Catholic Charismatic Masses

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rben20

Guest
This Mass is characterized by their emphasis on the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues…almost as if they are loosely based on the Pentecostals. Are they real? Has anyone been to one and would care to explain their experience? Why on earth would the Church allow such a Mass?
 
rben20 said:
This Mass is characterized by their emphasis on the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues…almost as if they are loosely based on the Pentecostals. Are they real? Has anyone been to one and would care to explain their experience? Why on earth would the Church allow such a Mass?
Click to expand...
They’re very popular in the Philippines, the most prominent one is El Shaddai. I’ve never been to one though but I thought their Mass is a regular Mass that is incorporated sometime in the entire “service”. Like a weekend gathering is like 4-6 hours, somewhere in the middle the stop with their singing and praying and a regular OF Mass is celebrated, then then continue after the Mass.

That is what I thought.
 
One would be wise to avoid them. Such modern trends usually serve the opposite of the Church’s intentions. We should pray for those caught up in the snares of distraction and delusions.
 
Popes have actually endorsed them.

Come to think of it, I did actually almost joined one in the past. I had a friend who was part of one and he died of cancer. After which I attended one meeting/session/service. Never came back, I knew it wasn’t for me. It was called Buklod ng Pagibig (Bond of Love)
bondoflove.org/default.asp
 
rben20 said:
speaking in tongues … Are they real?
Click to expand...
Based on what I have personally witnessed, in my opinion, No, they are not real. To me, the phenomenon appears to be entirely of human origin. Although I have many reasons to think this, the most important reasons are:

(1) the phenomenon can be started and stopped at will by the person doing it, and

(2) the sounds that the person makes have always, in my experience, been:
Code: 
 (a) sounds that are already in the language the person speaks, or

 (b) sounds that would sound foreign to the speaker, such as for an English speaker, the rolled Rs of Spanish or the or rough Hs of Arabic, or

 (c) sounds that the speaker could easily have been exposed to, such languages heard on television
(3) the sounds have never, in my experience, formed a known language, living or dead.

I have never come across any exception, ever, to the above observations.

And for me, the final straw was the response that came from more than one person who does this, when confronted with that last fact (3): The response was that this is some kind of angelic language, or other language, that only God knows.
 
This article from EWTN gives a fair overview of the movement.

But it is a general view, and discernment is best done on a case by case basis. I had read about 10 years ago (sorry I can’t remember the title of the document) that even some of the legitimate charismatic prayer groups sometimes need to be purified of certain * distortions*.

I gave it a try one year. Our parish, for a number of years had held the “Life in the Spirit Seminars” - which I found to be quite edifying by themselves, but when we moved into the praying over people and “praying in tongues” on the final meeting , it was as if suddenly everyone had forgotten how to speak english ( I might even venture to say, “forgotten how to speak at all”) . At the end of that “prayer meeting”, a dear friend of mine (an elderly lady) who had been instrumental in getting me to attend, whispered to me shaking her head, “There is far too much emphasis on ‘praying in tongues’ here” . I was inclined to agree. But I can only speak from that personal experience and about that particular group in our parish…better to discern each case separately. On a more positive note, I also know of several people who have been healed of their infirmnities at healing Masses.

As far as speaking in tongues, particularly an “angelic language that only God knows” , it would be better if an interpreter were present. St. Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 ] clearly warns us of seeking the gifts of the Giver rather than the Giver of gifts, and of the non edificatory potential of speech which is neither intelligible nor interpretable at these gatherings. The entire Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians is a pertinent read. Here’s an excerpt:

**1 Corinthians 14: 6-19 ** [NAB]

Now, brothers, if I should come to you speaking in tongues, what good will I do you if I do not speak to you by way of revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or instruction?

Likewise, if inanimate things that produce sound, such as flute or harp, do not give out the tones distinctly, how will what is being played on flute or harp be recognized?

And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

Similarly, if you, because of speaking in tongues, do not utter intelligible speech, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be talking to the air.

It happens that there are many different languages in the world, and none is meaningless;

but if I do not know the meaning of a language, I shall be a foreigner to one who speaks it, and one who speaks it a foreigner to me.

So with yourselves: since you strive eagerly for spirits, seek to have an abundance of them for building up the church.

Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret.

(For) if I pray in a tongue, my spirit is at prayer but my mind is unproductive.

So what is to be done? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will also sing praise with the mind.

Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing (with) the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?

For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up.

I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you,

but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
 
As with anything in the Church, and with any gifts given out by God and the Holy Spirit- there are fruits of both a positive and a negative nature. There will always be the human nature that screws stuff up.
 
From what I’ve read this trend started in universities during the sixties. Post-V2 popes haven’t ruled against much the laity wanted to experiment with (other than the Marxist Liberation Theology). If a practicing Catholic is looking to expand or deepen their faith there are more traditional and safe options: daily rosary, Liturgy of the Hours, Eucharistic Adoration, Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, reading the Bible. Joining a sixties movement featuring Evangelical Protestant style worship requires caution - not a necessity for the traditional devotions.
 
Ockham said:
One would be wise to avoid them. Such modern trends usually serve the opposite of the Church’s intentions. We should pray for those caught up in the snares of distraction and delusions.
Click to expand...
This advice is 180 degrees opposed to the repeatedly published opinion of Pope Benedict XVI. The pontiff greatly appreciates these lay movements, and has repeatedly and specifically cited the Catholic Charismatic movement as a great blessing to the Church.

Like anything else, one shoul take care to ensure they are with a parish which retains an Orthodox theology, even if the style of woship is far newer and more innovative. Of course with group, one should also take care that the basics, like the words of insittution aren’t being innovated. They must be the same.

I don’t post this in the spirit of personally feeling some affinity for this style of worship. To the contrary I prefer the traditional, and would very much feel far out of place at such a service. But if the Pope is promoting this group, and no less than the very Pope who is the hero of traditionalists… Then well, who am I to say he’s wrong?
 
Pope Benedict XVI Again Endorses the Catholic Charismatic Renewal

catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/pope-benedict-xvi-again-endorses.html
“As I have stated on other occasions”, the Pope said, “ecclesial movements and new communities, which have flourished since Vatican Council II, constitute a unique gift from the Lord and a invaluable resource for the life of the Church. They should be welcomed with confidence and esteemed for their various contributions so that they might be of efficient and fruitful benefit to all”.
Click to expand...
…
“The movements and new communities are like eruptions of the Holy Spirit in the Church and contemporary society. We can affirm that one of the elements and positive aspects of the Communities of Charismatic Covenant Renewal is the emphasis that the charisms and gifts of the Holy Spirit receive in these and their merit is in having recalled the actuality of these [charisms and gifts] in the Church”.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen the same stories published on Catholic.org and other news sources, many of which also lean towards the traditional.
 
The post-V2 popes give a lot of latitude to new things. My point is given the choice between a tried and trusted devotion and one with dubious origins and dangerous lures the safe bet is with tradition. Waving your hands in the air, babbling, and falling to the ground in a convulsion is a slippery slope.
 
Ockham said:
The post-V2 popes give a lot of latitude to new things. My point is given the choice between a tried and trusted devotion and one with dubious origins and dangerous lures the safe bet is with tradition. Waving your hands in the air, babbling, and falling to the ground in a convulsion is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
And now in comes blaming Vatican 2… Would it be more productive, perhaps, to just accept in humility that worship in the Latin isn’t the only acceptable form? I’m sure such an attitude would be quite distressing to our Greek bretheren.
 
crazzeto said:
And now in comes blaming Vatican 2… Would it be more productive, perhaps, to just accept in humility that worship in the Latin isn’t the only acceptable form? I’m sure such an attitude would be quite distressing to our Greek bretheren.
Click to expand...
And now in comes the Eastern Churches defence.

Charismatic movements require caution. Traditional devotions don’t.
 
Ockham said:
And now in comes the Eastern Churches defence.

Charismatic movements require caution. Traditional devotions don’t.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, clearly however this is an opinion not shared by the the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI as you were trying to insinuate earlier. More over, I would argue that one should exercies some degree of caution when selecting any given parish.

On the traditional side you want to avoid “parishes” so traditional that they’re schismatic, or have a tendancy to become schismatic. On the less traditional side, you have to ensure the Orthodoxy of the theology isn’t being maniuplated or altered. In either case, you need to be sure you’re not being taken in by a shepard who is not pointing towards the truth of Christ and his Bride the church.
 
crazzeto said:
In your opinion, clearly however this is an opinion not shared by the the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI as you were trying to insinuate earlier. More over, I would argue that one should exercies some degree of caution when selecting any given parish.
Click to expand...
Yes it is the opinion of Benedict XVI and I supplied a link to it.

Caution needs to be exercised crossing the street too.
 
Ockham said:
Yes it is the opinion of Benedict XVI and I supplied a link to it.

Caution needs to be exercised crossing the street too.
Click to expand...
From your own link sir:
For his part, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has added his voice to the Pope’s in acknowledging the good occurring in the Charismatic Renewal and providing some cautions. In a forward to a book by Cardinal Suenens, at that time the Pope’s delegate to the Charismatic Renewal, the Prefect comments on the Post-Conciliar period stating,
Click to expand...
At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms - which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit - is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.
Click to expand...
and…
What is the relation between personal experience and the common faith of the Church? Both factors are important: a dogmatic faith unsupported by personal experience remains empty; mere personal experience unrelated to the faith of the Church remains blind.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s opinion, while he was still head of the Congregation for the doctrine of faith is not all too dissimilar from what he said in the links which I not only provided but quoted. There’s a double warning actually, which is made explicit by the second quotation.

What you should take from this is, it is wrong to suggest that any particular form of worship which is not merely tolerated, but indeed praised by the Magisterium is some how inferior to our own preferential form of worship. There are many fruits of the spirit, perhaps you and I do not have the fuites associated with the Charismatic renewal, thus it tends to make us feel uncomfortable.

However trying to extend our own personal feelings of discomfort into a very denail that such fruites even exist puts us in the dangerous position of perhaps exersing too much personal pride in accepting, submitting to and enjoying a more ancient form of worship.
 
From the same link:

“For his part, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has added his voice to the Pope’s in acknowledging the good occurring in the Charismatic Renewal and providing some cautions.”

That is my point and I will not continue to debate this with you. It is a sin to falsely accuse someone of lying which you did already.

Good day to you, sir.
 
If you wanted to be completely upfront about what Cardinal Ratizgar said (before he was Pope), then you would have included the cautions he spoke with the very same breath about traditional catholisism.
 
Back to the OP-
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Charismatic parishes.
We may dislike how the worship, we may dislike the music, etc… but there is nothing inherently wrong.

I comes down to the teachings. You have to listen to the teachings. Is the pastor orthodox? Is the pastor and the Charismatic-ness the center of parish life, or is Our Lord and His Bride?

Case in point- Fr. Larry Richards in Erie, PA. His parish, St. Joseph/Bread of Life, has a charismatic mass. They have hosted charismatic prayer meetings. But you cannot argue that Fr.Larry is orthodox. I used to attend St. Joseph. I can tell you that he knows everything that is going on in his parish, and would never allow anything that deviated from the Faith and the Truth.

Can a charismatic parish be wrong? Can in pull people away from Our Lord and His Bride? Of course, that that happens any where- Traditional parishes, Liberal parishes, Charismatic parishes, Protestant ecclesiastical communities, “regular” Catholic parishes where the priest becomes the star of the show and the teachings are lost. Man is fallible. We screw up with our gifts and lead people away. (Hello Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, David, Judas…) WE have to help keep each other accountable.

Any parish that endorses something questionable needs to be held accountable.
HOWEVER, our own personal preferences should not dictate how our brothers and sisters share their faith and praise our Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top