What do you think of the charismatic gifts of Pentecost?

[po18guy]

“Baptism in the Spirit” is used for lack of a better term, really. There another term that is sometimes used but I forget what it is. Anyway, like Guan said, the gifts are all there but you need to unwrap them first. That’s why it can be such a powerful feeling and you see some reactions; someone gives you a good gift and you obviously might be a little excited.

The term might confuse some, put off others. But it by no means diminishes any Sacraments. As Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa (who is among other things a Franciscan Capuchin and the Preacher to the Papal Household), “baptism in the Spirit is not a sacrament, but it is related to a sacrament…to the sacraments of Christian initiation. The baptism in the Spirit makes real and in a way renews Christian initiation”.

That’s the Preacher to the Papal Household speaking, by the way.

I could/should have clarified this in my post. Palmas855 is concerned enough already, without any more confusion being tossed in on my part! I would think that the “baptism” could be called an “epiclesis”, since it is a “calling down” of the Holy Spirit - certainly not to be confused with THE epiclesis during mass. And, this points out a certain problem within the faith: the tendency for terms which are general in nature, becoming associated only with particular events, especially during the mass.

 

[po18guy]

Yes that is a fact, many people has converted from other denominations to CC and i think that is a result of the ecumenical work.

The Pastor of a famous denomination in sweden, Ulf Ekman is coming closer and closer to catholicism, from being a harsh enemy of Rome he now is a strong supporter and i think that it is just his pastoral role in his own denomination which keep him from taking the step fully.

Marcus Grodi, chnetwork.org/ in a recent show, interviewed several Swedish Priests and a Bishop, I believe. All were converts from the Swedish State religion, Lutheranism. It is a wonderful sign.

 

[Melchior_1]

I could/should have clarified this in my post. Palmas855 is concerned enough already, without any more confusion being tossed in on my part! I would think that the “baptism” could be called an “epiclesis”, since it is a “calling down” of the Holy Spirit - certainly not to be confused with THE epiclesis during mass. And, this points out a certain problem within the faith: the tendency for terms which are general in nature, becoming associated only with particular events, especially during the mass.

It’s all good! And I agree with what you said about common terms, Even the word “catholic” can do this at times.

 

[anjoh66]

Marcus Grodi, chnetwork.org/ in a recent show, interviewed several Swedish Priests and a Bishop, I believe. All were converts from the Swedish State religion, Lutheranism. It is a wonderful sign.

Yes our bishop and some priests to are all converts, but the bishop has never been a priest in the Lutheran church, he was about 20 years old when he converted in 1969.

There are some priests that were priests in the Lutheran church who later converted and continued their priesthood in the Catholic Church i think most of them if not even all are married, since they were married before their conversion.

 

[magdalina]

Gifts?

I think there’s a time and place for everything. Sideshow acts belong Off the Midway.

“…There are various ideas about what speaking in tongues means (i.e., reincarnation, Christian experience). I have a personal theory that tongues might be similar to spirit possession cults such as Voodoo, Santeria, or Macumba, which are common in Africa and Latin America. The account of Pentecost, in which the spirit “came upon” Jesus’ disciples, does seem somewhat similar to the experience of the Loa “riding” a devotee. Passers-by observing the New Testament disciples remarked that, under the Spirit’s control, they appeared to be drunk (Acts 2:13). Similar behavior, including dancing and gyrating, is also common in Voodoo worship (as well as in Pentecostal churches)…”

anomalist.com/features/tongues.html

“…Weirdness is everywhere. Carnival images are used by fast food joints, soft drink companies, basketball players, rock stars—everyone wants to be a freak. Everyone wants everyday to be a sideshow…”

shockedandamazed.com/

Have fun.

 

[po18guy]

Yes our bishop and some priests to are all converts, but the bishop has never been a priest in the Lutheran church, he was about 20 years old when he converted in 1969.

There are some priests that were priests in the Lutheran church who later converted and continued their priesthood in the Catholic Church i think most of them if not even all are married, since they were married before their conversion.

What wonderful news! As time passes, it becomes more clear which Church is the true universal (catholic) Church, making disciples of all nations. Amen!

 

[guanophore]

I could/should have clarified this in my post. Palmas855 is concerned enough already, without any more confusion being tossed in on my part! I would think that the “baptism” could be called an “epiclesis”, since it is a “calling down” of the Holy Spirit - certainly not to be confused with THE epiclesis during mass. And, this points out a certain problem within the faith: the tendency for terms which are general in nature, becoming associated only with particular events, especially during the mass.

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think this is a good term to use either. Part fo the resistance is that being filled with the Spirit in this way is somehow seen as oppositional to the sacramental life. I also see the concern about separating the role of the lay person from that of the ordained. If we are to use words that are particular to the actions of an ordained priest, it will cause more confusion.

“Baptism” means to dip, or to be immersed in something. John the Baptist prophesied that we would be “baptised in the HS”. This means immersed in the HS. This happens during the sacraments of initiation, and there are other infillings, or as you may refer to them “epiclesis” where the Spirit “comes upon” a person, but this is so because of what has already happened in the Sacrament.

 

[po18guy]

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think this is a good term to use either. Part fo the resistance is that being filled with the Spirit in this way is somehow seen as oppositional to the sacramental life. I also see the concern about separating the role of the lay person from that of the ordained. If we are to use words that are particular to the actions of an ordained priest, it will cause more confusion.

Unfortunately, baptism is about the only term that makes sense - but it is not a sacramental baptism, as we certainly know. If only more Catholics would realize that!. But, a Priest or Bishop is there and performs it, just as they call down the Holy Spirit during confirmation. As to somehow being opposed to the Sacramental life: Nonsense! On the contrary, it magnifies the Sacramental life. I note the tone in the replies of those who are opposed to it. It is far easier to criticize than to invest some heart and soul into it.

“Baptism” means to dip, or to be immersed in something. John the Baptist prophesied that we would be “baptised in the HS”. This means immersed in the HS. This happens during the sacraments of initiation, and there are other infillings, or as you may refer to them “epiclesis” where the Spirit “comes upon” a person, but this is so because of what has already happened in the Sacrament.

Whatever it is called, I just wish that all Catholics would experience it. It is an immersion in the Spirit, rather than in water. The problem is all semantics. As Mary was overshadowed by the Spirit, so to are we overshadowed by the Spirit. But more than overshadowed - permeated.

Semantics aside, I have yet to see a Catholic submit to the Spirit in such a manner and remain unchanged for the better. There is no obligation to ever attend a charismatic event. Ever. The only thing you have to gain is a profoundly deeper, alive and awakened faith life. If only the nay-sayers would try!

After all, this thread is about the gifts, not a controversial movement within the Church. Are we afraid of the Holy Spirit? Why wait to die before we know Him? Better to know Him now.

 

[palmas855]

Unfortunately, baptism is about the only term that makes sense - but it is not a sacramental baptism, as we certainly know. If only more Catholics would realize that!. But, a Priest or Bishop is there and performs it, just as they call down the Holy Spirit during confirmation. As to somehow being opposed to the Sacramental life: Nonsense! On the contrary, it magnifies the Sacramental life. I note the tone in the replies of those who are opposed to it. It is far easier to criticize than to invest some heart and soul into it.

Whatever it is called, I just wish that all Catholics would experience it. It is an immersion in the Spirit, rather than in water. The problem is all semantics. As Mary was overshadowed by the Spirit, so to are we overshadowed by the Spirit. But more than overshadowed - permeated.

Semantics aside, I have yet to see a Catholic submit to the Spirit in such a manner and remain unchanged for the better. There is no obligation to ever attend a charismatic event. Ever. The only thing you have to gain is a profoundly deeper, alive and awakened faith life. If only the nay-sayers would try!

After all, this thread is about the gifts, not a controversial movement within the Church. Are we afraid of the Holy Spirit? Why wait to die before we know Him? Better to know Him now.

It seems that you are saying that one cannot know the Holy Spirit until one has become a charismatic. I certainly hope that is not what you are saying. I would also like you to point out in the catechism of the Church where it states that the Priest has the ablility to call down the Holy Spirit in this fashion. I know he does that during the Mass for the consecration but I am speaking specifically of calling down the Holy Spirit in the manner you described. Don’t assume that all nay sayers have not had this experience.
I also have a problem with the implied charismatic belief that the Holy Spirit has been forgotten and that somehow exposure to charismatic events is theerefore necessary. I would dispute that.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Unfortunately, baptism is about the only term that makes sense - but it is not a sacramental baptism, as we certainly know. If only more Catholics would realize that!. But, a Priest or Bishop is there and performs it, just as they call down the Holy Spirit during confirmation. As to somehow being opposed to the Sacramental life: Nonsense! On the contrary, it magnifies the Sacramental life. I note the tone in the replies of those who are opposed to it. It is far easier to criticize than to invest some heart and soul into it.

Whatever it is called, I just wish that all Catholics would experience it. It is an immersion in the Spirit, rather than in water. The problem is all semantics. As Mary was overshadowed by the Spirit, so to are we overshadowed by the Spirit. But more than overshadowed - permeated.

Semantics aside, I have yet to see a Catholic submit to the Spirit in such a manner and remain unchanged for the better. There is no obligation to ever attend a charismatic event. Ever. The only thing you have to gain is a profoundly deeper, alive and awakened faith life. If only the nay-sayers would try!

After all, this thread is about the gifts, not a controversial movement within the Church. Are we afraid of the Holy Spirit? Why wait to die before we know Him? Better to know Him now.

I agree with po18guy, there seems to be an insinuation here that the Holy Ghost is available on an on-call basis and you “do not really know Him” unless you know Him through the ways of the charismata. This type of attitude regarding the gifts of the Holy Ghost is I believe probably one of the reasons why so many of us are justly concerned about the nature of these purported gifts, as these seem to always have a certain narcotic effect on those who embrace it. Hmmm…

 

[guanophore]

It seems that you are saying that one cannot know the Holy Spirit until one has become a charismatic.

Can you help me understand what I said that came across this way? I believe that we are sealed with the HS in baptism, and that most cradle catholics have never heard of the charismatic gifts. I certainly had not.

I certainly hope that is not what you are saying. I would also like you to point out in the catechism of the Church where it states that the Priest has the ablility to call down the Holy Spirit in this fashion.

What “fashion” is that?

Did you think I did not believe that the priest is the person authorized by Christ, as a result of his ordination? If so, I am curious to know what I said that gave that impression.

I know he does that during the Mass for the consecration but I am speaking specifically of calling down the Holy Spirit in the manner you described. Don’t assume that all nay sayers have not had this experience.

Are you saying that there is someone that had a priest pray over them for the release of the gifts of the Spirit, who is a “naysayer”? Why would that be?

I also have a problem with the implied charismatic belief that the Holy Spirit has been forgotten and that somehow exposure to charismatic events is theerefore necessary. I would dispute that.

Do you observe most cradle Catholics living a Spirit filled life?

Even if there were only a small number of Catholics who had “forgotten” the HS (I think it is more a case of never being formed in the Spirit filled life) how do you think they should be exposed to such a life?

 

[guanophore]

I agree with po18guy, there seems to be an insinuation here that the Holy Ghost is available on an on-call basis and you “do not really know Him” unless you know Him through the ways of the charismata.

I dont think po said this.

I think it would be more accurate to say that we are the ones who suffer from the condition of being “on call”. As we go through our lives, it is very difficult for us to “walk by the spirit”, “pray unceasingly” and in him “live, and move,a nd have our being”. These concepts describe the communion we are intended to have with God.

The charismata are means by which we can move toward this constant unity and communion with the HS. They build up faith, which when exercised, makes the person’s walk with Christ stronger.

This type of attitude regarding the gifts of the Holy Ghost is I believe probably one of the reasons why so many of us are justly concerned about the nature of these purported gifts, as these seem to always have a certain narcotic effect on those who embrace it. Hmmm…

Help me to understand what type of “attitude” would be most appropriate in your opinon. Do you think it is wrong to follow the Apostolic instruction to “earnestly desire the best gifts”?

Should we not take Jesus at HIs word, when He taught “how much more will your heavenly father give the HS to those who ask?”

What do you mean by “purported gifts”? Does this indicate that you believe they no longer exist?

If so, do you think they did at one time exist?

What is a “narcotic” effect? What is it about the gifts that seems that way to you?

 

[EnchantedEve]

I dont think po said this.

I think it would be more accurate to say that we are the ones who suffer from the condition of being “on call”. As we go through our lives, it is very difficult for us to “walk by the spirit”, “pray unceasingly” and in him “live, and move,a nd have our being”. These concepts describe the communion we are intended to have with God.

The charismata are means by which we can move toward this constant unity and communion with the HS. They build up faith, which when exercised, makes the person’s walk with Christ stronger.

Help me to understand what type of “attitude” would be most appropriate in your opinon. Do you think it is wrong to follow the Apostolic instruction to “earnestly desire the best gifts”?

Should we not take Jesus at HIs word, when He taught “how much more will your heavenly father give the HS to those who ask?”

What do you mean by “purported gifts”? Does this indicate that you believe they no longer exist?

If so, do you think they did at one time exist?

What is a “narcotic” effect? What is it about the gifts that seems that way to you?

I was agreeing with po, not saying he said what I said.

Unless I am misunderstanding your intent, the implication being made here is that unless people learn the means of the charismatic gifts, then constant communion with the Holy Ghost is unattainable, or even unknown. I do not think that is what you are trying to say, but that is how it is implied.

I feel the gifts like these, the charismata of the Holy Ghost, should be something that, if they occur, should be spontaneous and a result of the interior life, not sought as a pre-requisite, which is the fashion that seems to be described here. I am skeptical of those who say that seeking such a constant connection to the Holy Ghost is a prerequisite to a deeper spirituality, because such was not the way of the saints. Of those saints who displayed the charismata, such as St. Anthony and the Holy Apostles, the experience was spontaneous, and not sought after seperate, or prior to, an existing spiritual path.

I say purported because since the charismatic gift is sought as a seperate and primary means of spiritual experience, then that means the genuineness of the experience cannot be verified. In Apostolic times, it was strongly asserted that interpreters should be present, who with experience would discern the spirits after an occurence. St. Paul I believe warned that without such an interpreter the charismatic experience should be avoided. When people are experiencing such a open channeling to the spirit world, there is absolutely no guarantee that what one channels is the Holy Ghost, and one seeks such a vulnerability with extreme measure.

I say narcotic because many charismatics treat the experience like a certain drug, and have difficulty after the experience in praying without experiencing the ecstasy that such a state produces. It becomes the prequisite of their interior life, not vice-versa. This may not always be true, but in my experience certainly at the least seems common.

 

[guanophore]

Unless I am misunderstanding your intent,...

I think if you look back at the OP, it will be clear that my intent is to understand the animosity that I have encounted among some traditional Catholics about the charismatic gifts of Pentecost.

I am researching this phenomenon, and and trying to figure out why some Catholics do not seem to perceive the charismatic gifts of Pentecost as belonging to the Catholic Church.

the implication being made here is that unless people learn the means of the charismatic gifts, then constant communion with the Holy Ghost is unattainable, or even unknown.

Please help me understand where you find this implication. I am finding myself lost. I am sorry to be so knot headed, but I just don’t get that. This reaction is exactly what I am trying to fathom.

I do not think that is what you are trying to say, but that is how it is implied.

It would really be helpful if you could explain this, or give examples, or somehow open my mind to be able to grasp this implication.

I feel the gifts like these, the charismata of the Holy Ghost, should be something that, if they occur, should be spontaneous and a result of the interior life, not sought as a pre-requisite, which is the fashion that seems to be described here.

Can you explain what you mean by “interior life”?

I do think the spontaneity of the gifts is a large part of the problem. Some Catholics are very accustomed to predictability in their faith experience, and the idea of spontaneous unbidden expereinces seems very uncomfortable.

I think the 'spontaneity" was also part of the source of the abuses described in the book of Corinthians.

I am skeptical of those who say that seeking such a constant connection to the Holy Ghost is a prerequisite to a deeper spirituality, because such was not the way of the saints.

Are you saying that the saints did not seek a constant connection to the Holy Spirit?

If not, how do you perceive that they obtained their deeper spirituality?

Is it right for me to assume that there is a correlation between the term “interior life” and “deeper spirituality”? If not, can you explain the difference?

I am studying the Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila. It seems clear that she sought this constant connnection to the HS, and considers it a pre-requisite to a deeper spirituality. If this was not the way of the saints, how was it different? I think I must be missing something.

Of those saints who displayed the charismata, such as St. Anthony and the Holy Apostles, the experience was spontaneous, and not sought after seperate, or prior to, an existing spiritual path.

I think what you are saying is that one should seek the Giver, and not the Gift.

I say purported because since the charismatic gift is sought as a seperate and primary means of spiritual experience, then that means the genuineness of the experience cannot be verified.

I probably am asking too many questions, but I can’t help it. Who is seeking the “charismatic gift” as a “separate and primary means of spiritual experience”?

What does “separate” mean in this context? Separate from what?

What does “primary means of spiritual experience” mean in this context? Are you referring to Catholics who forsake the sacramental life? ( become Protestant)

In Apostolic times, it was strongly asserted that interpreters should be present, who with experience would discern the spirits after an occurence.

Well, the reference to interpretation was very specific. It was an instruction to the Church in Corinth about their use of the gifts during “coming together” (Divine Liturgy?). They were not to discern the spirits, as this responsibility belonged to each member individually but he was instructing them to BE SILENT IN THE CHURCH if there was no one there to interpret. It seems that messages were being proclaimed that were useless to the community because they were not in an understandible language.

St. Paul I believe warned that without such an interpreter the charismatic experience should be avoided.

You will have to help me find this, because I cannot see anything in the Sacred Text that even implies this.

When people are experiencing such a open channeling to the spirit world, there is absolutely no guarantee that what one channels is the Holy Ghost, and one seeks such a vulnerability with extreme measure.

Yes, and I think this is one of the main fears that people have. I think many people have not been taught how to test the spirits to determine if they are from God.

I say narcotic because many charismatics treat the experience like a certain drug, and have difficulty after the experience in praying without experiencing the ecstasy that such a state produces.

Thanks for explaining this. Do you see an equivaleny between the state that is achieved by narcotics, and that achieved by ecstasy ?

Is it problematic to experience ecstasy in prayer?

It becomes the prequisite of their interior life, not vice-versa. This may not always be true, but in my experience certainly at the least seems common.

Are you saying that the state of ecstasy is a prerequisite to their “interior life”?

Again, I may not be following this because I am not sure what you mean by “interior life”. On principle, I would assume that a state of ecstasy is a benefit to the interior life, especially since it is mentioned in so many of the lives of the saints.

 

[po18guy]

I agree with po18guy, there seems to be an insinuation here that the Holy Ghost is available on an on-call basis and you “do not really know Him” unless you know Him through the ways of the charismata.

In my case, not at all! The Holy Spirit lives within us, as we received Him at Baptism and were sealed in Him at Confirmation via the laying on of hands and the anointing. As to Him being “on-call”, is not the strength that we need from our Lord “on-call”? That strength arrives via the Holy Spirit, through Whom God’s will is accomplished on earth.

This type of attitude regarding the gifts of the Holy Ghost is I believe probably one of the reasons why so many of us are justly concerned about the nature of these purported gifts, as these seem to always have a certain narcotic effect on those who embrace it. Hmmm…

There seems to be almost unlimited confusion in Catholicism between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Charismatic movement. The two must be separated for the sake of this thread. We possess the gifts whether there was any “charismatic movement” or not.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I think if you look back at the OP, it will be clear that my intent is to understand the animosity that I have encounted among some traditional Catholics about the charismatic gifts of Pentecost.

Is it problematic to experience ecstasy in prayer?
Are you saying that the state of ecstasy is a prerequisite to their “interior life”?
Again, I may not be following this because I am not sure what you mean by “interior life”. On principle, I would assume that a state of ecstasy is a benefit to the interior life, especially since it is mentioned in so many of the lives of the saints.

A lot here to respond to, but I shall do my best.
I do not believe the charismatic gifts to do not belong in the Catholic Church, only that as a phenomena, I would expect that it would only occasional and even rare, not a common occurance as charismatics would have us believe.

Why would this be? I will use your own example of St. Teresa of Avila, in the Interior Castle. Many charismatics seem to confuse the gifts the Holy Ghost with communion with the Holy Ghost. Just because one is in constant communion with the Divine internally does not mean that external manifestations will result. Your example of St. Teresa indicates that you appear ot be saying that if we are in communion with the Holy Ghost, ipso facto, charismatic and ecstatic results will be produced. But we have scores of devout and holy saints who never manifested such gifts. Just as not all saints’ holiness resulted in stigmata, not all saints’ sanctity resulted in ecstatic manifestations.

I would expect that, like the stigmata, charismatic gifts would result only occasionally, as an indication of the existing holiness of the person. I do not expect we would find it as a normal means of pursuing sanctity, but only as an indicator of existing sanctity. St. Anthony, for example, only showed the charismatic gifts after years of interior development of his soul, and not as an earlier indicator of his devotion. Similar observations could probably be made of St. Teresa of Avila. I am skeptical of the idea that the charismatic gifts would be manifest in people who simply attend charismatic meetings and “let go to the Spirit,” and observe routine piety. I would think we would see these gifts genuinely after an extraordinary level of piety was reached, and not before.

It is like a burning fire that engulfs a bush, only after the fire has burned for a while does it envelope the whole of its subject, not at the beginning. Ecstasy is a great blessing, and certainly achievable, even desirable, but not necessary. It is not a prerequisite of holiness, nor even an indicator, but a great blessing if given. I make the comparison to narcotics because charismatics I have met seem to get hooked on the “high” of the experience, and seem to feel that ALL their devoted prayers should be blessed with such a result. Again, I feel that if the soul reaches that level of devotion to where they receive this grace, that is fine. But to seek it as a manner of course I think is not advisable, and I believe St. Teresa’s confessor mentioned to her about not get too caught up in the experience, lest she lose herself in it.

If I have not addressed anything, let me know. I tried to express myself as best I could.

 

[EnchantedEve]

In my case, not at all! The Holy Spirit lives within us, as we received Him at Baptism and were sealed in Him at Confirmation via the laying on of hands and the anointing. As to Him being “on-call”, is not the strength that we need from our Lord “on-call”? That strength arrives via the Holy Spirit, through Whom God’s will is accomplished on earth.

There seems to be almost unlimited confusion in Catholicism between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Charismatic movement. The two must be separated for the sake of this thread. We possess the gifts whether there was any “charismatic movement” or not.

That is my point, there is a confusion between the gifts of the Holy Ghost and charismatics who claim to espouse them.

By being “on-call,” I mean that there is a perception that at the drop of a hat the Holy Ghost will manifest Himself in ecstatic and charismatic ways if the subject reposes himself correctly. With this I do NOT agree. Just because we are sealed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost at Holy Confirmation and Holy Baptism, does not mean they will always manifest automatically or on command, just as prayer does not always result in what we want (i.e. the “Health & Wealth” gospel).

Just because the Holy Ghost, our Consoler, is manifest when we need Him, does not mean He will always manifest in a predictable or external way.

 

[po18guy]

My comments in blue.

It seems that you are saying that one cannot know the Holy Spirit until one has become a charismatic. No. I certainly hope that is not what you are saying. It is not. I would also like you to point out in the catechism of the Church where it states that the Priest has the ablility to call down the Holy Spirit in this fashion. What? Priests and Bishop s are limited only by their faith as to what they are able to do. Have you actually asked a Priest or Bishop? Please do! I know he does that during the Mass for the consecration but I am speaking specifically of calling down the Holy Spirit in the manner you described. Don’t assume that all nay sayers have not had this experience. I do not.
I also have a problem with the implied charismatic belief that the Holy Spirit has been forgotten and that somehow exposure to charismatic events is theerefore necessary. I would dispute that. It is fairly common in Catholicism period that the Holy Spirit is the forgotten Member of the Trinity. Ask around - it is NOT limited to the “charismatic” movement. What each Catholic will find helpful is a charismatic experience. A few find that in the “movement”, while others find it elsewhere. Ask your Priest.

Did I mention that it is very helpful to speak with your Priest about this?

 

[JReducation]

I believe that there are two things that are being espoused here which may be incorrect.

First, one cannot handcuff the Holy Spirit. He will do what he wishes. To say that one cannot ask for the gifts is not right. On the other hand, to say that the Holy Spirit will give them to whomever asks, is equally wrong. Gifts are given for the perfection of charity. Therefore, they will be given to whomever and whenever, they are necessary for that end.

Second, to assume that because a few of us are conscious of the work of the Holy Spirit, the whole Catholic community is conscious, is incorrect too. Fr. Andrew Apostoli, CFR wrote a wonderful series of lectures on this point. I believe that it may have been during the early part of this century, around 2002. He raises this very point. He states that the Holy Spirit is in fact the forgotten member fo the Trinity. He goes on to say that Catholics (he’s writing for Catholics) . . . that Catholics do not have an awareness of the Holy Spirit, through no fault of the Holy Spirit. This, obviously, is very bad Christology. It is not the fault of the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[po18guy]

That is my point, there is a confusion between the gifts of the Holy Ghost and charismatics who claim to espouse them.

By being “on-call,” I mean that there is a perception that at the drop of a hat the Holy Ghost will manifest Himself in ecstatic and charismatic ways if the subject reposes himself correctly. With this I do NOT agree. Just because we are sealed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost at Holy Confirmation and Holy Baptism, does not mean they will always manifest automatically or on command, just as prayer does not always result in what we want (i.e. the “Health & Wealth” gospel).

Just because the Holy Ghost, our Consoler, is manifest when we need Him, does not mean He will always manifest in a predictable or external way.

The Apostles healed, cast out demons and raised form the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit which they called up when needed. A truly spiritual person can very well call up the Spirit’s gifts as needed - but they are a rare individual indeed. But, the true use of the Holy Spirit is for others - not the building up of the self. But, we must not condemn a group because of the well known or publicized errors of some of its members. Our Church would then be gone. Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the preacher of the Pope’s household, is charismatic. Because we see someone locally misusing the gifts does in no way affect the goodness of those gifts to the Church. Ask your Priest about the charisms - not the movement.