Catholic Charismatic Renewal

[The_Theotokos]

This is what I have been saying the whole time! The movement itself is not bad! There are those who make it look bad, sure, but there are those who make Catholicism in general look bad.

I’m glad you finally see what I’ve been saying (or trying to say). Please, if you would, stop putting the movement down. Learn about it, and you too will see its good fruits and its intrinsic holiness.

Peace of Christ be with you.

LOL I’m not sure I could learn any more about it. After countless experiences in many different locations, careful study of the theology, careful reflection and prayer on the consequences, I’ve arrived at my overall opinion. Please don’t see me as ignorant to the Movement, just because I strongly disagree with it. But I will give credit where credit is due. Unfortunately, your parish needs to become the norm if there is any hope people like me will form good opinions about the Movement.

 

[vz71]

So, how does one (should one) behave in this situation?
Does one start dancing around the cross, laughing, speaking in tongues, clapping hands, praising God, shouting out Alleluia because they have been saved from the consequences of their sins?
Or does one fall to their knees in silence and awe, contemplating the implications of this saving action of pure Grace and redemption?

Why aren’t we all Carmelites? Surely there is plenty of this contemplation of which you speak as one. So wouldn’t it be wrong not to be one?
Perhaps we could all be Bendictine. Surely that is a place that likewise follows the traditions and rubrics. Perhaps it is a sin not to be a member?
Or we could be Jesuits. They too follow the rubrics and traditions.
But they are definitely not Carmelite or Bendictine. Is it sinful to be one and not the other?

Of course, it is not a sin to not be in any of those given groups. After all, they still follow Rome, and still fall in line with Church teaching. They simply each follow a different style. They each emphasize different things.

Now we have Charismatics. Not exactly a religious order, but the logic still follows along. The traditions and rubrics are there (else the Mass would be illicit or invalid).

The people at the time that the crucifixion was taking place wept. But they likewise did not have the same knowledge that we now enjoy.

Is it really out of line to shout out Alleluias at the foot of the cross knowing what this one act truly does? I would think not. Unorthodox maybe, but certainly not out of line.
Likewise singing, dancing, clapping, etc…any number of celebratory acts I really cannot see being out of line given our knowledge of what is truly going on.

Now were we to stand before the cross, without our knowledge of what is really going on, then of course any type of celebration is seriously out of line.

Is it possible that there is no real sin going on at all but just an offense to your own sensibilities? You have established within your own mind what should be, and find offense at those that do not follow along.

Would I be correct in thinking so?

 

[vz71]

Or does one fall to their knees in silence and awe, contemplating the implications of this saving action of pure Grace and redemption?

You know, I was reading this a second and third time and something else occurred to me.

Have you ever been given a gift that is so big, so wonderful, that you simply could not contain yourself?

 

[vz71]

Well then, might I encourage you to speak to your pastor about the idea that your parish should be the standard by which all other Charismatic parishes should be held accountable to? Yours is not usual, you understand that, right?

Why not? I have been to more then one that displays the same thing.

By my count that is 3. I am sure there are more.
Anyone else?

 

[The_Theotokos]

Why aren’t we all Carmelites? Surely there is plenty of this contemplation of which you speak as one. So wouldn’t it be wrong not to be one?
Perhaps we could all be Bendictine. Surely that is a place that likewise follows the traditions and rubrics. Perhaps it is a sin not to be a member?
Or we could be Jesuits. They too follow the rubrics and traditions.
But they are definitely not Carmelite or Bendictine. Is it sinful to be one and not the other?

You cannot compare traditional religious orders to the Charismatic Movement. The history is not even compatible.

Of course, it is not a sin to not be in any of those given groups. After all, they still follow Rome, and still fall in line with Church teaching. They simply each follow a different style. They each emphasize different things.

They follow a different rule, not a different style. All of their Masses are solemn expressions, established firmly in ancient tradition. Of course, if the Charismatics would like to apply for a different rite, like the Cistercians for example, then I would support them in that much of the effort.

Now we have Charismatics. Not exactly a religious order, but the logic still follows along. The traditions and rubrics are there (else the Mass would be illicit or invalid).

No, that is my problem, the traditions are not always there and are not always respected. There is a strong emphasis on modernization of the Liturgy. In many cases, it could hardly be considered traditional by any stretch of the imagination.

The people at the time that the crucifixion was taking place wept. But they likewise did not have the same knowledge that we now enjoy.

Is it really out of line to shout out Alleluias at the foot of the cross knowing what this one act truly does? I would think not. Unorthodox maybe, but certainly not out of line.
Likewise singing, dancing, clapping, etc…any number of celebratory acts I really cannot see being out of line given our knowledge of what is truly going on.

Now were we to stand before the cross, without our knowledge of what is really going on, then of course any type of celebration is seriously out of line.

You are kidding, right?

Is it possible that there is no real sin going on at all but just an offense to your own sensibilities? You have established within your own mind what should be, and find offense at those that do not follow along.

Would I be correct in thinking so?

No, I don’t think it is possible. The Church is clear what she means by the word solemn and hand clapping, dancing, and shouting, isn’t it. I would really appreciate it if you would stop making this out to be my opinion and reflect upon what the Liturgy of the Church reflects theologically, in both practice and expression. What I am sharing with you is already there, written into the pages of history. I didn’t come up with it.

 

[The_Theotokos]

You know, I was reading this a second and third time and something else occurred to me.

Have you ever been given a gift that is so big, so wonderful, that you simply could not contain yourself?

If someone were to give me $100,000,000 during Mass, I would tell them to come back when it is finished. If the person claimed to be God, I would look under his robe for a pitchfork and pointed tail. God wouldn’t cause me a distraction.

 

[The_Theotokos]

Why not? I have been to more then one that displays the same thing.

By my count that is 3. I am sure there are more.
Anyone else?

My numbers are little less in favor of the Movement. But I am not interested in debating how many do it right over how many do it wrong. My point is that the ones who are doing it right should be the ones to correct those who are doing it wrong.

 

[vz71]

You cannot compare traditional religious orders to the Charismatic Movement. The history is not even compatible.

Sure I can.
I just did.

They follow a different rule, not a different style. All of their Masses are solemn expressions, established firmly in ancient tradition. Of course, if the Charismatics would like to apply for a different rite, like the Cistercians for example, then I would support them in that much of the effort.

Established in ancient tradition…at one time each was brand new.
And each was different from the already established order.
I fail to see how this can be different.

No, that is my problem, the traditions are not always there and are not always respected. There is a strong emphasis on modernization of the Liturgy. In many cases, it could hardly be considered traditional by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps your experience with the Charismatic movement is not as extensive as you believe. It has been my experience that the traditions, rites, rituals…were all there.

You are kidding, right?

Not at all.
Have you ever been to New Orleans and seen a party thrown for a funeral?
Yet no one accuses them of having disrespect for the solemnity of the occasion.

No, I don’t think it is possible. The Church is clear what she means by the word solemn and hand clapping, dancing, and shouting, isn’t it. I would really appreciate it if you would stop making this out to be my opinion and reflect upon what the Liturgy of the Church reflects theologically, in both practice and expression. What I am sharing with you is already there, written into the pages of history. I didn’t come up with it.

The church already has granted approval.
Not to what you are saying the charismatic movement is, but to what many within the charismatic movement testify to it being. (And to what my own prac tical experience has shown me it is.)
Since the very church you lay claim to the movement being against has given approval, condemnation of said movement must be opinion.

 

[vz71]

You know, I was reading this a second and third time and something else occurred to me.

Have you ever been given a gift that is so big, so wonderful, that you simply could not contain yourself?

If someone were to give me $100,000,000 during Mass, I would tell them to come back when it is finished. If the person claimed to be God, I would look under his robe for a pitchfork and pointed tail. God wouldn’t cause me a distraction.

I think you missed the point.
Surely you have an appreciation for what is being given you during Mass.
Right?

Perhaps the casualness with which many Catholics enter into Mass speaks volumes here. I have a certain amount of appreciation for the Charismatics. They at least show the joy with which the gift can be received in. Which is certainly better then I find so much more readily in the Catholic church of the Catholics taking to Mass as though it was just another daily task.

 

[vz71]

My numbers are little less in favor of the Movement. But I am not interested in debating how many do it right over how many do it wrong. My point is that the ones who are doing it right should be the ones to correct those who are doing it wrong.

Of that we can be in perfect agreement.

But I would like to extend that to all the various movements within the church.

Sure there are many Charismatics gedtting it wrong.
Likewise there are many others getting it wrong in the TLM, and in the Ordinary form, etc…

I cannot escape the logic that says that if we are to condemn the Charismatic movement for abuses made by people in it, we should likewise condemn the traditionalist movement for the abuses people in it do.
And condemn orthodoxy for all those that get it wrong.
And condemn…

You get the idea. If we are to condemn a movement for the worst the members can be, then we eventually condemn the entire church for the same reason.

 

[The_Theotokos]

Sure I can.
I just did.

Established in ancient tradition…at one time each was brand new.
And each was different from the already established order.
I fail to see how this can be different.

Perhaps your experience with the Charismatic movement is not as extensive as you believe. It has been my experience that the traditions, rites, rituals…were all there.

Here is where I think you are mistaken. Religious Orders are subjected to extreme scrutiny by the Church. They have to prove their relevance and usually that relevance is based upon ministerial focus. The Charismatic Movement is a worship style. The worship styles of the different religious orders have never reflected Protestant idealism.

Not at all.
Have you ever been to New Orleans and seen a party thrown for a funeral?
Yet no one accuses them of having disrespect for the solemnity of the occasion.

Those funerals of which you speak are heavily influenced by Hatian Vaudun. Just like how many South Americans honor the Virgin Mary as if she were a Christian goddess, the culture of the area has imposed upon the proper worship forms of the Church. To my knowledge, the Charismatic Movement is not a cultural thing.

The church already has granted approval.
Not to what you are saying the charismatic movement is, but to what many within the charismatic movement testify to it being. (And to what my own prac tical experience has shown me it is.)

No one has established, here in this thread, to what extent the Church has approved of the Movement. Additionally, only the Church of Rome has formally endorsed it. The other Churches have not.

Since the very church you lay claim to the movement being against has given approval, condemnation of said movement must be opinion.

When did I ever say the Church of Rome was against the Movement? I said the usual behaviors of the Charismatic Movement are far more related to Protestantism than to Catholicism. I am primarily against the Movement on this basis. I wouldn’t use the word “condemnation”. I am against the Movement, I do not have the authority to condemn it.

 

[The_Theotokos]

I think you missed the point.
Surely you have an appreciation for what is being given you during Mass.
Right?

Perhaps the casualness with which many Catholics enter into Mass speaks volumes here. I have a certain amount of appreciation for the Charismatics. They at least show the joy with which the gift can be received in. Which is certainly better then I find so much more readily in the Catholic church of the Catholics taking to Mass as though it was just another daily task.

Show all the joy you want, as long as I don’t notice you or become distracted by you. I’m not there for the laity. The focus should be on God. Thus why the old Churches placed the choir behind the pews, not up at the altar, where nobody really belongs, but the priest. This is where I think the eastern Churches do it so much better. We have the iconostasis to maintain the holiness of the sanctuary. It reflects back on the times of the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple. It is a special place, not to be violated. But that’s another story for another thread.

 

[The_Theotokos]

I cannot escape the logic that says that if we are to condemn the Charismatic movement for abuses made by people in it, we should likewise condemn the traditionalist movement for the abuses people in it do.
And condemn orthodoxy for all those that get it wrong.
And condemn…

This logic would only apply if A) the Movement wasn’t established originally in a heretical Church (i.e. Episcopalian, I believe) and B) the Movement was established within the traditions of the Church itself. This is why I posted the age of the oldest Liturgies still in use today. If the Movement reflected behaviors common to the early Church, we would see, at least, the remnants of such behaviors in those Liturgies, yet, we do not.

 

[The_Theotokos]

Perhaps your experience with the Charismatic movement is not as extensive as you believe. It has been my experience that the traditions, rites, rituals…were all there.

Okay, fair enough. We can settle this quite easily. How many have you been to and in how many states/countries?

 

[vz71]

I cannot escape the logic that says that if we are to condemn the Charismatic movement for abuses made by people in it, we should likewise condemn the traditionalist movement for the abuses people in it do.
And condemn orthodoxy for all those that get it wrong.
And condemn…
You get the idea. If we are to condemn a movement for the worst the members can be, then we eventually condemn the entire church for the same reason.

This logic would only apply if A) the Movement wasn’t established originally in a heretical Church (i.e. Episcopalian, I believe) and B) the Movement was established within the traditions of the Church itself. This is why I posted the age of the oldest Liturgies still in use today. If the Movement reflected behaviors common to the early Church, we would see, at least, the remnants of such behaviors in those Liturgies, yet, we do not.

No, you are not getting off that easy.
Throughout this thread, the thrust of your condemnation has come from abuses of the liturgy by the people within the group. Not where the movement came from.

Perhaps you simply have not been clear, but it appears now that you are moving the target.

 

[vz71]

Why not? I have been to more then one that displays the same thing.
By my count that is 3. I am sure there are more.
Anyone else?

…I am not interested in debating how many do it right over how many do it wrong. My point is that the ones who are doing it right should be the ones to correct those who are doing it wrong.

Okay, fair enough. We can settle this quite easily. How many have you been to and in how many states/countries?

Earlier you were not interested in numbers.
Why are you now?

 

[The_Theotokos]

No, you are not getting off that easy.
Throughout this thread, the thrust of your condemnation has come from abuses of the liturgy by the people within the group. Not where the movement came from.

Perhaps you simply have not been clear, but it appears now that you are moving the target.

Earlier you were not interested in numbers.
Why are you now?

You’ve made it the issue. You keep challenging my experience with the Movement. You seem to think that I am lying to you about everything. You provide nothing but personal experience, yet hold me constantly to the standard of supporting my position with references. When I provide such references, you challenge their relevancy. Now, after my specifically stating that I am not interested in numbers, you bring up an issue that can only be settled by the stating of numbers. And when I am willing to comply, you hit me with this?

Why don’t you stay on target and then maybe it won’t seem so much like I am “moving the target”. You treat my entire experience within the Church as if I was just baptized yesterday. If you only knew the level of involvement I have had in such matters, the level of detail, I have been exposed to. You would do well to trust my opinion. But honestly, I believe that you just like arguing with me under the illusion of protecting a Movement of which you think so highly of, you are not even a part.

 

[vz71]

You’ve made it the issue. You keep challenging my experience with the Movement. You seem to think that I am lying to you about everything. You provide nothing but personal experience, yet hold me constantly to the standard of supporting my position with references. When I provide such references, you challenge their relevancy. Now, after my specifically stating that I am not interested in numbers, you bring up an issue that can only be settled by the stating of numbers. And when I am willing to comply, you hit me with this?

I challange it only because it differs so widely from the experience of many others.
Given the arguments as presented, I am having issue seeing the case that you are presenting. The thrust of the argument apparently is the abuses witnessed by those within the movement. Yet these abuses have been shown to not be unique at all to the movement, but are widespread and varied. So why should we hold the movement responsible at all when it apparently is in no way related to these abuses.
As far as numbers go, you initially were not interested in them. Yet when the the question arises of experience with the movement, you demand numbers. This does not make sense. I have attended Mass with charismatic groups. I have also talked with members, read literature, investigated on my own. Numbers do not adequately cover that. I guess the real question is why you steered away from numbers earlier when numbers were truly the only way to quantify things, but suddenly are after numbers when numbers are truly an inaccurate means of measure.

Why don’t you stay on target and then maybe it won’t seem so much like I am “moving the target”. You treat my entire experience within the Church as if I was just baptized yesterday. If you only knew the level of involvement I have had in such matters, the level of detail, I have been exposed to. You would do well to trust my opinion. But honestly, I believe that you just like arguing with me under the illusion of protecting a Movement of which you think so highly of, you are not even a part.

Are you questioning my integrity?

 

[Marnica01]

I think I am out of my league here, like I said before I am strong in my love for God I am still learning the catechism, I just thought we are supposed to share what good God has done within our lives. I am no theologian and sorry for my ignorance. I am sorry to get carried away I think I need to step back and pray about this more like I said I was going to do before, it’s just I thought I was defending an important piece of my coming home journey. I am left to just pray pray and pray some more I feel I have no more words to try and explain my feelings about this movement. I pray we all will remain strong in our faith and respect each others journey. God Bless

There is nothing wrong with you, and you are not out of your league. Keep being a witness to the power of God’s love in your life. God bless you!

 

[The_Theotokos]

I challange it only because it differs so widely from the experience of many others.

The experience of many others you speak of seems to be a reference to those within the Movement only. You seem to conveniently ignore how eastern Christians feel, Roman Catholics who are not in the Movement, even Protestants who don’t like it.

Given the arguments as presented, I am having issue seeing the case that you are presenting. The thrust of the argument apparently is the abuses witnessed by those within the movement. Yet these abuses have been shown to not be unique at all to the movement, but are widespread and varied. So why should we hold the movement responsible at all when it apparently is in no way related to these abuses.

That has become the thrust of the argument against it, yes, only because that is the largest problem. But I have offered many others that people in this thread have not commented on. Like the unregulated claim of supernatural occurrences. Marian apparitions, canonization of saints, demonic possession, any miracles of any kind go under severe scrutiny, but someone claims to speak in tongues and it’s automatically assumed to be divine revelation. Perhaps you should reread the entire thread? If you do, you’d see I have many more complaints against the Movement than liturgical abuses, but yes, liturgical abuses are what bother me most, because of their prevalence within the Movement and the Movement’s predisposition to modernization.

As far as numbers go, you initially were not interested in them. Yet when the the question arises of experience with the movement, you demand numbers. This does not make sense. I have attended Mass with charismatic groups. I have also talked with members, read literature, investigated on my own. Numbers do not adequately cover that. I guess the real question is why you steered away from numbers earlier when numbers were truly the only way to quantify things, but suddenly are after numbers when numbers are truly an inaccurate means of measure.

My point was that I am willing to guess that I have been exposed to much more of the Charismatic Movement, in more places, than anyone here. And no, I don’t care about the numbers, as I don’t have to prove to myself that my experiences are adequate.

Are you questioning my integrity?

I’m questioning your motives. You don’t belong to the Movement. You question me as if I am making these points up. And you argue with me about everything, even things off topic. I believe you are arguing with me just for the sake of arguing.