on ambiguity. Nothing I have seen yet - from any source that references the gifts of the Holy Spirit - can undeniably, unambiguously and specifically state that the CCR is a validly traditional movement. Therefore, It seems to remain an unsupported novelty within the historic Church.

The gifts that did not cease have always been, and will remain, in the Church from the time of Pentecost to the end of times. Nothing was ever lost, the Church remains indefectible.

 

[justtryin]

As a Catholic, you should know that Scripture has to be interpreted in the light of Sacred tradition and the Magisterium, this is what is trying to be established. We can not do otherwise. least we fall into the same errors that protestants have throughout the years.

I feel what justtrying is saying (please correct me if I am wrong justtrying) is that the CCR has been promulgated on ambiguity. Nothing I have seen yet - from any source that references the gifts of the Holy Spirit - can undeniably, unambiguously and specifically state that the CCR is a validly traditional movement. Therefore, It seems to remain an unsupported novelty within the historic Church.

The gifts that did not cease have always been, and will remain, in the Church from the time of Pentecost to the end of times. Nothing was ever lost, the Church remains indefectible.

That’s my point. Definitions are being altered. I am to now believe there are three baptisms? That’s kinda vague.

If you press someone on tongues they will spend 20 minutes defending it. Then, once they have finished saying everything you’ve already heard a hundred times before they say:
“Why are we focused so much on tongues. It’s the least of the gifts.”

 

[justtryin]

Does anyone know if there has ever been an inquiry or examination into the teachings, claims and practices of CCR by the Vatican?

I know the Church approves this movement. But is it fair to say she is aware of the particulars of the movement? Those involved say what people doubt and criticize are ABUSES and not the norm. I’ll accept that. But what do they do when confronted with these abuses?

For all we know the Vatican’s only knowledge of CCR could be what she is told in private audiences with representatives of the CCR. The other information known would be from observing the crowds gathered to be addressed by His Holiness. I’ll admit it. It is an impressive sight to see. Hundreds if not thousands gathered in Christ’s Name. Praying and singing. It’s quite a sight.

But do we know whether or not the Vatican knows of the things alot of people are doubtful of? Do the Pope and Cardinals know about “being slain in the spirit?”
About “baptism in the spirit” being promoted in a manner that gives the impression that it is a “new” sacrament?"
The toungue speaking?"
Or any of the other ambiguous and vague teachings and practices?

I’ld be curious to know exactly what the Vatican knows.

I am not accusing anyone of any wrong-doing.
I am just curious.

 

[Dorothy]

“justryin”

I would like to respond to the part where you asked about people being told “baptized in the spirit” and thinking it is something new and necessary. (I hope I charactarized that correctly).

Having been an active member of CCR since 1975 to about 2005, I would like to share that I quite understood that my infant Baptism was a Sacrament, and that what is called “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” is a heartfelt renewal of our baptismal vows, or “renewal in the Holy Spirit”. (using the term "Baptism in the Holy Spirit makes one think of a sacrament.) Renewal in the Holy Spirit is distinctive in that it is a sacramental, NOT a sacrament.

Saints never wrote about the term “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” because it was not used then. A Carmelite priest I knew, who was a retreat master, told us that what we term “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” is an experience of infused contemplation, that makes a profoud effect on the spirituality of the person receiving it. Some follow the Lord more closely after that, some let it fade away.

The purpose of this experience is to lead one to a more profound interior life. I have witnessed so many have a profound change in their spiritual life through hearing the talks and being prayed over in a “Life in the Spirit Seminar.”

In any movement, I can safely say, there is always need for renewal and improvement, and CCR is no exception. As a Lay Carmelite I point to the need for reform that took place in that order. Things were getting very mediocre and the rule was not being observed as it should have been, and St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross came along and helped much!

 

[utunumsint]

I had an experience with a life in the spirit seminar. They pushed hard for it, and I was very much against it as one of the leaders of a youth group. They prevailed. We went through it as leaders first in an old retreat center in a nearby town. THere was lots of praying, lots of eucharistic adoration.

After some particulary intense prayers in front of the blessed sacrament, I was prayed over. The woman spoke in tonges, and she said things that corresponded exactly to what I had been praying about. The tonges were a distraction at best to what she said using plain english.I saw it as an expression of emotion, nothing more, nothing less, but done so in the context of deep prayer.

That said, having read a lot of mystics, such as John of the Cross, and Theresa of Avilla, I know how difficult it can be to discern spirits, and how easy it is for Satan, the flesh, the world, to distort what God is trying to say to us. That certainly applies to the charismatic movements. No one should take a facile approach to God’s spiritual gifts. Discernment is hard work, and every experience should be evaluated within the context of the church, submitting to the correct authorities, including a qualified spiritual director (a rare thing to find in this day an age, and it was even rare in Theresa’s day, to her regret.)

Going back to the idea of tonges: IMO, you could be speaking in tonges with a heart full of lust. Tonges are expression of what is in the heart. If the heart is pure, then the tonges will be pure. If the heart is full of evil and wickedness, then the tonges will also be full of wickedness. If pure, they can be a powerful channel of prayer, expressing the inexpressible appart from language, in the same way that chant can do.

God bless,
Ut

 

[yablabo]

Does anyone know if there has ever been an inquiry or examination into the teachings, claims and practices of CCR by the Vatican?

I know the Church approves this movement. But is it fair to say she is aware of the particulars of the movement? Those involved say what people doubt and criticize are ABUSES and not the norm. I’ll accept that. But what do they do when confronted with these abuses?

For all we know the Vatican’s only knowledge of CCR could be what she is told in private audiences with representatives of the CCR. The other information known would be from observing the crowds gathered to be addressed by His Holiness. I’ll admit it. It is an impressive sight to see. Hundreds if not thousands gathered in Christ’s Name. Praying and singing. It’s quite a sight.

But do we know whether or not the Vatican knows of the things alot of people are doubtful of? Do the Pope and Cardinals know about “being slain in the spirit?”
About “baptism in the spirit” being promoted in a manner that gives the impression that it is a “new” sacrament?"
The toungue speaking?"
Or any of the other ambiguous and vague teachings and practices?

I’ld be curious to know exactly what the Vatican knows.

I am not accusing anyone of any wrong-doing.
I am just curious.

I think that the Church has already ruled on this issue by giving us the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. I would say that if you do not find provision there for what you see being done in the CCR, then you have your answer.

Obedience is the hallmark of a Christian. A lacking in obedience is the fruit by which you know the tree.

– Nicole

 

[ltwin]

Charisms are discussed in the Catholic Catechism 799-801:

798
The Holy Spirit is "the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body."247 He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity:248 by God’s Word “which is able to build you up”;249 by Baptism, through which he forms Christ’s Body;250 by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ’s members; by “the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts”;251 by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called “charisms”), by which he makes the faithful "fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church."252

Charisms

799
Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world.

800
Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.253

801
It is in this sense that discernment of charisms is always necessary. No charism is exempt from being referred and submitted to the Church’s shepherds. "Their office [is] not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good,"254 so that all the diverse and complementary charisms work together "for the common good."255

There isn’t an exact list given, but the article “Charismata” in the Catholic Encyclopedia goes into a lot more detail.

 

[gtrenewed]

I don’t deny Paul or the Scriptures. But the Bible says and means many things to many people. How are we to know which is correct? Christ left us a Church for that purpose.

If The Scriptures mean what someone claims it to say, that teaching will be confirmed by the teachings of the Church. If it doesn’t, that makes it a new teaching.

First, when Paul says these are spiritual gifts from God and then goes on to list 9 spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12, that is very plain and understandable, not subject to interpretation. Now one can go on from there to expound upon these gifts and that is a different story. However, to answer your point, they are still documented by a church teacher, St.Paul, in a church document, scripture.

Second, the Church has not developed dogma nor doctrine nor teaching on every line of scripture. There is no reason to develop a teaching on a scripture that is very plain unless it is used for heresy. There is no reason to document a list of gifts already documented in scripture. How to use these gifts is another matter and the Church leadership has looked at the CCR and use of these gifts and have approved.

 

[gtrenewed]

As a Catholic, you should know that Scripture has to be interpreted in the light of Sacred tradition and the Magisterium, this is what is trying to be established. We can not do otherwise. least we fall into the same errors that protestants have throughout the years.

You should be aware, as well, that not all of scripture has to be interpreted. For instance, the shortest verse in scripture is “Jesus wept.” Nothing to interpret here, Jesus wept is clearly understood. 1Cor 12 clearly lists or documents 9 spiritual gifts by St. Paul. Now, there is much more that needs to be taught in that chapter but to answer the point of documentation, it is clearly there.

I feel what justtrying is saying (please correct me if I am wrong justtrying) is that the CCR has been promulgated on ambiguity. Nothing I have seen yet - from any source that references the gifts of the Holy Spirit - can undeniably, unambiguously and specifically state that the CCR is a validly traditional movement. Therefore, It seems to remain an unsupported novelty within the historic Church.

This is quite an interesting conjecture on both your parts. To come to your conclusion from your line of thinking is very faulty. That is like calling holiness a movement and a novelty. Or calling the mystics a movement and a novelty. The charisms documented in 1Cor 12 are part of the deposit of faith. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is part of the deposit of faith. Having people seek these charisms or holiness or mysticism is part of a journey of faith. These have never stopped from day 1 through today.

In response to papal prayer for a new (or renewed) outpouring of the Holy Spirit, God answered by stirring the baptisms already bestowed in those agreeing in prayer with the pope. This manifested itself in ecstatic outbursts of praise in other tongues. Since these tongues happened in a prayer setting and not an evangelistic or teaching setting, they were discerned to be the prayer language of tongues not needing interpretation. Since many experienced this, the many came together and became known as the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

The gifts that did not cease have always been, and will remain, in the Church from the time of Pentecost to the end of times. Nothing was ever lost, the Church remains indefectible.

No one has said they were lost, in fact that is part of our defense, they always were. The emphasis is on renewal, the stirring of what is deposited in each of us individually by the Holy Spirit. Part of the teaching in 1Cor12 is that there are many parts to the body of Christ and all are needed. One part cannot say to another part, you are not needed. If you are a hand, you cannot say to me, a foot, that I am not needed. If you are a hand how can you pass judgement on what my function is as a foot. Since those who have the authority to judge have given their approval the matter is settled.

 

[vardaquinn]

But do we know whether or not the Vatican knows of the things alot of people are doubtful of? Do the Pope and Cardinals know about “being slain in the spirit?”
About “baptism in the spirit” being promoted in a manner that gives the impression that it is a “new” sacrament?"
The toungue speaking?"
Or any of the other ambiguous and vague teachings and practices?

Given that you’re aware of it, I’m sure they are. The Pope’s not an idiot.

Pope Benedict himself promotes “baptism in the spirit”.
“Today I would like to extend the invitation to all:* let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.” Pope Benedict XVI, Regina Caeli Message, Pentecost, 2008, given in St. Peter’s Square, Rome.

I am absolutely sure they’re aware of the “tongue-speaking”, especially given that Bl. Pope John Paul II was a “tongue-speaker”.

 

[vardaquinn]

I feel what justtrying is saying (please correct me if I am wrong justtrying) is that the CCR has been promulgated on ambiguity. Nothing I have seen yet - from any source that references the gifts of the Holy Spirit - can undeniably, unambiguously and specifically state that the CCR is a validly traditional movement. Therefore, It seems to remain an unsupported novelty within the historic Church.

Now, I absolutely agree there has definitely been ambiguity on this important issue. However, I question you as to what exactly are you looking for?

 

[justtryin]

Given that you’re aware of it, I’m sure they are. The Pope’s not an idiot.

Pope Benedict himself promotes “baptism in the spirit”.
“Today I would like to extend the invitation to all:* let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.” Pope Benedict XVI, Regina Caeli Message, Pentecost, 2008, given in St. Peter’s Square, Rome.

I am absolutely sure they’re aware of the “tongue-speaking”, especially given that Bl. Pope John Paul II was a “tongue-speaker”.

Again, the undelined part above is not necessary. We know he’s not as you say an idiot.

As for the Holy Father’s speech, you need to read the whole thing in context.

Thus Pentecost is in a special way the Baptism of the Church which carries out her universal mission starting from the roads of Jerusalem with the miraculous preaching in humanity’s different tongues. In this Baptism of the Holy Spirit the personal and community dimension, the “I” of the disciple and the “we” of the Church, are inseparable. The Holy Spirit consecrates the person and at the same time makes him or her a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ, sharing in the mission of witnessing to his love. And this takes place through the Sacraments of Christian initiation: Baptism and Confirmation. In my Message for the next World Youth Day 2008, I have proposed to the young people that they rediscover the Holy Spirit’s presence in their lives and thus the importance of these Sacraments. Today I would like to extend the invitation to all: let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_reg_20080511_pentecoste_en.html

He is speaking of renewing your baptismal vow or promise. Not some event resulting in “tongue speaking.”

Until you can proove otherwise, John Paul II never spoke in tongues.

 

[justtryin]

This is quite an interesting conjecture on both your parts. To come to your conclusion from your line of thinking is very faulty. That is like calling holiness a movement and a novelty. Or calling the mystics a movement and a novelty. ***The charisms documented in 1Cor 12 are part of the deposit of faith. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is part of the deposit of faith. Having people seek these charisms or holiness or mysticism is part of a journey of faith. ***These have never stopped from day 1 through today.

If they are a deposit of faith, there should be historical and tradional teachings from the Church showing that they have always been understood and practised in the manner that CCR understands them. It is this historical/traditional teaching I cannot find.

Ironicly the very document I am repeatedly told to read says this

These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The CCR seems to imply that these gifts are signs to be sought.
The Church seems to imply that these gifts are talents not to be sought, but also not to be shunned.

 

[ltwin]

If they are a deposit of faith, there should be historical and tradional teachings from the Church showing that they have always been understood and practised in the manner that CCR understands them. It is this historical/traditional teaching I cannot find.

Ironicly the very document I am repeatedly told to read says this

The CCR seems to imply that these gifts are signs to be sought.
The Church seems to imply that these gifts are talents not to be sought, but also not to be shunned.

I think 1 Corinthians 12 can clear some of the ambiguity up:

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are** varieties of service**, but the same Lord; 6and there are** varieties of activities**, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7** To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.** 8For to one is given through the Spirit the** utterance of wisdom**, and to another the** utterance of knowledge** according to the same Spirit, 9to another** faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles**, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another** various kinds of tongues**, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

While gifts should not be sought, everyone is given some manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. It is not wrong for us to discern what gifts we have been given. On the contrary, “Whether extraordinary or simple and humble” “Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well.”

 

[gtrenewed]

If they are a deposit of faith, there should be historical and tradional teachings from the Church showing that they have always been understood and practised in the manner that CCR understands them. It is this historical/traditional teaching I cannot find.

Ironicly the very document I am repeatedly told to read says this

The CCR seems to imply that these gifts are signs to be sought.
The Church seems to imply that these gifts are talents not to be sought, but also not to be shunned.

It is not “if they are a deposit of faith” ; it is “they are a deposit of faith” as seen in 1Cor12, which also says to earnestly desire the gifts. The gifts are used for the common good not just for signs.

It was the norm of the church and the abuses were dealth with by St.Paul so others would not need to write about it, just refer to Paul’s letter. There are many norms in the early church that were not written about.

Part of the problem with historic reference is that once the church came out of persecution and church membership became political as well as spiritual, the writing covered other more necessary topics. Consider how long it took to fully develop Marian theology even though it was part of the deposit of faith.

The basis of the CCR is on solid ground; although, the local expression may falter from time to time. The latter does not negate the former. There are resources to research though, you could check out iccrs.org and nsc-chariscenter.org

 

[Irish_Polock]

You should be aware, as well, that not all of scripture has to be interpreted. For instance, the shortest verse in scripture is “Jesus wept.” Nothing to interpret here, Jesus wept is clearly understood. 1Cor 12 clearly lists or documents 9 spiritual gifts by St. Paul. Now, there is much more that needs to be taught in that chapter but to answer the point of documentation, it is clearly there.

I am well aware that, that is the case, and your refutation only agrees that we should not mislead others on a ambiguous translation, unlike what you have espoused, these versus are indeed misleading and while they are factual, the way they should be used in the spiritual growth of the faithful is less then certain. It is a fact that the Church has never seen a “movement” within the Church such as the CCR, this is undeniable. You can reference single Saints and Church fathers whom can be attributed with one gift or another, but you can not cite any where within the history of the Church where these Saints and Church fathers have done anything that resembles the CCR of today.

As far as St. John 11:35, well that is kinda funny, reason being is that, that verse has many, many different interpretations, here are just a few (pulled from Wiki, due to two sick kiddo’s in my lap trying to get to sleep)

Weeping demonstrates that Christ was indeed true man, with real bodily functions (such as tears, sweat, blood, eating and drinking—note, for comparison, the emphasis laid on Jesus’ eating during the post-resurrection appearances). His emotions and reactions were real; Christ was not an illusion or spirit (see Docetism). Pope Leo I referred to this passage when he discussed the two natures of Jesus: “In his humanity Jesus wept for Lazarus; in his divinity he raised him from the dead.”

The sorrow felt by Jesus presages the suffering of his own crucifixion.[citation needed]

The sorrow, sympathy, and compassion Jesus felt for all mankind.

The rage he felt against the tyranny of death over mankind.[4]

Jesus’s weeping demonstrates that Lazarus had genuinely died. The raising of Lazarus was therefore not a fraud or a case of misdiagnosis.

Jesus wept, not for Lazarus as some suppose, but rather, he wept because Mary,

As you can see, even the shortest verse in the NT can have numerous interpretations, unlike the point you might have been trying to make.

This is quite an interesting conjecture on both your parts. To come to your conclusion from your line of thinking is very faulty. That is like calling holiness a movement and a novelty. Or calling the mystics a movement and a novelty. The charisms documented in 1Cor 12 are part of the deposit of faith. Being baptized in the Holy Spirit is part of the deposit of faith. Having people seek these charisms or holiness or mysticism is part of a journey of faith. These have never stopped from day 1 through today.

In response to papal prayer for a new (or renewed) outpouring of the Holy Spirit, …

To compare holiness to the CCR is like comparing apples to oranges, they are nothing alike, do any of these gifts lead to the sanctification of the soul as you have insinuated? I agree that they are indeed part of the deposit of faith - although saying being baptized in the Holy Spirit is part of said deposit is certainly being disingenuous - , but their use has been far more ambiguous throughout the history of our Church. Historically, the Saints and Church fathers did not get together and seek these gifts - with exception of the apostles - as the CCR does today. It was unheard of.

Like others and I have already pointed out, the beginning of the CCR is certainly clear, weather it is of the authentic spirit of God is far less then certain, there has been nothing infallibly taught on the subject, there are no authentic magisterial teaches that clearly teach the way these charisms need to be sought, there are nothing but ambiguous statements on the fact that they existed at a point in the Churches history. The fact that many people have experienced something does not make it authentically Holy. One has to only look to Medjugorje for a example of an another example of presumptuous faith. Until the Church has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the subject of the CCR, and how the faithful are to seek these gifts, I will settle on the tried and true spirituality of our forefathers.

No one has said they were lost, in fact that is part of our defense, they always were. The emphasis is on renewal, the stirring of what is deposited in each of us individually by the Holy Spirit. Part of the teaching in 1Cor12 is that there are many parts to the body of Christ and all are needed. One part cannot say to another part, you are not needed. If you are a hand, you cannot say to me, a foot, that I am not needed. If you are a hand how can you pass judgement on what my function is as a foot. Since those who have the authority to judge have given their approval the matter is settled.

I have read in numerous post by Charismatic Catholics, that in the beginning of our Churches history, these charisms were apparent, possibly even typical, then they were “lost” for centuries, until 1967. I can reference them if you ask, but I would not think this would be a necessity. The facts are apparent, the CCR has been influenced by a collogue of protestant beliefs and is certainly less then traditionally Catholic.

 

[Irish_Polock]

The basis of the CCR is on solid ground; although, the local expression may falter from time to time. The latter does not negate the former. There are resources to research though, you could check out iccrs.org and nsc-chariscenter.org

The basis of the CCR has been built on ambiguity and customs outside of the Holy Mother Church; the CCR has claimed to have solid evidence that it is a traditional movement that has been in transit since Pentecost, this however, remains to be seen. The fact that there is no indisputable evidence that anything such as the modern CCR, existed in Church history is clearly an indication that you claim is not unsupported by history and uncertain at best.

 

[gtrenewed]

You can reference single Saints and Church fathers whom can be attributed with one gift or another, but you can not cite any where within the history of the Church where these Saints and Church fathers have done anything that resembles the CCR of today.

The same can be said for many Catholic spiritualities such Marian devotions and our current mass. Our point is that it was the norm in the first church when persecution was the most intense. The mass form was different as well. Time has changed the look of the church and the mass. The modern times have brought about the need for a greater focus on the ecstatic element of the first church as a renewal of that deposit of faith.

As far as St. John 11:35, well that is kinda funny, reason being is that, that verse has many, many different interpretations, here are just a few (pulled from Wiki, due to two sick kiddo’s in my lap trying to get to sleep)

Hope your kids are feeling better. You miss my point. I was countering the claim that there was no list of 9 spiritual gifts in Catholic documentation. 1Cor12 clearly lists these. To counter the claim that scripture must be interpreted, I used the verse that says “Jesus wept” to show that is not always the case. If I ask you if Jesus ever showed emotion on earth, one can point to that scripture just like if asked if there is a list of 9 spiritual gifts, one can point to 1Cor12. The reason Jesus wept is open to opinion or conjecture.

do any of these gifts lead to the sanctification of the soul as you have insinuated?

Yes, for I increased in sanctification and holiness 100 fold instantly following my first prayer meeting and being prayed over for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The reason I went is because I wanted power over sin and they talked of that rewewed power of the Holy Spirit.
While we know that this baptism is not a separate sacrament, it is a refocus, a reeducation, a renewal of what that first church received in their initiation. The following weeks, months, years have led to a greater awareness of our spiritual inheritance.

saying being baptized in the Holy Spirit is part of said deposit is certainly being disingenuous - , but their use has been far more ambiguous throughout the history of our Church. Historically, the Saints and Church fathers did not get together and seek these gifts - with exception of the apostles - as the CCR does today. It was unheard of.

Acts 1:5 Jesus speaking “…you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit…”
Acts 1:8 Jesus speaking “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;…”
These verses, plus many more, show the deposit of faith of being baptized in the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ own words. Again, the first church wasn’t seeking a part of Christianity, it came in their initiation while seeking God. The CCR is part of our Catholic package.

Like others and I have already pointed out, the beginning of the CCR is certainly clear, weather it is of the authentic spirit of God is far less then certain, there has been nothing infallibly taught on the subject, there are no authentic magisterial teaches that clearly teach the way these charisms need to be sought, there are nothing but ambiguous statements on the fact that they existed at a point in the Churches history. The fact that many people have experienced something does not make it authentically Holy. One has to only look to Medjugorje for a example of an another example of presumptuous faith. Until the Church has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the subject of the CCR, and how the faithful are to seek these gifts, I will settle on the tried and true spirituality of our forefathers.

I don’t mind your personal decision concerning what your spirituality looks like. But what you and others like you can’t seem to resist is actively trashing the CCR with hyperbole, using strawman arguments, and not admitting to points that have been successfully countered.
1- the modern CCR has a starting point. Agreed. Based on the deposit of faith. Many spiritualities today have a starting point.
2- if you actually went to the websites I listed and did due diligence there is no way you can call the approval “ambiguous”.
3- St. Paul clearly teaches how these gifts are to be sought after. The church has provided leadership over the centuries in how to seek for a deeper spiritual walk. Modern popes have prayed for a deeper move of the Spirit in our times. In agreeing with that prayer, an ecstatic release of the gifts was released in Catholics.

then they were “lost” for centuries, until 1967. I can reference them if you ask, but I would not think this would be a necessity. The facts are apparent, the CCR has been influenced by a collogue of protestant beliefs and is certainly less then traditionally Catholic.

I would not say they were “lost”. Many in the CCR would not say they were “lost”. Here you go again with hyperbole in calling “the facts apparant”. By your definition of tradition, the mass is less than traditionally Catholic; yet, the Pope and Magisterium have ruled in Vat2. It seems that only your opinion is apparant. Like other protestant beliefs, pentecostal/charismatic Christians have their own denominations. In the Catholic Church it is part of the one church, our spirituality.
Prejudice based on ignorance has unfortuneatly created a type of mild persecution.
I support your choice to say not interested. But it is never left there, derogatory comments always follow to lump us as protestant being less than Catholic and just thrill seeking, emotionally unstable.

 

[justtryin]

The same can be said for many Catholic spiritualities such Marian devotions and our current mass. Our point is that it was the norm in the first church when persecution was the most intense. The mass form was different as well. Time has changed the look of the church and the mass. The modern times have brought about the need for a greater focus on the ecstatic element of the first church as a renewal of that deposit of faith.

I’m not saying there aren’t nine spiritual gifts listed by Paul. Rather I am saying there is no historical, tradional teaching of **nine charismatic gifts as understood and practiced by CCR.

Marian devotion can be seen taught and practiced from the time of the ECF to the present age. The nine charismatic gifts **as understood and practiced **by CCR seem to have ended with the early Church
only to re-emerge in modern times.

I hope you don’t find my questions and comments “derogatory.” That is not my intent. Yes, I am skeptical of CCR. And although I may have traditional leanings, I feel some traditional groups take things too far as well.

How do I really feel about all this? Here it is:

If you take into account the vision of Leo XIII, Our Lady’s words at Fatima, and the comment of
Paul VI about the smoke of satan, I think you end up where we are now. We are being played by the author of confusion.

Two extremes are being erected. On one side you have traditionalism which goes so far as to become sedevacantism. On the other extreme are charismatics who have gone so far as to become Catholic in name and Pentecostal in nature.

Not all CCR go too far, and not all traditional go too far. We are being presented various degrees of two extremes. This isn’t a good place for the Church to find Herself. This doesn’t even include the problems the world thrusts upon the Church.

I’m just trying to figure out how we got here and which direction things are moving.

Anyway, back on point. I know what Charastmatics mean by “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” But does the
Church have a definition other than the Sacrament of Baptism or the renewal of Baptismal vows.

I found this
Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between Some Classical
Pentecostal Churches and Leaders and the Catholic Church (1998-2006)

The term “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” is neither the precise wording found in the New Testament (Mk 1:8 uses the expression “baptize you with the Holy Spirit”) nor is it generally used in the Catholic Church, though it is commonly used by Classical Pentecostals and most Catholic Charismatics. Thus, one of the benefits during this phase of dialogue has been to achieve a better understanding of the way we use such terms.

It’s interesting. If you want to read it, it can be found HERE.

 

[ltwin]

Justtryin, you say:

The nine charismatic gifts **as understood and practiced **by CCR seem to have ended with the early Church
only to re-emerge in modern times.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don’t think you are saying that these gifts have ended entirely, because if you are it would seem to go against what I’ve read about charismata in the Catholic Church’s catechism and in the Catholic/Pentecostal dialogue report you so helpfully linked to:

the sovereign distribution of graces, gifts, and charismata are affirmed in Catholic theology (paragraph 219)

The nine gifts (by the way there are more of them) would certainly fall into the category of charismata.

I’m just trying to see if you don’t believe the CCR is correct in its beliefs about and its exercise of spiritual gifts, then how do you think they can be correctly exercised?