Charismatic Catholics

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:23 AM']More honest members of my movement?

Have I been dishonest? And what movement are you talking about?
[right][snapback]887979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Obviously, I'm talking about the charismatic movement. That's the movement under discussion, no?

2. As for you being dishonest or not, anyone who thinks the charismatic movement would have been accepted by Catholics before VII is, at the very least, deluding him or herself.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:27 AM']1. Obviously, I'm talking about the charismatic movement.  That's the movement under discussion, no?[right][snapback]887981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Yes, but I am not a member of the movement. I was merely pointing out that your comment about bringing back the gift of tounges being condemend was uncalled for and incorrect.

[quote]2. As for you being dishonest or not, anyone who thinks the charismatic movement would have been accepted by Catholics before VII is, at the very least, deluding him or herself.[/quote]Thanks for the ad hominem. I will speak to my pastor and other priests in the diocese who have been around for some time and see what they think. I will be back with the results in some time. Paitence please?

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:32 AM']Thanks for the ad hominem. I will speak to my pastor and other priests in the diocese who have been around for some time and see what they think. I will be back with the results in some time. Paitence please?
[right][snapback]887983[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely. Remember, the question is, "How would most Catholics have reacted to the charismatic movement before Vatican II?"

[Era Might]

[quote]Read Popes like Pius X, Pius IX, or Pius XII. You'll quickly see that they would have never tolerated anything remotely similar to the charismatic movement.[/quote]

Yes. Read these Popes. And what do we read time and time again? That the Bishops, and in particular, the Bishop of Rome, are the ones charged with the common good of the Church, and the acceptance of whatever requires acceptance.

You mention Mediator Dei. Let's take a look:

[quote]For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.[/quote]

You (and I) constitute "private persons". Pope Pius goes on:

[quote]In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. [b]Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will[/b]. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock, and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God," have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority - even on occasion with wholesome severity - you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.[/quote]

Note well that the Bishops "have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people." Not you or I, who, as we saw above, are "private persons" without "any authority".

So what has the "Sovereign Pontiff" decided about the charistmatic movement?

[quote]The Catholic charismatic movement is one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, which, like a new Pentecost, led to an extraordinary flourishing in the Church's life of groups and movements particularly sensitive to the action of the Spirit. How can we not give thanks for the precious spirituals fruits that the Renewal has produced in the life of the Church and in the lives of so many people? How many lay faithful - men, women, young people, adults and elderly - have been able to experience in their own lives the amazing power of the Spirit and his gifts! How many people have rediscovered faith, the joy of prayer, the power and beauty of the Word of God, translating all this into generous service in the Church's mission! How many lives have been profoundly changed! For all this today, together with you, I wish to praise and thank the Holy Spirit.

--Pope John Paul II, Audience with the National Service Committee of the Italian "Renewal in the Spirit", April 1998 [/quote]

He approves the movement within the Church, to say the least. He more than approves it, he praises it.

This is he who has been given this authority. Neither you or I have any right to judge this authority, or to appeal to past Popes against it, for it is they who told us to obey the living Apostles, the Bishops, and in particular, St. Peter, who lives and speaks in the Bishop of Rome; not only in Pope Leo or Pope Pius, but in Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 03:44 AM']Absolutely.  Remember, the question is, "How would most Catholics have reacted to the charismatic movement before Vatican II?"
[right][snapback]887988[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Who cares how they would react?

How did they react to Saint Francis and the rise of mendicancy within the Church? They vilified him.

How did they react to St. Thomas and his synthesis of Divine Revelation and pagan philosophy? They called him a heretic.

How did they react to St. Joan of Arc? They burned her at the stake.

The Church is a living entity. She progresses, and she accepts the Charismatic movement within the Church, just as she once accepted St. Francis and the mendicant life, just as she once accepted St. Thomas and Aristotle, just as she once accepted St. Joan of Arc. You and I have no authority to rule otherwise.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Era Might

[jswranch]

[color=green]MONTANISM It is a heresy
or, better yet, a schism caused by the prophet, Montanus, and two
prophetesses, Maximilla and Prisca (Priscilla) in Phrygia during the
late second century. As witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles, the
exterior gifts of the Holy Spirit (e.g. praying in tongues & prophecy)
were common in the infant Church. But St. Paul already in his First
Epistle to the Corinthians warns Christians that these extraordinary
gifts of the Holy Spirit are not as important as the interior gifts of
sanctity. "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels,... And if I
have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries... but have not
love, I am nothing". [1 Cor. 13:1-2] Such exterior gifts need to be
tempered by humility and obedience to the Church, since Satan can more
easily counterfeit them. Unfortunately Montanus and his followers,
called Montanists, did not remain loyal to the Church but broke away.
At
first, their prophecies were not heretical but simply extravagant. The
early prophecies called for penance and strict fasts on certain days.
But unlike the prophets of the Old Testament who spoke as messengers of
God: "Thus says the Lord", Montanus claimed to be possessed by God and
spoke as God: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who has descended into
man." These prophecies also occurred during mad ecstasies. This
concerned certain holy Churchmen, who tried to exorcise them. Later
Montanus claimed that Christ's redemption was still not complete;
therefore, God possessed him in order to fulfill the salvation for all
men. The Montanists highly valued chastity, virginity and martyrdom.
They also disapproved of second marriages. Due to their emotional and
rigorous nature, they attracted Christians, who thought that the Church
was too secular and lax. Due to his extreme personality, the famous
Tertullian also joined them and defended their cause. The sect survived
the death of Montanus for a few centuries, but eventually became small
and secret before disappearing altogether.

Written by: Phillip B. Liescheski
Last edited on 15 Decemeber 2001

REFERENCES

M.L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies, (Sheed & Ward, Ltd., London:
1928),
still in print as a 1974 edition, sixth impression 1994.

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, Electronic version copyright 1996,
as found at [url="http://www.knight.org/advent"]http://www.knight.org/advent[/url]


[/color]


A reflection of this heresy may be a point worth pondering while approaching the gift of tounges. It should be done with caution, though it does exist. Like any other gift from heaven, it can be abused.

[avemaria40]

If God wants to make someone speak in tongues, He can. He is God and can do what ever He wants to

[God Conquers]

Montanism has nothing to do with the charismatic movement other than the fact that both claim to exercise of the holy spirit. One group is heretical and led by a man claiming he was perferist's salvific act., the other is clearly of a fundamentally different nature.

So... Inquisitor, your sensum catiholicus is stronger than John Paul II's?

You can't come and make claims which you do not back up, especially when you are saying that some people on this site are not practicing their faith correctly and that this is "clear" to you.

Plus, it is not hard to prove the sky is blue, light refracts throught the water vapor suspended in our atmosphere at an angle such that the spectrum reveals the color blue to the human eye.

So prove what Catholics would have thought about the charismatic movement 100 years ago without saying it is "common sense". Clearly enough it is not.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 15 2006, 04:40 AM']Yes. Read these Popes. And what do we read time and time again? That the Bishops, and in particular, the Bishop of Rome, are the ones charged with the common good of the Church, and the acceptance of whatever requires acceptance.

You mention Mediator Dei. Let's take a look:
You (and I) constitute "private persons". Pope Pius goes on:
Note well that the Bishops "have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people." Not you or I, who, as we saw above, are "private persons" without "any authority".

So what has the "Sovereign Pontiff" decided about the charistmatic movement?
He approves the movement within the Church, to say the least. He more than approves it, he praises it.

This is he who has been given this authority. Neither you or I have any right to judge this authority, or to appeal to past Popes against it, for it is they who told us to obey the living Apostles, the Bishops, and in particular, St. Peter, who lives and speaks in the Bishop of Rome; not only in Pope Leo or Pope Pius, but in Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict.
[right][snapback]887995[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Failing to crack down on the charismatic movement is one of many things JPII will have to answer for. May God forgive him.

2. I've never tried to "regulate" anything. I'm just trying to get you ppl to actually think like Catholics and not Pentecostals.

[Paphnutius]

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that he said "bringing back speaking in tongues is awfully close to the false archaeology condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei," yet the subtitle for his blog is "A safe refuge for all those that want to bring back the dark ages." Talk about archaeology. Now I have nothing against the dark ages at all, I think they are one of the coolest periods in history to study. (I spent some time studying monastic history from the early to high middle ages). I just find it odd that a person accuses people of turning to a condemned type of archaeology, yet then simply turns to a different period in history to idolize. Anyone else find that a bit...ironic? How does one decide which period of history it is okay to bring things back from?

Tell me Inquisitor, what are your thoughts on the Holy Spirit and conclave elections? Or the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all Truth (Jn 16:13)? Or the Church speaking with the voice of Christ (Lk 10:16)?

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 10:17 PM']Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that he said "bringing back speaking in tongues is awfully close to the false archaeology condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei," yet the subtitle for his blog is "A safe refuge for all those that want to bring back the dark ages." Talk about archaeology. Now I have nothing against the dark ages at all, I think they are one of the coolest periods in history to study. (I spent some time studying monastic history from the early to high middle ages). I just find it odd that a person accuses people of turning to a condemned type of archaeology, yet then simply turns to a different period in history to idolize. Anyone else find that a bit...ironic? How does one decide which period of history it is okay to bring things back from?[/quote]

Y'know, you neo-Catholics really need to [i]lighten up[/i] a bit. It's a joke. Have you no sense of humor? In all honesty, the subtitle is taken from my Dad telling me "we don't live in the Dark Ages!" when he heard me complaining about the practice of using female altar boys.

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 10:17 PM']Tell me Inquisitor, what are your thoughts on the Holy Spirit and conclave elections? Or the Holy Spirit leading the Church into all Truth (Jn 16:13)? Or the Church speaking with the voice of Christ (Lk 10:16)?
[right][snapback]888937[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Holy Ghost [i]protects[/i] the Church from error in teaching faith or morals. However, this does not mean that the Holy Ghost is a micromanager. In other words, I shudder at the thought that anyone would mistakenly believe the Holy Ghost [i]directed[/i] Paul VI to change the Mass. Nonetheless, the Holy Ghost did [i]protect[/i] Paul VI from promulgating a Mass that was invalid.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 10:31 PM']Y'know, you neo-Catholics really need to [i]lighten up[/i] a bit.  It's a joke.  Have you no sense of humor?  In all honesty, the subtitle is taken from my Dad telling me "we don't live in the Dark Ages!" when he heard me complaining about the practice of using female altar boys.
[right][snapback]888943[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Yeah perhaps that was a bit more bitting than I intended it to be. I really did find some ironic humor in it though.

[quote]The Holy Ghost [i]protects[/i] the Church from error in teaching faith or morals.  However, this does not mean that the Holy Ghost is a micromanager.  In other words, I shudder at the thought that anyone would mistakenly believe the Holy Ghost [i]directed[/i] Paul VI to change the Mass.  Nonetheless, the Holy Ghost did [i]protect[/i] Paul VI from promulgating a Mass that was invalid.
[/quote]Then why do you make the comment as you do about JPII? I said leads because the Latin in John is docebit (meaning He will teach)

I would point you to a document if I could secure a copy of it, but I cannot. I believe it is called [i]A Pastoral Statement on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (1984)[/i] I found it to be rather well balanced and emphasized the limits and need for the CCR to submit to the hierarchy. It was sure to stress how to approach the movement and the charisms. It also touched on the pastoral responsibility towards Charismatics. I honetly cannot find a copy online, but perhaps you will have better luck with it than I.

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.in-unity.org/articles/bishconfr.htm"]http://www.in-unity.org/articles/bishconfr.htm[/url]

is this what you are looking for?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 16 2006, 12:11 AM']1. Failing to crack down on the charismatic movement is one of many things JPII will have to answer for.  May God forgive him.

2. I've never tried to "regulate" anything.  I'm just trying to get you ppl to actually think like Catholics and not Pentecostals.
[right][snapback]888934[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, you are trying to regulate something. Namely, the existence of the Charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. You are suggesting that Catholics would react in horror to the Charismatic movement before the Council, and hence, it is unacceptable today.

I responded to your argument. How Catholics would react to something 100 years ago is not relevant to the Charismatic movement. Catholics generally react with vehemence to anything new. This was especially true of mendicancy, which today most Catholics would probably consider an institution of the Apostles themselves. It was not once so:

[quote]The first great storm broke out at Paris, where the Dominicans had opened their schools (1229-30) and erected two chairs of theology; the Friars Minor followed them (1231). At first (1252) the opposition was directed against the Dominicans, the university wishing to grant them only one professorship [Denifle, "Chartularium" (see. below) I, 26]. The university sought allies and so drew the bishops and secular clergy into the struggle (Chartularium I, 252), with the result that Innocent IV, at first favourable to the mendicants (Chartularium 1, 247), took away their privileges with regard to preaching, confession, and burial rights in the Bull "Etsi animonim" 21 Nov., 1254 (Chartularium 1, 1267).

--1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Entry on "Mendicant Friars"[/quote]

It is not for you to decide whether something is Catholic or not, whether it should be in the Church or not. That is for the living Magisterium, which has accepted the Charismatic movement.

If you want to discuss abuses within that movement, it is entirely legitimate. Pope John Paul himself warned them about abuses. But do it so as to support the Church's acceptance of the Charismatic movement, and not to tear it down. The mind of the Sovereign Pontiff is clear on the matter. We need to support him, and not set ourselves up as a superior.

For the record, I am the most uncharismatic person you could imagine. I would feel very uncomfortable in a charismatic setting. But the Church does not revolve around me. If something leads someone else to holiness, and the Church approves, then I must approve.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote]Y'know, you neo-Catholics really need to lighten up a bit.  [/quote]

By the way, I would warn you about throwing out titles like this.

[quote]It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

--Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Letter "Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum"[/quote]

Edited February 16, 2006 by Era Might