Originally Posted by
JoeT777
What makes you think it would be any different from the way non-Catholic would receive the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is the Third Person in the Holy Trinity. As such He is consubstantial (homoousion), which is to say, the same essence as God. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit offers two kinds of gifts, the sanctification for an individual, and a chrismata; an extraordinary unwarranted gift(s). These ‘gifts’ or graces have permanent and lasting qualities some of which include wisdom, understanding of God’s revelation or truth, a spiritual prudence, fortitude, knowledge, and piety, i.e., “ fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity [patient endurance of hardship], mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity.” (Gal. 5:22-23). While these are normally thought of as ‘supernatural’ graces, they can be reflected only in our nature.
No special way, some are born with such graces, some ‘work’ to merit such graces; some receive prayer requests for the graces of the Holy Spirit, i.e., it is the will of God whether or not you receive such graces.
Sometimes you can’t discern where or how a special gift came from. To discriminate between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and those from other spirit s(we’re talking about the bad guys here) is relatively easy. If the grace or insight given conforms to the teaching Magisterium of the Church then the grace is of God. As Christ stated a house divided cannot stand – logically Third Person in the Trinity will not contradict the other Two Persons in the Trinity. Which explains why many Catholics hold the Protestant Schism in such bad light, it can’t be shown as a move to ‘unity’ in the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Consequently, one need only look at the Church’s teaching on faith and morals to discern between ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
If these graces are ‘private’ in nature then we are not bound to them. For example, if you jump up and say that for the benefit of my salvation, I must recognize privately held understanding of ‘Scripture’ because it is of the Holy Spirit, I am not bound by those understandings. That particular insight given as a grace was meant for you alone. However, if the Holy Spirit makes it known through the Church that, as an example, Mary was Ever Virgin, then I am bound to ‘conform my understanding’ to that of the Church’s. Notice that this doesn’t mean to change my views against my good conscience, I need only conform them so that they align to the Church. If in good conscience I still can’t come to the Church’s understanding, then I am duty bound to be quite in public on this one subject. I can still discuss it, argue over it, or hash it out in private but a good Catholic must never substitute my own views for that of the Church. This should explain why so many times I’ve responded with quotes from the doctrine of the Church in response to your comments – If I’m to represent what the Church says, then I must tell you what the Church says – not what JoeT wants you to hear. If I express my personal views as different, I am bound to properly show how they contrast with the proper view of the Church. Unlike the Protestant or Evangelical disposition, Catholics do not hold that the sole rule of faith is Scriptural. And if it were, then what use do we have of the Holy Spirit? Aren’t Scriptures black and white in matters of faith?
JoeT