We agree that you personally do not think it is appropriate, yet the Roman Catholic magisterium, Popes, Bishops, etc are OK with this form of worship among many others.This is why I don’t feel the Mass is an appropriate time for contemporary charismatic behavior. Intrinsically, the Mass IS the crucifixion.
I wouldn’t be so sure that they all agree with the extent of the liberties the Movement has taken regarding liturgy, among other things.We agree that you personally do not think it is appropriate, yet the Roman Catholic magisterium, Popes, Bishops, etc are OK with this form of worship among many others.
We are under the Pope, indirectly. My Church, the Melkites, are under the Patriarch of Antioch, who is in union with Rome. We are not Roman Catholics, we are Byzantine Catholics. The Pope(who is the Patriarch of the Church of Rome) is first among equals regarding the other patriarchs, along with mine, Gregory III Laham, Patriarch of the Church of Antioch.I do not know much about Eastern Rite. Are you “under” the Pope’s (the one who lives at the Vatican) authority or another? You mentioned other patriarchs before after I mentioned the current Pope and last several supported CCR. This is an honest question.
Oh, but the existence of such is without question.Well, first let’s clarify something. Going back to your analogy once more, perhaps it is necessary for me to believe in the existence of the hammer in the first place.
This is why I don’t feel the Mass is an appropriate time for contemporary charismatic behavior. Intrinsically, the Mass IS the crucifixion.
I thought the Mass was the last supper.
Am I mistaken?
An easy mistake I imagine, given that the words and actions of the Mass are reflective of those at the last supper.You are very mistaken.
Please tell me, what liberties have been taken?I wouldn’t be so sure that they all agree with the extent of the liberties the Movement has taken regarding liturgy, among other things.
This is the core teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is why we refer to the Mass as the Sacrifice of the Mass. The words you hear from The Last Supper are the words of Institution, when Christ instituted the Sacrament. The performing of the Sacrament, however, is essentially a theological time machine where we experience His saving act on the Cross. To kneel at the altar during the Mass is to kneel at the Cross.An easy mistake I imagine, given that the words and actions of the Mass are reflective of those at the last supper.
So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the Mass is really the crucifixion?
Then why would they participate and not correct as their role requires? Why would the Pope say “long live the charismatics!” as a show of support if he saw nothing fruitful about it? Why would he establish the ICCRS in Rome to support it?I wouldn’t be so sure that they all agree with the extent of the liberties the Movement has taken regarding liturgy, among other things.
I have my doubts that what St. Paul reports in his Epistles is what the Charismatic Renewal Movement is reporting. I believe in the gift of tongues. I just don’t believe what is reported today is this same gift.Oh, but the existence of such is without question.
Both received the same gifts, with the same tools.
It is simply that one tool is not being used in one instance, and is in the other.
I wouldn’t call it a struggle. It’s more of a concern. I have had the advantage of having a unique insight into the inner workings of the Church. It is not beyond occurrence that specific details are withheld from Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes. After all, they are all quite removed from secular reality as we know it.Then why would they participate and not correct as their role requires? Why would the Pope say “long live the charismatics!” as a show of support if he saw nothing fruitful about it? Why would he establish the ICCRS in Rome to support it?
My point is that they support what is good and fruitful and yes caution about issues, as they should. It appears that you see nothing good or fruitful with CCR yet they do. I could be wrong in interpreting your perspectives from these limited posts but I don’t recall anything positive. Are you struggling with why they support it? By supporting it I mean the good.
I have seen everything from juggling acts during the Mass in front of the altar to rock bands performing along side the altar. I’ve even seen people dancing around the altar, just to name a few. All of which violates the rubric.Please tell me, what liberties have been taken?
I have been unaware of this movements altering the liturgy, or its focus.
But what of their direct participation? What do you make of that?I wouldn’t call it a struggle. It’s more of a concern. I have had the advantage of having a unique insight into the inner workings of the Church. It is not beyond occurrence that specific details are withheld from Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes. After all, they are all quite removed from secular reality as we know it.
Agreed.This is the core teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is why we refer to the Mass as the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Actually, I agree with you. Speaking in tongues is a private prayer language, according to St Paul. It is not intended for use in public worship, as St Paul makes crystal clear. Yet while he discourages its use in public worship, he does allow for it under certain strict conditions (1 Cor 14:27-28).I’m sorry; I still think it is jibberish and disrespectful to God. Okay, it is in the bible but…St. Paul did it in private and that is where I feel such a thing should be kept. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if my Catholic church were Charismatic.
I believe we can both be in agreement on this as well…conditionally.I believe in the gift of tongues. I just don’t believe what is reported today is this same gift.
I call it sincere ecumenism.But what of their direct participation? What do you make of that?
It was no doubt a precursor to what was to come the next day. Probably in line with the timelessness of God. And yes, I do believe the sacrifice was present then as it is now.Agreed.
But don’t you believe that sacrifice to be present at the last supper?
A very fair and reasonable answer, Marnica. Thank you for that.Actually, I agree with you. Speaking in tongues is a private prayer language, according to St Paul. It is not intended for use in public worship, as St Paul makes crystal clear. Yet while he discourages its use in public worship, he does allow for it under certain strict conditions (1 Cor 14:27-28).
As to whether it is gibberish… well, any language I don’t understand sounds like gibberish to me. According to St Paul, God understands it, so it cannot be gibberish to Him.
Wow. This is exactly the type of argument that Protestant’s use to reject Catholic teachings that are (1) in the Bible and (2) endorsed by the Early Church Fathers. You call the Charismatic Renewal a Protestant heresy, yet you endorse the foundation of Protestant thinking with your argument!The bottom line: Adherents to the Charismatic Renewal Movement attempt to hide behind the Pope’s endorsement and that is fine, for them. But until he declares the reported effects of the Charismatic Renewal Movement’s purpose to be Ex Cathedra (which, fortunately will never happen), I will continue to expose the movement for what I believe, in my conscience, it is. A severe distraction born out of Protestant heresy.
I have seen such, and I quite agree that those abuses should be stopped.I have seen everything from juggling acts during the Mass in front of the altar to rock bands performing along side the altar. I’ve even seen people dancing around the altar, just to name a few. All of which violates the rubric.
Honestly, I want to believe that the movement is founded on the authenticity of the second (I really, in my heart, do), but I have yet to be convinced that it is. I do believe that a select few in today’s world may indeed have the Biblical charisms of the Spirit, but I do not believe that we would ever know about them. The only fruit that I believe we can trust, is humility. My experience has found it lacking in the Charismatic Movement.I believe we can both be in agreement on this as well…conditionally.
I have little doubt that the gifts some (many) experience are simply shows for the benefit of those around them.
Their arm is swinging furiously, but there is no hammer there.
And little do they know, but in attempting to fake it, they risk losing other gifts as well.
However, there are also quite a few that are truly authentic.
They know well doctrine, and these gifts they have bring them closer truly to the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Just as one that takes up their Rosary and faithfully prays it is drawn closer to God.
I for one take the position that the movement is founded not on the false face of the first group, but on the authenticity of the second.
Do you disagree?