Charismatic Catholic

[SyroMalankara]

Reverend Ryan Erlenbush’s article contains some popular flaws. I have already addressed this comment “such that the individual speaks almost without control.” in post 146. To be efficient, I again ask you to kindly give me what you consider are the damning points?

I wish I could give you an abridged, but both articles are best read in their entirety.

 

[grannymh]

From post 179

St. Paul does not mention suggestion, but of course we should. Many charismatics today are reluctant to admit that any checking is needed. They just say: Look it is what St. Paul talked about. But as we saw, Paul warned about the evil spirit. Some years ago I wrote a long series of columns for National Catholic Register, on the movement…

This omits that discernment is major in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Regrettably, many charismatics ignore these rules from St. Paul. They have more than two, they have even hundreds at a time. They try to say it is one thing to speak, another to pray in tongues. But Paul makes no such distinction and with good reason, as the experience just related makes clear.

This omits that discernment is major in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. 1 Corinthians 14: 2.; 1 Corinthians 14: 13 and following; 1 Corinthians 12: 4-11

St. Paul also knew that the Corinthians were getting vain over tongues. Hence in 1 Cor 14: he told them to be childlike, but childish.

Correct

Paul also felt the need to play down tongues… We note he mentions tongues last, and stops numbering after the first three - which are not the extraordinary type of gifts, they are of the ordinary type. (Prophecy in Paul does not mean usually foretelling the future, but giving a moving exhortation to the community). Almost all of chapter 14 of 1 Cor is a comparison of tongues and prophecy, with tongues coming off a poor second each time.

1 Corinthians 14: 1-3

The danger of suggestion is very great. At a meeting of the Catholic Biblical Associaton in New York some years ago I spoke to a woman professor of Scripture, who was also a charismatic. She told me most cases are just suggestion. A Dominican priest who worked much with them told me the same thing…

“Cases” is not defined.

In a Catholic Team Manual, Finding New Life in the Spirit, p.25 the candidate is instructed to say, after some preparation: “I ask you to baptize me in the Holy Spirit and give me the gift of tongues.”

If there is a request for Tongues (that is free choice of every person) the “give me” is more polite and sincerely prayerful.

This is contrary to Vatican II. In On the Church §12 the Council distinguishes ordinary and extraordinary charisms: “The extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly asked for, nor should the fruits of apostolic works be presumptuously expected from them; but the judgment of their genuine character and the ordered exercise of them pertains to those who preside in the Church…”

The extraordinary charisms are not specifically mentioned.

Finding New Life in the Spirit (Servant,1872) has sold 1,690,000 copies. It is a guidebook given to all participants in Life in the Spirit Seminars, developed by the Word of God Community out of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Candidates are taught how to invite the gift of tongues, to make a buildup for it – St. Teresa, as we said above, would worry that the door is left more than a little ajar. This is open to satan and/or autosuggestion. On p.25 the candidate is told to say: “I ask you to baptize me in the Holy Spirit and give me the gift of tongues.”

The guidebook for the early Life in the Spirit Seminars called for a renewal of Catholic Sacraments and proposed more participation in the life of the Catholic parish. This foundation continues. If there is a request for Tongues (that is free choice of every person) the “give me” is more polite and sincerely prayerful.

To be continued.

 

[grannymh]

I wish I could give you an abridged, but both articles are best read in their entirety.

I am responding in sections over time.

I did notice the mention of Fanning the Flame, Kilian McDonnell, George T. Montague, Editors, ISBN 0-8146-5013-9 which I am holding in my hand. I highly recommend it. This document is from “The Heart of the Church Consultation” of theologians and pastoral leaders which met May 6-11, 1990, in Techny, IL.

I also recommend Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Evidence from the First Eight Centuries, by Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague,
ISBN 0-8146-5009-0 which I am holding in the other hand. This book is dedicated “To Leo Cardinal Suenens who led the Catholic charismatic renewal into the heart of the church”

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thank you for these links.

Because Reverend William G. Most, PhD writes …

Reverend Ryan Erlenbush’s article …

Is there something preventing you from referring to both these men as “Father”?

They aren’t protestant ministers or outside our Communion, nor were they ever in anything but good standing with the Church.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Excuse me. You stated that I am against the “catholic charismatic renewal” about a dozen times now. I re-stated to you that I have not questioned the “catholic charismatic renewal” or the Papal Approval BUT CERTAIN PARTICULAR ACTIONS associated with people that call themselves charismatic and catholic, including leadership and founders. Do you comprehend the difference?

You are saying parts of the charismatic.renewal are heresy, while accepting that it has Papal Approval of the last four Popes.

Any aspects of heresy or schism will be found in all aspects of Church ministry. There will always be wolves amongst the sheep. Jesus warned of this in the Bible.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You are saying parts of the charismatic.renewal are heresy, while accepting that it has Papal Approval of the last four Popes.

I’m not saying this, but do you agree with this statement?

Any aspects of heresy or schism will be found in all aspects of Church ministry. There will always be wolves amongst the sheep. Jesus warned of this in the Bible.

Should we not recognize, mention, or emphasize that this reality and certain specifics are red flags - or is any question or mention worthy of refutation using out of place Scripture quotation, general Papal statements, serial accusatory posts, and other endeavors?

 

[MaryHelp777]

I’m not saying this, but do you agree with this statement?

Should we not recognize, mention, or emphasize that this reality and certain specifics are red flags - or is any question or mention worthy of refutation using out of place Scripture quotation, general Papal statements, serial accusatory posts, and other endeavors?

Here we go again,

You just said you agree with me,
And now you are saying Papal Approval of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal through the last four Popes are “general Papal statements”, (while the Papacy has actually said the catholic charismatic renewal is what they desire to become part of every parish),
You are saying of the charisms of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as being “out of place Scriptural quotation” (while St Paul clearly shows that the charisms were widespread in early church),
And then saying any refutation of your “opinions” are “seriously accusatory statements”,

…

If you have a problem with heresies being committed in any part of Church ministries, you may mention these. But not condemn the ministries of the church itself.
Readers, priests, Sacriston, Eucharistic ministers, lay evangelists, faith formation teams, deacons, etc… It’s not the ministries that are bad. It’s if there is something sacrilegious happening that is that bad thing, not the actual ministry.

You are trying to deny a 100% Papally approved movement in the Catholic Church.

You have yet to find a quote to prove your false opinion that the Popes generally give sweeping statements about the renewal while not truly supporting it you believe.

Pope John Paul Ii said in the Vatican that the catholic charismatic renewal has canonical recognition.
Is.that a wide broad sweeping out of context statement of the Papacy?

Pope Benedict.said he wishes the catholic charismatic renewal to become a normal part of every parish.
Is this another broad out of context general statement?

St Paul said in the Bible, “Seek.the higher gifts. I wish you all prayed in tongues more than I do. Do not quench the Spirit or deny the one who prophecies. If one is sick lay your hands upon them calling upon the Name of the Lord and.they will get better.”
Jesus: “These are the signs that will accompany believers, they will speak in other tongues, they will heal the sick,”
Acts of the Apostles: “And as Peter was talking, the Holy Spirit fell down upon the crowd and.they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and glorified God.”
(are these out of place general scripture comments you refer to?
Because the catholic church calls those parts of Scripture
exactly what the catholic charismatic renewal is, a continuation of what happened at Pentecost.)

May God open your eyes to accept what the Popes and Catechism have accepted. And stop trying to publicly quench something that has Papal Approval through your own opinions backs by a single priests quotes, and your own Sola Scriptura quotes, in opposition to the last four Popes quotes, and the Catechism

 

[SyroMalankara]

Differentiation 1: The general CCR as a whole is not being discussed by me
Differentiation 2: The Papal statements you posted are regarding CCR and other recognized movements
Differentiation 3: although the so called ‘charismatics’ use the same terminology as the Bible and/or the Pope, I do not believe they are always using term with the same meaning.

Cautions I expressed regard certain promoted practices within so-called ‘charismatic’ groups that are openly practiced in parishes and publicly, sometimes under the locally or universally ‘approved’ banner - while certain actions are outside what is given approval.

What the vast majority of popular ‘charismatics’ call ‘tongues’, ‘gifts’ and ‘charisms’ is neither the same as ‘Scriptural tongues’ nor what is mentioned in Papal documents, despite their use of the same words

Your disparagement and misreading of my statements, and repeated mistating of my position, in fact, lead me to assume you know this concern is something you are aware of and support for personal, emotional or financial reasons; you are not willing to take a deep critical look at something so close to you; or something worse I need not mention

 

[Reuben_J]

**What the vast majority of popular ‘charismatics’ call ‘tongues’, ‘gifts’ and ‘charisms’ is neither the same as ‘Scriptural tongues’ nor what is mentioned in Papal documents, despite their use of the same words
**

You are not in a position to decide on this and it will be just your personal opinion. We can argue all night on this until the cow comes home, and yet will not be in agreement.

Thus the important thing is to acknowledge that the CCR and Charismatic gifts are accepted as in existence by the Church is more important at this juncture. If you want to discuss errors and abuses, it would be in another thread that specifically discuss that.

What you are doing is giving a general aspersion on CCR and that’s wrong, if you are a bona fide Catholic.

There are hundreds of million Catholic Charismatics from Brazil, Philippines, Mexico, or Argentina, more than all of you put together a hundred times, and if it is put to them that a Syro-Malankaran says their practices are in errors, they would laugh saying that maybe a Syro-Malankarans are not authentic Catholics.

But if we should tell them that Syro-Malankarans are accepted by the Pope as part of the Catholic Church, they would not question it even if they do not know what is Syro-Malankaran. That is how to be Catholics - we have to accept what are officially accepted. Saying that they are wrong could be the same as saying that you, as a Syro-Malankaran are wrong or that you are not authentic Catholic or where did you get your membership?

Do you understand? Can you see the correlation?

 

[SyroMalankara]

You are not in a position to decide on this and it will be just your personal opinion. We can argue all night on this until the cow comes home, and yet will not be in agreement.

Thus the important thing is to acknowledge that the CCR and Charismatic gifts are accepted as in existence by the Church is more important at this juncture. If you want to discuss errors and abuses, it would be in another thread that specifically discuss that.

What you are doing is giving a general aspersion on CCR and that’s wrong, if you are a bona fide Catholic.

There are hundreds of million Catholic Charismatics from Brazil, Philippines, Mexico, or Argentina, more than all of you put together a hundred times, and if it is put to them that a Syro-Malankaran says their practices are in errors, they would laugh saying that maybe a Syro-Malankarans are not authentic Catholics.

But if we should tell them that Syro-Malankarans are accepted by the Pope as part of the Catholic Church, they would not question it even if they do not know what is Syro-Malankaran. That is how to be Catholics - we have to accept what are officially accepted. Saying that they are wrong could be the same as saying that you, as a Syro-Malankaran are wrong or that you are not authentic Catholic or where did you get your membership?

Do you understand? Can you see the correlation?

The correlation is weak. It would be like you saying one aspect or area of the Syro-Malankara Church is not authentically Malankara Syriac Catholic, for example, some of the Latin accrutions or oddly enough, subbing Malankara Syriac prayers for Western devotions, charismatic practices or protestant forms of worship.

Im not question the Catholicity of the entire Latin Church, unless you believe the entire Latin sui iuris Church is only authentic if CCR or some other charismatic form. Meanwhile, i havent even questioned all CCR only some small aspect, that even you state is minor

 

[SyroMalankara]

Meanwhile, a retort like that, that an entire particular Catholic Church is not authentically Catholic… well, what can be said for such statements but to smile, pray and correct as much as possible

 

[grannymh]

It has been my goal to protect Tongues as used in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Because of previous commitments to other threads and projects, I need to take a break. Eventually, I hope to return to the problems in this thread.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Reuben_J]

The correlation is weak. It would be like you saying one aspect or area of the Syro-Malankara Church is not authentically Malankara Syriac Catholic, for example, some of the Latin accrutions or oddly enough, subbing Malankara Syriac prayers for Western devotions, charismatic practices or protestant forms of worship.

Im not question the Catholicity of the entire Latin Church, unless you believe the entire Latin sui iuris Church is only authentic if CCR or some other charismatic form. Meanwhile, i havent even questioned all CCR only some small aspect, that even you state is minor

I have not heard or known any Syro-Malankaran other than you, in the CAF. I was glad there is such people in the Catholic Church and love you as brothers in the bigger Catholic family. Do I know you? No. What you believe? No. If you tell me what they are. there are probably many of them which I personally would not agree with or regard as authentic. If I start to voice it to you strongly, I know it would not be a nice thing to do to another fellow Catholics.

There are many spirituality in the Catholic Church - Charismatics, Marian, Traditional. Bring these together, they will be at each other throats if their differences in their devotions are highlighted in manners that are displeasing. But we should not do that. We accept there can be differences in ways we approach our spirituality but nevertheless they are not illegal or wrong.

Your questions, I think have been explained, but you have stubbornly desisted. I think it does harm to the relationship between those who embrace this spirituality if you come off as so strongly condemn them. After all the Pope agrees with them and supports them, but a person with Syro-Malankaran background does not. So it can be strange.

 

[Reuben_J]

Meanwhile, a retort like that, that an entire particular Catholic Church is not authentically Catholic… well, what can be said for such statements but to smile, pray and correct as much as possible

I am glad you feel this way which mean to say you do can feel for others. People who give their lives for their belief would also feel let down if a brother condemns their belief and preferences.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Your questions, I think have been explained, but you have stubbornly desisted. I think it does harm to the relationship between those who embrace this spirituality if you come off as so strongly condemn them. After all the Pope agrees with them and supports them, but a person with Syro-Malankaran background does not. So it can be strange.

I apologize if you find it distasteful, but it does concern me.

What would you say to someone like me, if, instead of being taught or handing down our Patristic Sacred Traditions and Liturgical prayers, some of the charismatic groups find it sufficient to hand down other practices, considering them as equal (and just a different form)?

After all, some of our communities are small and there are only so many hours in any given day, so it would be impossible to do both/and. Would you say we should decide that if charismatic forms are the bigger draw, we just stop offering our Traditional forms, and just go with what is popular? Should we, without force, suppress the charismatic non-Traditional forms and only present what is from our Sacred Tradition? Should we do half of some and half of the other?

 

[Reuben_J]

I apologize if you find it distasteful, but it does concern me.

What would you say to someone like me, if, instead of being taught or handing down our Patristic Sacred Traditions and Liturgical prayers, some of the charismatic groups find it sufficient to hand down other practices, considering them as equal (and just a different form)?

After all, some of our communities are small and there are only so many hours in any given day, so it would be impossible to do both/and. Would you say we should decide that if charismatic forms are the bigger draw, we just stop offering our Traditional forms, and just go with what is popular? Should we, without force, suppress the charismatic non-Traditional forms and only present what is from our Sacred Tradition? Should we do half of some and half of the other?

You do not have to apologize but I am glad if you are more understanding that there are actually real people, real Catholics, who practice the things that you object to.

Saying they are wrong may be your opinion but who are you to say so? Are you there? Do you know what they do? So you see, for things that are already accepted by the Church, condemning them are not right and it can only putting distress on the very people who embrace them.

Replacing one tradition with another should not arise. They are just different spirituality, and if you say tradition, just different tradition. You should not be too concerned about it since it does not concern you. There is no question here about saying other traditions/spirituality in Catholic Church as inferior or less popular. If one say good thing about it, it is in that context and does not mean other tradition does not have beauty in their own uniqueness.

But you must recognize that for some people certain spirituality is more suitable for them where they find it easier to grow in faith and in worship. Yes, different stroke for some people.

There are people who like to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, there are those who don’t; there are those who love to receive both kinds, there are those who don’t. There are those who prefer the EF while others who prefer just the OF.

Is any of them wrong? Certainly not. They only show the richness of the Catholic Church that we have so many different spirituality and traditions. We don’t have to condemn the one that we do not prefer. It is not right, especially if the Church does not condemn them.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Saying they are wrong may be your opinion but who are you to say so? Are you there? Do you know what they do? So you see, for things that are already accepted by the Church, condemning them are not right and it can only putting distress on the very people who embrace them.

I’m one who has studied and continue to study history and theology. My perspective comes from that end. One can hold an opinion without being there by studying the matter, and in fact I have attended quite a few of these, of all Traditions and styles and devotions, and even cultures and languages.

Replacing one tradition with another should not arise. They are just different spirituality, and if you say tradition, just different tradition. You should not be too concerned about it since it does not concern you.

it does concern me, you see there is only one Malankara Syriac parish in Los Angeles, for example. Should they replace all the Liturgical and Canonical prayers that our Fathers handed down to us, with the things you mention, there is no need for the parish to call itself Malankara Syriac. There is nothing that the parish has handed down to the next generation to keep it open, according to its Sacred Rites, and essentially it is no more.

There is no question here about saying other traditions/spirituality in Catholic Church as inferior or less popular. If one say good thing about it, it is in that context and does not mean other tradition does not have beauty in their own uniqueness.

You seem to be missing the essential problem, what you call beauty will cease to exist if the “rites” that are popular among charismatics are allowed to replace the Liturgical Rites of the Church (especially Eastern ones).

But you must recognize that for some people certain spirituality is more suitable for them where they find it easier to grow in faith and in worship. Yes, different stroke for some people.

Is there a question of authenticity or is it preference that is primary?

There are people who like to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, there are those who don’t; there are those who love to receive both kinds, there are those who don’t. There are those who prefer the EF while others who prefer just the OF.

Those are options in the Latin Church, but neither are an option in the East, so having someone import that “option” in one sui iuris Church and claim it is a universal option for all Catholics, is objectively untrue. Such a practice does harm to the East. Another interesting note about the EF, since you mentioned it, why are the “charismatic Mass” never EF, is it because certain practices cannot be made in the EF? The same is true to all Eastern Liturgies, there is simply no room for certain extraneous practices.

Is any of them wrong? Certainly not. They only show the richness of the Catholic Church that we have so many different spirituality and traditions. We don’t have to condemn the one that we do not prefer. It is not right, especially if the Church does not condemn them.

We should be wise and discerned. Perhaps I was given that gift/charism can anyone deny it?

 

[grannymh]

I’m one who has studied and continue to study history and theology.

Have you studied the early historic evidence from geographical locations in this book? The first centuries in the Catholic Church should not be ignored.

Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Evidence from the First Eight Centuries, by Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague,
ISBN 0-8146-5009-0

Have you studied this book which is on line? Basic information should not be ignored.
brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf

Are you aware that the major difference between the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and what you seem to be referring to is the Seven Catholic Sacraments? Perhaps you should take some quiet time to organize what exactly worries you and why it worries you. Perhaps you should take a second look at the operative word “renewal.”

It is time to set aside the chaos of the first years of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

P.S. Take your time. I need a break.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m one who has studied and continue to study history and theology. My perspective comes from that end. One can hold an opinion without being there by studying the matter, and in fact I have attended quite a few of these, of all Traditions and styles and devotions, and even cultures and languages.
it does concern me, you see there is only one Malankara Syriac parish in Los Angeles, for example. Should they replace all the Liturgical and Canonical prayers that our Fathers handed down to us, with the things you mention, there is no need for the parish to call itself Malankara Syriac. There is nothing that the parish has handed down to the next generation to keep it open, according to its Sacred Rites, and essentially it is no more.
You seem to be missing the essential problem, what you call beauty will cease to exist if the “rites” that are popular among charismatics are allowed to replace the Liturgical Rites of the Church (especially Eastern ones).
Is there a question of authenticity or is it preference that is primary?
Those are options in the Latin Church, but neither are an option in the East, so having someone import that “option” in one sui iuris Church and claim it is a universal option for all Catholics, is objectively untrue. Such a practice does harm to the East. Another interesting note about the EF, since you mentioned it, why are the “charismatic Mass” never EF, is it because certain practices cannot be made in the EF? The same is true to all Eastern Liturgies, there is simply no room for certain extraneous practices.
We should be wise and discerned. Perhaps I was given that gift/charism can anyone deny it?

• SyroMalankara, you are not in the CCR, leave their spirituality to them. If you are against it, you are against a legitimate spirituality that is being recognized as one of the spirituality in the Church. Not to say, the Pope himself is very conspicuously supporting it.
• CCR is only a spirituality; it does not concern you nor will it replace SyroMalankaran Liturgical prayers. In fact it does not replace anything which it is not.
• The rest of your accusation is not valid. You are already told that there is no such thing as Charismatic mass.
• I agree that you should reflect as to why there is so much fear about the CCR. If SyroMalakaran parish should diminish because of the CCR, well, it is certainly not your fault or within your control, and there is nothing you can do about it. But my guess is, it won’t.
• Peace be with you.

 

[grannymh]

Here is a question for the future.

When we are examining Tongues, what is wrong with glossolalia?