Catholic Charismatic Renewal

[COPLAND_3]

Some thoughts that I have after a few days reading the posts. I will argue boths sides.

1. I have seen that charismatics make the point that those gifts are Biblical and were practiced in the early Church. I don’t deny that and I’m sure just about any Catholic would not, but the issue is whether they were done in the same way that charimatics interpret it. It comes down to how it should be interpreted, not whether its Biblical. This is the same dilemma that we run into with Protestants. Tongues come to my mind, I don’t deny that it’s Biblical, but how is that interpreted correctly, is it different languages or some other mystical language? I’m not convinced that it was any other thing than different languages that people spoke. But like I said and I am open to truth, just convince me otherwise. I would love to hear an explanation from Fr. Pacwa on tongues.
2. I also heard comments like ‘why would so many centuries go by without these gifts being practiced but all of a sudden they are coming back now?’ I can see a reason for it. I do believe that some of those more radical gift sort of disappeared or became less frequent in the Church because they were not needed like they were at the early stages. The Church Fathers believed that those gifts were needed early on in order to get unbelievers to believe, but once the Church gained enough “momentum” those gifts were not needed because the Faith was much stronger. But I can see a need for those gifts to resurge back because the loss of Faith and the growth and popularity of secularism and atheism is growing fast in the world, which even the Pope has spoken about often.

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

Some thoughts that I have after a few days reading the posts. I will argue boths sides.

1. I have seen that charismatics make the point that those gifts are Biblical and were practiced in the early Church. I don’t deny that and I’m sure just about any Catholic would not, but the issue is whether they were done in the same way that charimatics interpret it. It comes down to how it should be interpreted, not whether its Biblical. This is the same dilemma that we run into with Protestants. Tongues come to my mind, I don’t deny that it’s Biblical, but how is that interpreted correctly, is it different languages or some other mystical language? I’m not convinced that it was any other thing than different languages that people spoke. But like I said and I am open to truth, just convince me otherwise. I would love to hear an explanation from Fr. Pacwa on tongues.

These concerns that you have are the very reason why Christ gave us the Church to guide us in matters of faith. Check out how much the Church has endorsed the Charismatic Renewal: so much info is online. Praise God!

1. I also heard comments like ‘why would so many centuries go by without these gifts being practiced but all of a sudden they are coming back now?’ I can see a reason for it. I do believe that some of those more radical gift sort of disappeared or became less frequent in the Church because they were not needed like they were at the early stages. The Church Fathers believed that those gifts were needed early on in order to get unbelievers to believe, but once the Church gained enough “momentum” those gifts were not needed because the Faith was much stronger. But I can see a need for those gifts to resurge back because the loss of Faith and the growth and popularity of secularism and atheism is growing fast in the world, which even the Pope has spoken about often.

I agree with the second part of your comment for sure. Jesus said “If you do not believe me because of my words, at least believe me because of the works that I do.” And of course, we are the Body of Christ, living and bringing Jesus to this world.

 

[otjm]

A friend of mine who is also a priest once went to a charismatic meeting when on an out-of-town visit dressed in street clothes (i.e., incognito). This particular group of charismatics regularly met in the parish hall of a Catholic Church, and I can only assume that the members present would claim to be Catholic. He told me that he stood up and uttered what he knew to be gibberish, and after he finished “uttering” the group leader interpreted what he had said.
Anyone claiming to be Catholic should pray with the utmost fervor about this movement. They should ask themselves why they feel the need for emotionalist props.

To reduce the work of the Holy Spirit to “emotionalist props” is a sad statement on the amount of catechesis you have had in what the Church teaches and professes.

 

[otjm]

I wonder how many people would be horrified ,if they were present, at some of the ecstatic experiences of the saints or of some of their other eccentricities?

Quite a few.

And there is a reason for it. We are heart, mind and soul. All three are important; all three are how God designed us.

Some, however, want to reduce their relationship with God to mind (and maybe soul) and are scared spitless when they come up with an experience of God that is not something intellectual, read out of a text.

They don’t want that experience; it is not part of their world view, and they cannot remain “in control”. Control is paramount for them; allowing the Holy Spirit into their lives, into using them as a conduit means giving up that control. and that is one of the more, if not most frightening concepts they can have.

 

[Reuben_J]

Cecilianus:

I have three problems with the “charismatic” movement that I’ve never seen addressed.

1. If these are truly “gifts of the Spirit”, why did the Holy Spirit decide to wait 1900 years and then lavish them on a bunch of Protestants before they came into the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, the SOLE vehicle of salvation - all graces non-Catholics can receive still come through the Catholic Church. When Protestants started speaking in tongues around 1900, the best and certainly the safest explanation is that the Devil got lazy (as usual) and revived the Montanist heresy - and I’ll side with the Church Fathers who attributed Montanist glossolalia to demons.

I take it that you do not have any experience in the Renewal and therefore looking at it from the outside. I would like to offer some thoughts on this within this limited opportunity.

We don’t know why but we do know that there were phases that the church experienced in its history.

We know that the Church is protected and led by the Holy Spirit so that Gate of Hell will not prevail over it. In times when the Church experienced certain weakness the Spirit intervened to strengthen it for this purpose (and it is not necesary in the same manifestation).

Forget about what happen to Protestants but the Renewal that came to Catholicism in the early sixty did come from the Holy Spirit to renew the Church. It was not just Catholic Charismatic Renewal – there were few other things that happened then. To make thing short, one would consider looking back when the then Pope John XX111 called for praying for a second Pentecost for the Church in around 1958. Subsequently a chain of events occurred within this period.

This also coincided with hippism together with sexual revolution and birth control in the early sixty. Church attendance dropped and seminaries dwindling. Chances it was not too good for the church. Then came the Renewal – the rise of the laity together with the moves in the Vatican. The rest is history today.

What we should recognized that there is always the bad that comes with the good. To focus on the bad would be to overlook the good that God had done for the church. The Catholic Renewal should be looked at this way. There is much good there but there were also abuses.

Cecilianus:

1. The loss of freedom experienced by people who find themselves unable to speak English while they are speaking in tongues - even for periods of several days or more - isn’t something the Holy Spirit does. God always, always respects human freedom. (The first person to start speaking in tongues, a 4-year-old Protestant girl who started speaking Chinese, was unable to speak English for several days and had to communicate in English through writing. Somehow her sect thought that was God’s doing and became the Pentecostals.)

This had been addressed by other posters. The example given in not reflective of Renewal but then again perhaps you do not have personal experience with the renewal and thus for you to bring this example up. Of course, and it goes without saying, the effect of the Holy Spirit is a release from captivity to freedom, and the one you mentioned was just the opposite. It could not be of the Holy Spirit.

Renewal is not about tongue or prophecy. These and other gifts were overly emphasized and no doubt has much Protestant influence. A Catholic who has truly undergone renewal by the Holy Spirit will tell you that it all about the renewal of faith; gifts are most always at the bottom of their list. It is a renewal of love for God and his Church and thirst for holiness.

That’s why the move of the Holy Spirit is not confined those who are active in the Charismatic Renewal alone but to the church at large, be they Charismatic or not.

You will notice that only a very small fraction of charismatics possess these gifts.

Cecilianus:

1. The emotionalism. True prayer is always oriented towards contemplation. If you go to a Tridentine Mass or Byzantine Divine Liturgy, the music, incense, liturgical actions, and environment raise the soul up to ecstasy WITHOUT impeding it from praying in a meditative fashion. But you can’t pray at a rock concert; the emotions are ordered in such a way as to impede the noetic part of the soul from “lifting up to the Lord”. It may be fun, but it’s not religion.

People in the Renewal realize that there are many forms of prayers, ranging from the contemplative to the verbal to the outgoing. Sadly what most people from the outside notice are the jumping and the shouting. Well, it is not so. Many Charismatics find contemplative prayer even more suitable. In fact for those who are more mature, the direction is towards contemplative. So there is no contradiction about method of prayer.

It is not only in the praise and worship gathering that they pray but more importantly in their own quiet time in the privacy of their home where the bulk of their prayer is ongoing.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

COPLAND 3:

Some thoughts that I have after a few days reading the posts. I will argue boths sides.

1. I have seen that charismatics make the point that those gifts are Biblical and were practiced in the early Church. I don’t deny that and I’m sure just about any Catholic would not, but the issue is whether they were done in the same way that charimatics interpret it. It comes down to how it should be interpreted, not whether its Biblical. This is the same dilemma that we run into with Protestants. Tongues come to my mind, I don’t deny that it’s Biblical, but how is that interpreted correctly, is it different languages or some other mystical language? I’m not convinced that it was any other thing than different languages that people spoke. But like I said and I am open to truth, just convince me otherwise. I would love to hear an explanation from Fr. Pacwa on tongues.
2. I also heard comments like ‘why would so many centuries go by without these gifts being practiced but all of a sudden they are coming back now?’ I can see a reason for it. I do believe that some of those more radical gift sort of disappeared or became less frequent in the Church because they were not needed like they were at the early stages. The Church Fathers believed that those gifts were needed early on in order to get unbelievers to believe, but once the Church gained enough “momentum” those gifts were not needed because the Faith was much stronger. But I can see a need for those gifts to resurge back because the loss of Faith and the growth and popularity of secularism and atheism is growing fast in the world, which even the Pope has spoken about often.

That seems to be balance view.

I don’t think the issue would be how the Charismatic interpret the verses on Charismatic gifts, in this case tongue. Too much misconception and misunderstanding is heaped on this and this is not helped by the Charismatics either. One poster mentioned about maturity. This is very true. Most Catholics who had renewal experienced were completely overwhelmed by them. They saw their lives changing and as if the world evolved around them. These need guidance in their spiritual journey so that the new found zeal can be harnessed towards correct direction according to Church’s teaching and at the same time experience a new revival in their faith.

Back to the interpretation of the Biblical verses on tongue and the prophetic message that comes with it. Even if the gift is genuinely manifested, it is still considered private revelation. Under that category, nobody is obliged to believe it. What it does in the Charismatic circle is that these messages are for exhortation and encouragement. The word ‘edification’ is very often used to describe its purpose. And that’s what it is – to edify.

So whether they or anybody else interpret the Bible correctly is not the issue to be dwelled in because if we do that then we miss the more important purpose it wants to achieve, like upbuilding one’s faith. As to who has the correct interpretation – I know that this debate will never ends because those for and against it can never agree. It’s an exercise in futility.

God bless.

 

[TRT]

For anyone who wants to find out more about this topic, I would suggest you visit the following site:

www.bellwetheromaha.org

This is the the homepage for the Intercessors of the Lamb founded by Mother Nadine. The community’s charism is contemplative prayer. As Catholic we recognize many avenues to profess our faith.

You might even want to attend one of their conferences. You may not leave speaking in tongues but you will experience a vibrant ministry of prayer and worship.

 

[Cecilianus]

I take it that you do not have any experience in the Renewal and therefore looking at it from the outside. I would like to offer some thoughts on this within this limited opportunity.

Correct observation, and thank you.

We don’t know why but we do know that there were phases that the church experienced in its history.

We know that the Church is protected and led by the Holy Spirit so that Gate of Hell will not prevail over it. In times when the Church experienced certain weakness the Spirit intervened to strengthen it for this purpose (and it is not necesary in the same manifestation).

Forget about what happen to Protestants but the Renewal that came to Catholicism in the early sixty did come from the Holy Spirit to renew the Church. It was not just Catholic Charismatic Renewal – there were few other things that happened then. To make thing short, one would consider looking back when the then Pope John XX111 called for praying for a second Pentecost for the Church in around 1958. Subsequently a chain of events occurred within this period.

This also coincided with hippism together with sexual revolution and birth control in the early sixty. Church attendance dropped and seminaries dwindling. Chances it was not too good for the church. Then came the Renewal – the rise of the laity together with the moves in the Vatican. The rest is history today.

Being a traditionalist, the coincidence of the charismatic movement with Vatican II makes it even less credible to me. I will believe in a “second Pentecost” when I see one. All I see in the Church at large is an apostasy. See Kenneth C. Jones’ “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” (published by Roman Catholic Books) for over a hundred pages of statistics comparing the Church between 1965 (at the close of the Council) and 2002 - it is rather dismal.

What we should recognized that there is always the bad that comes with the good. To focus on the bad would be to overlook the good that God had done for the church. The Catholic Renewal should be looked at this way. There is much good there but there were also abuses.

I don’t understand how you could abuse the Holy Spirit. If charismatic phenomena are truly miraculous, then how could you use them in a bad way - as if we were just performing white or black magic?

This had been addressed by other posters. The example given in not reflective of Renewal but then again perhaps you do not have personal experience with the renewal and thus for you to bring this example up. Of course, and it goes without saying, the effect of the Holy Spirit is a release from captivity to freedom, and the one you mentioned was just the opposite. It could not be of the Holy Spirit.

Renewal is not about tongue or prophecy. These and other gifts were overly emphasized and no doubt has much Protestant influence. A Catholic who has truly undergone renewal by the Holy Spirit will tell you that it all about the renewal of faith; gifts are most always at the bottom of their list. It is a renewal of love for God and his Church and thirst for holiness.

That’s why the move of the Holy Spirit is not confined those who are active in the Charismatic Renewal alone but to the church at large, be they Charismatic or not.

You will notice that only a very small fraction of charismatics possess these gifts.

People in the Renewal realize that there are many forms of prayers, ranging from the contemplative to the verbal to the outgoing. Sadly what most people from the outside notice are the jumping and the shouting. Well, it is not so. Many Charismatics find contemplative prayer even more suitable. In fact for those who are more mature, the direction is towards contemplative. So there is no contradiction about method of prayer.

It is not only in the praise and worship gathering that they pray but more importantly in their own quiet time in the privacy of their home where the bulk of their prayer is ongoing.

God bless.

What do the rest of the charismatics have, if only a small fraction possess the special charisms, that distinguishes them as charismatics (as opposed to other Catholics)? I’m a bit confused about the terminology.

Pax

 

[Reuben_J]

Correct observation, and thank you.

Thanks too if I could be of any help.

Being a traditionalist, the coincidence of the charismatic movement with Vatican II makes it even less credible to me. I will believe in a “second Pentecost” when I see one. All I see in the Church at large is an apostasy. See Kenneth C. Jones’ “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” (published by Roman Catholic Books) for over a hundred pages of statistics comparing the Church between 1965 (at the close of the Council) and 2002 - it is rather dismal.

The Pope called for the church to pray for a second Pentecost, that what it was. What happened in the Charismatic Renewal can be considered a Pentecost of sort and since prayer had been called by the Pope, it did tie up. I doubt if you can see any Pentecost per se, especially if you had not seen it. Others had but again this is disputed by those who did not experience it or not in the Renewal.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, it was not good for the Church starting early sixty or perhaps late fifties. Yes, it was very dismal. That was what you witnessed and commented on. The Renewal did help in restricting the tide of pessimism perhaps from the late sixties onward (though of course it did not overcome it totally), especially as more laity rise up to the call of the Lord. We know that vocation to the priesthood and the religious was beginning to dwindle; it would be such a bad state of affair for the church. The risen of the laity within the church did in some ways compensate the loss in faith, religious and number as a whole within the church.

There are differing opinions regarding Vatican II today and I won’t touch on it. The bottom line for some Catholics, being Catholics that we are, is that the document came about through Ecumenical Council, the Synod with the assent of the Pope (Paul VI).

In addition to the advice of the previous Pope who wanted the Holy Spirit to have a ‘free play’, many Catholics see the preparation of the document as the work of the Holy Spirit, which is nothing new actually, considering that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. The Vatican II is not something done in a spur of the moment but it takes years to complete, with meetings after meetings and prayers, until the whole College of the Bishop and Cardinals and the Ecumenical Council agreed to it. Thus its preparation was in compliance to what the Church would have done in the situation.

I don’t understand how you could abuse the Holy Spirit. If charismatic phenomena are truly miraculous, then how could you use them in a bad way - as if we were just performing white or black magic?

There were abuses in the exercise of the Charismatic gifts and this truly had caused more damage than one could imagine especially to the lives of those involved in the Renewal. I was saying that many Catholics experienced tremendous renewal in their lives. These moved on and commit themselves to God in ways that they had never done or known before. Some abuses occur especially in the area of pastoral care whereby leaders can be very strict and members not ready to accept the pastoring. Some of these intrude into the area of personal choice and privacy.

What do the rest of the charismatics have, if only a small fraction possess the special charisms, that distinguishes them as charismatics (as opposed to other Catholics)? I’m a bit confused about the terminology.

Pax

Yes, the terminology is confusing - many jargons are used within this circle which they know and for lack of appropriate words. I would use the term Charismatics as those Catholics who are involved in the Charismatic Renewal. There are many charisms but mainly we are talking about the charismatic gifts as in 1 Cor 12. That’s what people like to talk about when discussing about the Charismatic Renewal.

I specifically mentioned tongue and its interpretation earlier on. In any case not everybody has the gifts. As mentioned earlier, the Renewal is more about the renewal of their faith.

Hope that helps somewhow.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

For the sake of being objective, perhaps I need to restate that the purported move of the Holy Spirit as mentioned. It was by no means on the Charismatic Renewal only but on the whole Church. Similarly the rise of the laity (more ordinary Catholics have become active in the Church, more prayerful and more participative) is by no means confined to those in the Charismatic Renewal only but to all the faithfuls within the Church.

 

[Christmas_Angel]

Regarding the question about how one could abuse the Holy Spirit, and whether Charismatic gifts are miraculous; we are encouraged by St. John in 1 John 4:1 to discern the Spirits. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”. It would not be the Holy Spirit who inspired a false prophesy, it would be a person’s own imagination or else the influence of evil spirits seeking to mislead by imitating spiritual phenomena. In Matthew 7:21 Jesus say’s that not everyone who calls Him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of the Father in Heaven. He goes on to say in verse 22 that on that day (judgement day) many will say to Him, "Lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?..and He said "then I will delclare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me you evildoers.” This may surprise you, but what it reveals is that God is so loving and merciful, that He will operate His Spriitual gifts through even those who are not themselves conformed to God’s will or necessarily seeking holiness, for the sake of the soul God wishes to touch. This can also be understood relative to the Sacraments, for the Cathoic Catechism teaches that grace operates “ex opere operato”, that is, that by virtue of the exercise of the Sacrament, the graces are transmitted regardless of the personal holiness or state of the Priest Himself. God designed the flow of His grace based on the holiness of His Son, Jesus Christ. The first work of the Holy Spirit is to make us “little Christs”, to sanctify us from sin. Many sought Jesus only because of His Miracles, not to love and serve Him, and this is still true. Thomas Dubay wrote a great book called “Discernment” outlining the advice of two Doctors of the Church who aer also great mystics and experienced much spiritual phenomena: John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. I recommend this book!

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

Regarding the question about how one could abuse the Holy Spirit, and whether Charismatic gifts are miraculous; we are encouraged by St. John in 1 John 4:1 to discern the Spirits. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”. It would not be the Holy Spirit who inspired a false prophesy, it would be a person’s own imagination or else the influence of evil spirits seeking to mislead by imitating spiritual phenomena. In Matthew 7:21 Jesus say’s that not everyone who calls Him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of the Father in Heaven. He goes on to say in verse 22 that on that day (judgement day) many will say to Him, "Lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?..and He said "then I will delclare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me you evildoers.” This may surprise you, but what it reveals is that God is so loving and merciful, that He will operate His Spriitual gifts through even those who are not themselves conformed to God’s will or necessarily seeking holiness, for the sake of the soul God wishes to touch. This can also be understood relative to the Sacraments, for the Cathoic Catechism teaches that grace operates “ex opere operato”, that is, that by virtue of the exercise of the Sacrament, the graces are transmitted regardless of the personal holiness or state of the Priest Himself. God designed the flow of His grace based on the holiness of His Son, Jesus Christ. The first work of the Holy Spirit is to make us “little Christs”, to sanctify us from sin. Many sought Jesus only because of His Miracles, not to love and serve Him, and this is still true. Thomas Dubay wrote a great book called “Discernment” outlining the advice of two Doctors of the Church who aer also great mystics and experienced much spiritual phenomena: John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. I recommend this book!

This was a very helpful post and I am a charismatic! Praise the Lord and thank you for your thoughful reply

I especially was touched by how you mentioned that God’s grace flows through us, and sometimes it is regardless of our own personal state. I agree that the sacraments work in this way as well. That really makes it the grace of God! Praise Him!

 

[Reuben_J]

There are differing opinions regarding Vatican II today and I won’t touch on it. The bottom line for some Catholics, being Catholics that we are, is that the document came about through Ecumenical Council, the Synod with the assent of the Pope (Paul VI).

In addition to the advice of the previous Pope who wanted the Holy Spirit to have a ‘free play’, many Catholics see the preparation of the document as the work of the Holy Spirit, which is nothing new actually, considering that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. The Vatican II is not something done in a spur of the moment but it takes years to complete, with meetings after meetings and prayers, until the whole College of the Bishop and Cardinals and the Ecumenical Council agreed to it. Thus its preparation was in compliance to what the Church would have done in the situation.

Some Catholics who see Catholic Charismatic Renewal as an offspring of Vatican II and depending on their view of the former would see and assess Vatican II accordingly – either positive or negative. I was pointing out that the document was prepared in accordance within the normality of Church procedure.

The assembled 3000 Cardinals, Bishops and their theological advisers, prayed and deliberated over four sessions. The Council ended on 1 December 1965. The sixteen documents promulgated by Pope Paul VI created the climate for a structural and spirtual renewal in the Church.

In various documents the possibilty and the fostering of charisms were mentioned, though cautiously. Belgian Cardinal Leo Suenens, then the Cardinal of the Holy Spirit, intervened during the Council to ensure the openness to the charisms remained ‘official’. One can refer to this in his book, “A New Pentecost?”, in which he said, “The charismatic dimension was necessary to the church. What would become to our Church without the charisms of the doctors, the tehologians, the prophets?”

Two important passages in the document that deal with charisms are to be found in the Constitution On the Church, paragraph 12. The second is the decreee On the Apostate of the Laity (para3). These two texts are part of the whole document of Vatican II where references to the Holy Spirit are mentioned 252 times! In the words of Cardinal Suenens, this demonstrates that the Council was calling the People of God to become more aware of the abiding, active and sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The Holy Spirit works in ways mysterious and sometimes not within the comprehension of men but always His primary function is to upbuild as the power behind the Church and her people. Charisms within the Church are to be expected on this understanding.

God bless.

 

[COPLAND_3]

That seems to be balance view.

I don’t think the issue would be how the Charismatic interpret the verses on Charismatic gifts, in this case tongue. Too much misconception and misunderstanding is heaped on this and this is not helped by the Charismatics either. One poster mentioned about maturity. This is very true. Most Catholics who had renewal experienced were completely overwhelmed by them. They saw their lives changing and as if the world evolved around them. These need guidance in their spiritual journey so that the new found zeal can be harnessed towards correct direction according to Church’s teaching and at the same time experience a new revival in their faith.

Back to the interpretation of the Biblical verses on tongue and the prophetic message that comes with it. Even if the gift is genuinely manifested, it is still considered private revelation. Under that category, nobody is obliged to believe it. What it does in the Charismatic circle is that these messages are for exhortation and encouragement. The word ‘edification’ is very often used to describe its purpose. And that’s what it is – to edify.

So whether they or anybody else interpret the Bible correctly is not the issue to be dwelled in because if we do that then we miss the more important purpose it wants to achieve, like upbuilding one’s faith. As to who has the correct interpretation – I know that this debate will never ends because those for and against it can never agree. It’s an exercise in futility.

God bless.

What I’m saying is if tongues a gift that is for edification (which I believe it is), and if it is to be interpreted the way the charismatics claim it should be, then that would cause me to rethink my position. But I am not convinced that it is to be understood the way they see it, but I am still not clear exactly what they believe about it. Like I said, I would love to hear an explanation from someone like Fr. Mitch Pacwa on it. The way I see this gift is that it is concerning various languages, not some mystical language. If I can get a grasp on what exactly it is from the charismatic standpoint then I would be gaining ground, because I’ve heard it explained a few times but I am still foggy on the details. Either I am not getting a full straight forward explanation or I am just not getting it yet. If I can get my brain wrapped around this one then it may start falling into place for me.

Like I said, I’ve searched the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and I don’t see any indication of anything other than tongues being various languages.

 

[Reuben_J]

What I’m saying is if tongues a gift that is for edification (which I believe it is), and if it is to be interpreted the way the charismatics claim it should be, then that would cause me to rethink my position. But I am not convinced that it is to be understood the way they see it, but I am still not clear exactly what they believe about it. Like I said, I would love to hear an explanation from someone like Fr. Mitch Pacwa on it. The way I see this gift is that it is concerning various languages, not some mystical language. If I can get a grasp on what exactly it is from the charismatic standpoint then I would be gaining ground, because I’ve heard it explained a few times but I am still foggy on the details. Either I am not getting a full straight forward explanation or I am just not getting it yet. If I can get my brain wrapped around this one then it may start falling into place for me.

Like I said, I’ve searched the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and I don’t see any indication of anything other than tongues being various languages.

Fair enough.

I can tell you off the cuff how the gift of tongue is understood and exercised without going into the details.

First, a gift is not forced upon; they are given as the Spirit gives. One can receive it but refuse to exercise it, others exercise it accordingly and the gift can grow and bring fruits.

Tongue can be stopped anytime the person wants to; it is not as if he is in a trance. He is in complete control of his intellect and action at that moment.

Basically there are three types of the manifestation of tongue.

(1) Most common is the praying/singing in tongue, sometimes called singing in the Spirit. This is for self-edification and to help oneself in prayer, usually ‘when you have nothing to say but nevertheless want to pray’. St. Paul mentioned in Rom 8:26, when the Spirit makes you groan in words you cannot understand.

I would say about 99% of the known tongue that’s most often experienced and exercised within the CCC is this type.

(2) Charismatic gift of tongues and interpretation ((of tongue). This manifest, usually in a charismatic praise and worship, whereby the person is prompted to speak aloud in tongue, and followed by interpretation.

Like St. Paul said in 1Cor 12, this gift is useless without the companion gift of interpretation. In effect it is akin to the gift of prophecy.

(3) Tongue as in the Pentecost. A person who does not know the language begins to speak in a language that others (of that language) can understand. As told by one of charismatic priest – a woman, non-Spanish speaking, burst out in tongue and the Spanish speakers in the congregation could clearly understood her. She was speaking in Spanish even though she knew nothing of that language.

The problem here is of course – is that true manifestation of tongue? This is where the controversy lies. Actually, it is not that difficult to know whether it genuine or not; there is guideline to understand this gift.

Basically, the discernment process is applied, the same as how to discern gift of prophecy. Ultimately, nobody is obliged to believe. This is about exercising of faith, and more often than not, it’s the faith that actually edifies the person. The prophecy is the tool.

There were saints obviously who were endowed with some of these gifts. One I can think of is St. Teresa of Avilla, a great saint of prayer.

Again I caution you - it is not like the gift is the focus in Charismatic spirituality. It is just part of the bigger action of the Holy Spirit, that is, bringing repentance and changing of lives on those who are touched by Him.

God bless.

 

[otjm]

Being a traditionalist, the coincidence of the charismatic movement with Vatican II makes it even less credible to me. I will believe in a “second Pentecost” when I see one. All I see in the Church at large is an apostasy. See Kenneth C. Jones’ “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” (published by Roman Catholic Books) for over a hundred pages of statistics comparing the Church between 1965 (at the close of the Council) and 2002 - it is rather dismal.

It is said that there are none so blind as those who would not see. Ralph Martin (who, if I recall correctly, is a charismatic) wrote (I think I have the title correct - I am not at home) The Church at the End of the Age. His statistics are just as blistering. And yet he goes on to show the work of the Holy Spirit, alive in the Church.

It takes quite a bit - of intelligence, of prayer and discernment, of time and of an open-mindedness - to be able to see the good at work in the Church. It is much easier to be negative than to be positive; it is much easier to damn than to praise. It is also much easier to be closed minded and ignore what is right in front of you than it is to risk. It is easier to hide behind rules, than to commit. It is easier to pick a target, ignoring all else around, and fire shots at that target, especially when one is in the company of other naysayers. There is nothing we like so much as hearing our opinons praised and reiterated by those of like mind, particlarly when we want simple answers to complex questions, and when our base appears to be attacked physically, psychologically and emotionally.

For forty years the Church has been not only explaining but also living out the documents of Vatican 2; and in spite of the explanations and the living proof, there are those who wish to cast all evil, all misdirection, all “goofiness” in those on the fringes who call themselves Catholic as the work of the devil through the documents.

There is no lie so successful as a half truth; and the devil has been hard at work fighting the actions the Church attempted to take in Vatican 2. There is nothing he likes better than to take someone walking with Christ and turn them from the path. There is nothing he likes better than using that turning to keep others off that path.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Ever since I converted to the Church I’ve occasionally tried to understand this movement, but I’ve never done any hard research on it, I get a little motivated to and then my ADD kicks in and I lose interest very quickly. Everything I’ve ever looked at shows that there are some mention of it and credit given to it, but everything I’ve read is so obscure concerning how much creedence it has from the Church. I’ve spent years as a Southern Baptist debating tongues with Pentecostals, and I have an understanding now what the Church Fathers have said on it, but I am afraid to speak with total certainty because I know little about how the Church really stands. I know that trustworthy Catholic apologists feel the same as I do, but I’m not sure if they have a full grasp on it either. And when I see the quotes that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal sites have from Popes and Cardinals, their quotes don’t convince me either because the mention of “renewal” does not mean that the Pope is talking about the actual movement, or a movement in general.

I’d sure like some developed thoughts on this! Thanks!

I’ve thought a number of times about attending a Catholic charismatic meeting. I went once, and frankly it was pretty low key. There was some tongues, but compared to the exuberance I’d seen at some Protestant charismatic churches, it actually seemed rather well behaved.

I suppose the main reason I haven’t persisted is sheer laziness, since the nearest regular meetings are quite some distance away. I find it easier to go to the local church.

I’ve never spoken in tongues myself, although I’ve heard it on a number of occasions. We have a small prayer group here where some speak in tongues, but it’s not widely advertised.

My main concern with “tongues” is demonic counterfeits. As someone whose experienced both sides of the spiritual realm including 3 “double whammies” (like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot, to highlight a message), heavy gripping pressures and a grip around the throat (demonic at night), my father appearing the night he died, regular “tingles” during sermons, voices cuttting clearly across my thoughts (only a couple of times), and other stuff, I’m a bit wary about the source of such an activity. I’d like to be sure it’s the Holy Spirit causing it and not a rather clever piece of demonic mimicry.

So I suppose my concerns boil down to sheer laziness, and a bit of concern about where a particular case of “tongues” might be coming from.

I’ve got no problem with the Catholic Charismatic movement generally. As it is there’s not enough enthusiasm in Catholic churches, which is one of the reasons the Protestants are making inroads in some places.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’ve thought a number of times about attending a Catholic charismatic meeting. I went once, and frankly it was pretty low key. There was some tongues, but compared to the exuberance I’d seen at some Protestant charismatic churches, it actually seemed rather well behaved.

I suppose the main reason I haven’t persisted is sheer laziness, since the nearest regular meetings are quite some distance away. I find it easier to go to the local church.

I’ve never spoken in tongues myself, although I’ve heard it on a number of occasions. We have a small prayer group here where some speak in tongues, but it’s not widely advertised.

My main concern with “tongues” is demonic counterfeits. As someone whose experienced both sides of the spiritual realm including 3 “double whammies” (like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot, to highlight a message), heavy gripping pressures and a grip around the throat (demonic at night), my father appearing the night he died, regular “tingles” during sermons, voices cuttting clearly across my thoughts (only a couple of times), and other stuff, I’m a bit wary about the source of such an activity. I’d like to be sure it’s the Holy Spirit causing it and not a rather clever piece of demonic mimicry.

So I suppose my concerns boil down to sheer laziness, and a bit of concern about where a particular case of “tongues” might be coming from.

I’ve got no problem with the Catholic Charismatic movement generally. As it is there’s not enough enthusiasm in Catholic churches, which is one of the reasons the Protestants are making inroads in some places.

Good points about your concerns, I have also experienced similar demonic activity, so I don’t doubt you for a second.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I was active in the movement in the 70’s and 80’s. At that time a Catholic was required to take a seven part course “Life in the Spirit” before actively participating in the movement. I think there is still a requirement to take lessons, but there may be new courses.

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

I was active in the movement in the 70’s and 80’s. At that time a Catholic was required to take a seven part course “Life in the Spirit” before actively participating in the movement. I think there is still a requirement to take lessons, but there may be new courses.

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is way more Catholic now than it ws in the early days. I speak from experience as in our Diocese, San Francisco, we always pray the rosary before our first Friday Charismatic Mass. Of course that is not all that we do specifically Catholic, but it is just an example.