Catholic Charismatic Renewal

[Iotaunum]

And away we go… again…

I was wondering whether or not to even post here - I don’t want a debate on the charismatic movement - I have been there, done that. I just couldn’t help myself when it was posted in the “traditional Catholicism” section of the forum.

 

[TrueLight]

I was wondering whether or not to even post here - I don’t want a debate on the charismatic movement - I have been there, done that. I just couldn’t help myself when it was posted in the “traditional Catholicism” section of the forum.

Yeah. The topic is quite tiresome and always ends the same way, but the OP is new and wouldn’t know that necessarily.

 

[jam070406]

I was wondering whether or not to even post here - I don’t want a debate on the charismatic movement - I have been there, done that. I just couldn’t help myself when it was posted in the “traditional Catholicism” section of the forum.

I here ya. There are handful of posters that love to hang out in the Traditional section and beat up on Traditionalists. It’s best to just ignore them.

 

[Melchior_1]

I was not judging anyone’s intentions. I am just going off what I have seen and experienced myself, as well as those in the movement I have corresponded with - which is all I can do. For me it just simply does not fit in with Catholic tradition or the practice of the Popes and Saints so I avoid it - which is why I “hang out” at the traditional section of the forum. I did not mean to offend anyone in particular - just giving my opinion.

Should I base my perception of traditionalists based off of meeting a few SSPV types who visit the local FSSP parish? Or maybe I should base my entire perception of the SSPX based off of His Grace Williamson.

Oh, it’s done for. Heresies don’t last long: charismatic-heresy.blogspot.ca/.

I’m a heretic. Thank you kindly! I’m in good company though, the current Papal Preacher is a heretic too!

 

[Iotaunum]

Should I base my perception of traditionalists based off of meeting a few SSPV types who visit the local FSSP parish? Or maybe I should base my entire perception of the SSPX based off of His Grace Williamson.

I am not talking about individuals or how they practice within the movement - but the movement itself and its philosophy. It is not compatible with my view of Catholicism - which as I said before is based on tradition. I gave my opinion which will obviously not sit comfortably with those involved in the movement - but thats why forums like this exist. I have heard your opinion and I gave mine. I am done here - I can’t see this thread being productive.

Regards

 

[Melchior_1]

I am done here - I can’t see this thread being constructive

This is actually the most important line I’ve seen so far. I’ve seen several times on these boards people calling others heretics or calling something heresy, and people act as if that’s an effective way to communicate the faith.

I’m glad to see someone else sees that as not being conducive or constructive.

 

[anp1215]

I ask this every time this topic comes up, and every time I do not receive an answer:

The Companions of the Cross are a Society of Apostolic Life (pontifical), who received their status in 2002. Becoming a Society of Apostolic Life does not happen overnight, and the approvals come from some of the highest levels within the Church. Is it an exercise in infallibility? Probably not, but it sure is an exercise in authority.

One of the Companions’ four pillars is charismaticism.

I’d like to know, if charismaticism is so bad and so protestant, why did the Companions get approval?

I’d also like to know why it’s acceptable for people to slam one of the pillars of the Companions, yet they rush to the defense of a group that has no canonical place within the Church?

I’d also (also) like to point out that protestants often take what is Catholic and make it into their own. Several protestant services look very similar to Lectio Divina, for example. Yet there are several people who would look at Lectio Divina and say “this seems protestant” if they didn’t know any better. Some of the reading I’ve done would indicate that charismaticism was practiced by some religious houses (I lost my sources when I moved, I will try to find more of them) before the 60’s and 70’s.

Look, I understand it’s not for everyone. I get that, and that’s fine. What I don’t understand is the lakc of respect, the fear, and outright hatred some people have for it. Some people need to stop to consider; maybe the charismatic renewal didn’t come out due to the “70’s”, maybe it actually came about as a counter-reformation to oppose what the 70’s stood for, and it stands now to oppose what the 90’s/2000’s stand for today.

When you consider orthodox people within the Vatican, orthodox schools, orthodox parishes, orthodox Societies, orthodox religious households are all involved with this movement, plus the personal approval of three Popes, that should tell you something.

Finally, I find it hilarious that people are fine with the Anglican Use, which is cribbed DIRECTLY from a protestant service, and they are fine with the Eastern Rites which were essentially cribbed DIRECTLY from the Orthodox, yet have a problem with the charismatic renewal.

This is a great post.

And I have no interest in charismatic Catholicism.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The Charismatic ‘Renewal’ presumes that it is bringing something new to the Catholic table, which it got from protestant sources. That in itself is suspect enough.

Then you get people believing that The Holy Spirit is acting through them, on demand, giving them ‘gifts’; gifts which are not the same as those exhibited by the apostles (sorry, but jabbering in Arabic in a room full of English speakers is the direct opposite of what the apostles did). Lying on the ground in a swoon and ecstatic demonstrations are neither Catholic nor novel.

I’m sick of this old-hat protestant stuff being introduced to Catholics as ‘the next great thing’. We’ve really lost the plot if we look to this sort of self-indulgence for meaning.

There have been other movements in the Church which over time have been shown to been harmful or heretical. That high-ranking members of the Church approve of a movement does not mean they are faultless and may not be critiqued.

The site mentioned previously charismatic-heresy.blogspot.ca/ seems to be an account of a former Charismatic and it echoes what I’ve read elsewhere.

Behind Charismaticism, Medjugorje, modernism, the Magisterium of Nuns and the Neo-Cathechumenal Way is the idea that the traditional Church is ailing and we have the cure.

 

[Melchior_1]

The Charismatic ‘Renewal’ presumes that it is bringing something new to the Catholic table, which it got from protestant sources. That in itself is suspect enough.

Then you get people believing that The Holy Spirit is acting through them, on demand, giving them ‘gifts’; gifts which are not the same as those exhibited by the apostles (sorry, but jabbering in Arabic in a room full of English speakers is the direct opposite of what the apostles did). Lying on the ground in a swoon and ecstatic demonstrations are neither Catholic nor novel.

I’m sick of this old-hat protestant stuff being introduced to Catholics as ‘the next great thing’. We’ve really lost the plot if we look to this sort of self-indulgence for meaning.

There have been other movements in the Church which over time have been shown to been harmful or heretical. That high-ranking members of the Church approve of a movement does not mean they are faultless and may not be critiqued.

The site mentioned previously charismatic-heresy.blogspot.ca/ seems to be an account of a former Charismatic and it echoes what I’ve read elsewhere.

Behind Charismaticism, Medjugorje, modernism, the Magisterium of Nuns and the Neo-Cathechumenal Way is the idea that the traditional Church is ailing and we have the cure.

Roger, other than calling me a heretic, you didn’t respond to the items I mentioned in my first post. Care to elaborate on how the other things you mentioned (NeoCat, for example) have not been enshrined within a Society of Apostolic Life, while charismaticism has?

Can you elaborate on why Benedict XVI would have a papal preacher who is involved with the charismatic movement?

Can you please refute what the last three Popes have said about it?

Can you site and provide sources that prove, without question, that none of the items presented by the charismatic movement predates what you perceive to be modern pentecostal protestantism? That perhaps this is one more example of Catholicism taking back what they did already?

Can you please clarify this vis-a-vis with the Anglican Ordinate (cribbed from protestants) and the Eastern Rites (cribbed from the Orthodox)?

The amount of people calling me a heretic in this thread is now up to two, unless you count the blogger than that makes three. i think that’s near a personal best.

 

[TrueLight]

Melchior,

Maybe it might be best if you don’t view this thread as an attack on you. I think people are discussing the charismatic movement as they have experienced or read about it.

I’m relatively sure no one is calling you a heretic.

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior,

Maybe it might be best if you don’t view this thread as an attack on you. I think people are discussing the charismatic movement as they have experienced or read about it.

I’m relatively sure no one is calling you a heretic.

TL, two people referred to a site calling the charismatic movement as heresy (it’s right in the URL). A heretic commits continual heresy. Therefore, those who continually commit a heresy are heretics.

1 + 1 = 2, right?

 

[TrueLight]

TL, two people referred to a site calling the charismatic movement as heresy (it’s right in the URL). A heretic commits continual heresy. Therefore, those who continually commit a heresy are heretics.

1 + 1 = 2, right?

I’m just saying I think it would help you if you saw the comments as comments against charismatics (of which you are one I suppose), as opposed to against you personally.

 

[Patrick_George]

This is not a traditional catholic topic and should be moved.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to cause a pointless debate, I just wanted to know the official position of the Church on the movement, and I reckoned this Traditional section would be the best place to provide that.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I don’t participate in the charismatic movement because of my tradional, orthodox views. But if the Vatican recognizes it, who am I to judge their inclusion in Catholicism when the movement has the Pope’s blessing?

 

[FAB]

The Companions of the Cross are a Society of Apostolic Life (pontifical), who received their status in 2002. Becoming a Society of Apostolic Life does not happen overnight, and the approvals come from some of the highest levels within the Church. Is it an exercise in infallibility? Probably not, but it sure is an exercise in authority.

.

I have the honor to serve and work with The Companions of the Cross. Evangelization is certainly part of their community, but they hold closely to the Church’s teaching. They are working in areas like Detroit to revitalize the Church’s in that city. No matter one’s opinion of the Chrismatic movement, one can not complain about the work of these faith filled men.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have the honor to serve and work with The Companions of the Cross. Evangelization is certainly part of their community, but they hold closely to the Church’s teaching. They are working in areas like Detroit to revitalize the Church’s in that city. No matter one’s opinion of the Chrismatic movement, one can not complain about the work of these faith filled men.

I was there at the Cathedral when they received their status in 2002, so I’ve known them for ten years now. I met Father Bedard for spiritual direction once. I haven’t met a bad egg among them yet.

Are you working with them currently (and where?) I probably know who you’re working with.

Detroit is a recent posting for them. I know one of the men they posted there, 100% solid. They also took over two additional parishes in Ottawa (including mine!).