Charismatic Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wannano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I am doing my own reviewing of the issue of Tongues, I find that Medawlinno, post 208 needs a bit of clarification.
From Post 208
From a purely linguistic standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between the two; they are one in the same. ‘Tongues’ is simply the Pentecostal/Charismatic (and on a more global scale – ‘Christian’) nomenclature for what any linguist/anthropologist would call ‘glossolalia’.

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is part of the Catholic Church which is unique because of its Pope and Seven Sacraments including the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It is not part of the Pentecostal/Charismatic and on a more global scale --“Christian.” group.

One of the amazing (to me) early documents was one which highlighted the difference between Pentecostal groups and Catholic groups and subsequently emphasized that Catholic teachings be retained. Ultimately, this meant that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was on its own when it came to understanding the Holy Spirit classical gifts listed in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12.

The Holy Spirit Gift of Discernment of Spirits was immediately present as leaders discerned the essential teachings in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Chapter Six, page 51, in the linked book, is about discernment. I have never read the complete chapter. My lazy self is why I do not seek the ministry gifts.
From post 208
The term ‘interpretation’ which many use to support the idea/belief of ‘tongues’ as spiritual language(s) rather than real (foreign) languages, should really be read as simply “translate”.
Post 208 text which follows is very informative as well as being understandable.Thank you. The point which needs clarification is toward the bottom.
From post 208
Bottom line is that Paul’s “tongues” is referring to the many (real) foreign languages one would typically hear in a multicultural port city like Corinth, and his use of the word “interpret” or “interpretation” is to be understood as free translation of those spoken languages.

Our discussion about language, etc., is proper. Thus, it is reasonable to present interpretations of Paul. However, it has to be recognized that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has the final word. Independently, I find the scientific approach useful because it opens different paths and I am astounded at the depth of Tongues as used by Paul.

Linked book
brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf
 
Another two part reply due to length…

“When we accept that glossolalia was exhibited by ancient shamans and temple priests, can we say that these persons could produce glossolalia at will?”

Not any more or less than a Christian practitioner. One difference though is that in some cultures, the whole process involves a ceremony of some sort – some long, some rather short, but there is usually some sort of ritual involved in the event.

“From the position of anthropology and its various disciplines, I consider it acceptable that there was glossolalia in the ancient cultures. We could also consider the development of language as an element leading to glossolalia and then dramatically away from glossolalia because communication (language) involves two persons.”

Yes, I think that’s essentially correct. Language would have had to have come first since glossolalia mimics the speaker’s native language. So language, then glossolalia – the “playing with (that) language”. Considering though that most glossolalia is connected in some way to the religious practices of a culture (there are exceptions), I’m not sure it’s correct to say that the two diverged from each other so much as developed sort of in tandem (don’t know that I’m really expressing this the way I’m thinking it….) – as the particular religious practice emerged, language was used to initiate a connection to the spirit word/deity/deities, but perhaps because the initiator (let’s say the religious leader of the community whichever ‘title’ s/he would have been known by) wished it to be something “mysterious” s/he started using glossolalia rather than real language.

Kind of getting into the origin of the usage of glossolalia and how it first came about here. Not sure there’s any real answer. It does beg the question of whether or not when it was first used if it was indeed a deliberate, conscious effort or just the result of a trance-like state and the speaker just subconsciously playing with language, i.e. could glossolalia’s ultimate origin have come about as simply a variation on chanting (?).

I think it’s important not to differentiate between ‘tongues’ and ‘glossolalia’ – even though a person’s religious beliefs may, in a sense, ‘require’ them to do so – tongues (whether defined as ‘praying in tongues’ or ‘speaking in tongues’) and glossolalia are one in the same thing; just different names.

Again, there seem to be two ways of looking at “tongues” – either as real languages or glossolalia (as practiced by the native religion(s)) which may or may not have found its way into Christian practices in some locations. Given the instructions issued by Paul to the people in Corinth, and given the demographics of the city itself, I don’t believe Paul’s “problem tongues” in Corinth was glossolalia but rather various real languages.

How different religious paths approach their understanding of ‘tongues’ is really strictly religious in nature; it really does not take into account the actual phenomenon of glossolalia and the mechanics involved. From a linguistic viewpoint, the various religious understandings are essentially irrelevant; glossolalia is what it is no matter in what religious context one tries to frame it in.
 
From the book you reference and provide a link to:

“Praying in tongues, when first yielded to, usually sounds like five or six words repeated in various ways. This praying in tongues begins and continues as long as the person wills. As time goes on, the prayer tongues usually lengthen or change and, on occasion, a different language is used.”

Essentially yes, that’s correct – it will typically sound like a string of syllables repeated over and over. Over time, and as one becomes more comfortable with playing with language (much the way that a small child does), it may develop a bit into something a bit more lengthy, but still will adhere to all the phonological ‘rules’ regarding glossolalia and will still have the typical ‘structure’ of glossolalia (repeated syllables for example). It will never evolve into a different ‘language’ however. It’s always going to be based upon the speaker’s native language; it just may become more evolved as one becomes more comfortable with it and plays around with the sounds a bit more. This ‘experimentation’ done by the speaker is not something consciously thought about, it just naturally happens at the subconscious level.

Page 35 B – I would need to disagree with that – there was no language miracle (either speaking or hearing ) at Pentecost – just the apostles breaking away from the ridged rules of ‘ecclesiastical diglossia’ and speaking to the people (including the Jews of the Diaspora) in their native languages of Greek (Western Diaspora) and Aramaic (Eastern Diaspora) rather than the expected and culturally correct Hebrew.

From the same book:

“11. WHEN A PERSON PRAYS IN TONGUES, IS HE ACTUALLY SPEAKING A LANGUAGE?
Concerning this question, the following can be said:
a) Prayer tongues are not gibberish as some believe, that is, noises unrelated to a
language. When someone hears another or himself praying in tongues for the first time,
he usually asks what language it was or says that it sounded like such and such a
language. The acoustic experience is the same as hearing a foreign language.
b) Prayer tongues have all the qualities usually associated with a language – accents,
patterns, cadence, etc.
c) The person praying in tongues has a subjective experience of speaking a language.
d) It is not necessary for prayer tongues to be actually a language. It is enough for it to be
a new way of praying to God, bestowed by the Spirit of God, and to be identified with
the praying in tongues as described in Scripture.”

This definitely needs some further clarification:

(a) A prayer language is not gibberish – yes and no; it can sound like a language to someone who does not speak a foreign language, but in listening to it in greater detail, the typical markers of glossolalia will be seen: the repetitiveness of syllables, the simplified structure, the sounds, etc. It can mimic a language, but it is simply free vocalization (which some would define as ‘gibberish’). The acoustic experience for a monoglot can sound like a foreign language, but for anyone who speaks a foreign language or two, it’s immediately recognizable as a non-language.

(b) – Again, yes and no – yes they do, but it’s all the accents, patters, cadences, etc. of the speaker’s native language. The only ‘anomaly’ is that American speakers tend to trill their r’s.

(c) – Yes. For many speakers (again, mainly ones who are monoglots) it will sound as if they are speaking a foreign language, but if they were to record themselves and play it back and listen to what they are actually saying, it would become apparent that it is not really similar to foreign language at all.

(d) – this sort of concedes that ‘tongues’ is not language, but rather an ‘alternative’ way of praying. Given that Biblical references to ‘tongues’ refer to real language(s), it can’t really be identified with the praying in tongues as described in the Bible (since those were regarded as real languages – other than Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, i.e. the languages of ‘Judaica’).
 
Finally, I am recognizing that “language” actually refers to two completely different definitions/explanations. It is possible to learn about language between two human persons. And it is also possible to learn about language between a human person and a divine super-natural being who is generally known as God.

When it comes to understanding Paul and the Corinthians, we have to be clear about which language we are investigating. My guess is that the Pentecost story is so familiar to Catholics that they miss what was really happening in Acts 2: 1-4; thus, at times, confusing Pauline Tongues with the different event in Acts 2: 5-11.
 
Clearly from reading the text, it’s not two different events, just two different groups. One group is the “core” inside, and the rest are outside. Nothing in the text relays two separate happenings.

As to certain concerns I have about these charismatic events, someone mentioned this priest in particular. Here’s a video: youtu.be/cwkbtXAMEQQ

I lost count on the number of practices not allowed by the General Instructions for the Roman Missal. The end practice similar to Benny Hinn waving his hand and having people faint did it for me… that the Eucharist was held up in a Monstrance during all that really made it… odd… not to mention that famous sacramental and liturgical hymn When Irish Eyes are Smiling being played by the celebrating priest to cap the night. Leaves me speechless. Perhaps another miracle to attribute to the same spirit?
 
SyroMalankara said:
Clearly from reading the text, it’s not two different events, just two different groups. One group is the “core” inside, and the rest are outside. Nothing in the text relays two separate happenings.
Click to expand...
You may interpret Sacred Scripture in any manner.

However, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, as a separate organization, is not bound to accept conflicting opinions. Obviously, from all the posts I have read, there are many more conflicting opinions in addition to yours. And obviously, I can choose to walk away from individual conflicting opinions or if there is merit I can …
 
This is my understanding.

From the scientific position, it is reasonable to consider Tongues and glossolalia as two sides of the same coin. While there are references to religious events or even religious experiences, the science (inductive) method cannot properly delve into the heart of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. This is because the Renewal is based on the existence of a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit Creator Who calls each person to joy eternal following bodily death. Each person is free to accept that invitation including its requirements or reject it.

Because of the material genome, it is possible to consider the actions of the human brain and relate that to religious experiences. The “religious experiences” of verbal Tongues in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal are based in the belief of the Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This assumes that human nature is a decomposing body and a rational spiritual soul.

I do not believe that I am unique because I can accept the mysteries of science and the mysteries of Catholicism. It should be obvious that chapter one of the book of Genesis is comfortable with the two worlds, material and spiritual. Nonetheless, this does not preclude the Catholic Charismatic Renewal from determining its individual policies and rules.
 
grannymh said:
This is my understanding.

From the scientific position, it is reasonable to consider Tongues and glossolalia as two sides of the same coin. While there are references to religious events or even religious experiences, the science (inductive) method cannot properly delve into the heart of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. This is because the Renewal is based on the existence of a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit Creator Who calls each person to joy eternal following bodily death. Each person is free to accept that invitation including its requirements or reject it.

Because of the material genome, it is possible to consider the actions of the human brain and relate that to religious experiences. The “religious experiences” of verbal Tongues in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal are based in the belief of the Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This assumes that human nature is a decomposing body and a rational spiritual soul.

I do not believe that I am unique because I can accept the mysteries of science and the mysteries of Catholicism. It should be obvious that chapter one of the book of Genesis is comfortable with the two worlds, material and spiritual. Nonetheless, this does not preclude the Catholic Charismatic Renewal from determining its individual policies and rules.
Click to expand...
Your last line has me concerned. Are you determining with Catholic or Protestant influence?
 
Michael68 said:
Your last line has me concerned. Are you determining with Catholic or Protestant influence?
Click to expand...
Hi. Nobody can put the Holy Spirit in a box. To do so would be to stifle Him. He is much bigger and moves where He will.
 
Reuben_J said:
Hi. Nobody can put the Holy Spirit in a box. To do so would be to stifle Him. He is much bigger and moves where He will.
Click to expand...
Hi Reuben, I agree with your statement here completely. I want to ask a question though. I have come to understand (maybe I am wrong) that the Catholic Church beleives itself to be the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the world. Whatever the Church determines is what the Holy Spirit has directed in fulness of His purpose?
 
Wannano said:
Hi Reuben, I agree with your statement here completely. I want to ask a question though. I have come to understand (maybe I am wrong) that the Catholic Church beleives itself to be the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the world. Whatever the Church determines is what the Holy Spirit has directed in fulness of His purpose?
Click to expand...
Hi. First of all I wish to caution you against taking the various posts here as true representation of the Charismatic in the Catholic Church. It is insomuch that they are few people within the Church who are passionately opposed to a spirituality that they do not like. The fact that it takes much of the argument here perhaps shows that it is unfortunately a disservice to the thread you started.

As for your questions, in all honesty I do not think it is as clear cut as that. As a Catholic I have to answer in the affirmative, what else can I say? I guess you realize that should be the position of any Catholic has to take.

But let’s talk about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which is a more specific topic.

I think it is important that we do acknowledge that the move of the Holy Spirit in this spirituality was perhaps much earlier in Protestantism than that in the Catholic Church. While we can trace our starting point from the late nineteenth century, the Charismatic manifestation of the Holy Spirit was among the Pentecostals in the first decade of twentieth century.

As you can see, the real beginning of the Catholic Charismatic was only in the mid-sixty by a group of university students from Duquesne University in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They are still alive today, very much senior in this experience.

Basically the move of the Holy Spirit in the Charismatic Renewal is to change lives by the renewal of their faith. I think this is the basic difference between the Charismatic in the Protestant churches and in the Catholic Church. Catholics are already Catholics; so to speak, they already have the Holy Spirit by virtue of their Baptism. While for the Protestants, that was their beginning. Correct me if I am wrong here.

In that sense the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church as a new Pentecost is its ‘fullness’ as it is the renewal of the faith which is already given.
 
Reuben_J said:
Hi. Nobody can put the Holy Spirit in a box. To do so would be to stifle Him. He is much bigger and moves where He will.
Click to expand...
Not sure how I’m putting The Holy Spirit in a box. Are you suggesting the HS would lead Catholics to practice a form of protestantism?
 
Reuben_J said:
Hi. First of all I wish to caution you against taking the various posts here as true representation of the Charismatic in the Catholic Church. It is insomuch that they are few people within the Church who are passionately opposed to a spirituality that they do not like. The fact that it takes much of the argument here perhaps shows that it is unfortunately a disservice to the thread you started.

As for your questions, in all honesty I do not think it is as clear cut as that. As a Catholic I have to answer in the affirmative, what else can I say? I guess you realize that should be the position of any Catholic has to take.

But let’s talk about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which is a more specific topic.

I think it is important that we do acknowledge that the move of the Holy Spirit in this spirituality was perhaps much earlier in Protestantism than that in the Catholic Church. While we can trace our starting point from the late nineteenth century, the Charismatic manifestation of the Holy Spirit was among the Pentecostals in the first decade of twentieth century.

As you can see, the real beginning of the Catholic Charismatic was only in the mid-sixty by a group of university students from Duquesne University in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They are still alive today, very much senior in this experience.

Basically the move of the Holy Spirit in the Charismatic Renewal is to change lives by the renewal of their faith. I think this is the basic difference between the Charismatic in the Protestant churches and in the Catholic Church. Catholics are already Catholics; so to speak, they already have the Holy Spirit by virtue of their Baptism. While for the Protestants, that was their beginning. Correct me if I am wrong here.

In that sense the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church as a new Pentecost is its ‘fullness’ as it is the renewal of the faith which is already given.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response. In the thought of not being able to put the Holy Spirit in a box, is it possible that the Catholic Church as well as any of us as individuals may move and respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit slower than what He would like?

I am not known as a "charismatic ", I too see many dangers. I see some on TV that give me shivers. Unfortunately for every good thing God has given, the evil one prostitutes.

I interests me greatly that Christ’s church was started with the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Tongues, healings, exorcisms etc. In that sense you Catholics are the first Pentecostals!

Not sure exactly what you mean when you say Catholics receive the Holy Spirit by virtue of baptism but that for Protestants it was the beginning. Can you elaborate?
 
Michael68 said:
Your last line has me concerned. Are you determining with Catholic or Protestant influence?
Click to expand...
Here is the last line from post 227.
“Nonetheless, this does not preclude the Catholic Charismatic Renewal from determining its individual policies and rules.”
The Catholic Charismatic Renewal follows the teachings of St. Paul in Sacred Scripture. 1967 is considered the beginning of the “Renewal.” Please note that Protestants can also read Sacred Scripture and the teachings of St. Paul.

Are you sitting? 😉

The Catholic Charismatic “movement” was part of the first eight centuries beginning in the Upper Room, Pentecost. A number of the gifts St. Paul listed in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12, continued to be seen in the lives of Saints. I do not know all the history regarding the gift of praying in Tongues. However, it is evident that it was no longer in common use by the twentieth century.

Thus, while we can consider the Renewal as “new” – Catholics date praying to God in Tongues and giving God’s message to the assembly in Tongues all the way back to St. Paul. 👍
 
No offense but I’ll pass. I grew up in a fundamentlist pentecostal church where tongues, shaking, consulvsions, running the aisles and yelling loudly were the norm. I’d hope and pray that CCR doesn’t do this in a Mass.
 
What I really find insulting is the unstated and stated insinuation that those of us concerned about the “excesses” are somehow “boxing the Spirit” or “not open to receiving the gifts” or “against” the Church or the Popes. None of this is true. The concerned individual, such as myself, are rightfully concerned that the “excesses” are ofttimes the “norm”, and many of the leaders that are considered “gifted” are the ones being “excessive”. Seems a contradiction of the Spirit to be “excessive” and to be spiritually sober at once. Again, I would think that someone called to minister publicly this “gift” - would be one who is so attached to the church’s boundaries that they would “excess” in the side of being meticulous. Meaning, I would more believe a charismatic tongue praying-healing-exorcist, who was celebrating the Latin Mass ‘ad orientem’, using a maniple, incense, ‘excessively’ beautiful vestments (non-polyester), appreciates the Extraordinary Form, Eastern Liturgies, and Apostolic Tradition, etc.; rather than ones who adlib Mass, choose the shortest Liturgical prayers but lengthen whatever they choose using their own words, choose minimalist rubrics and vestments, and other odd practices. It seems that the former requires self-education and time to educate the faithful; the latter is very fly-by-the-seat-of-one’s-pants, as is much of the feelings-emotionalism-predictions-practices that claim to be ‘charismatic’ (both Catholic and protestant) I’ve seen, experienced and heard.
 
total_Catholic said:
No offense but I’ll pass. I grew up in a fundamentlist pentecostal church where tongues, shaking, consulvsions, running the aisles and yelling loudly were the norm. I’d hope and pray that CCR doesn’t do this in a Mass.
Click to expand...
You have to read a bit into the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, my friend. There is no chance such thing happening in the mass. I hope you know that all these are exaggeration from people like you from the Pentecostal background and thought that’s what the CCR must do. Besides there is the GIRM. If you understand that the CCR is the renewal of their Catholic faith, then your concern is definitely safe. That won’t happen. Get it off your head, nobody is “shaking, consulvsions, running the aisles and yelling loudly”. Goodness. 😦
 
Wannano said:
Thank you for your response. In the thought of not being able to put the Holy Spirit in a box, is it possible that the Catholic Church as well as any of us as individuals may move and respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit slower than what He would like?
Click to expand...
I just try to address the gist of your question. As you can see from the posts here, just say the word ‘Charismatic’, there are hosts of Catholics who start frothing in the mouth saying that we have gone Protestants. So that’s the things we are dealing with. And sure enough these Catholics know nothing of what the CCR do.

So why Charismatic is such a taboo word for them? Obviously they have heard from those who find that it was a threat to them. And for those who do not know any better, they just parroting what they heard.

Today the Pope even has to officially issue a document on the doctrine of faith saying that the Charismatic gifts are the same gifts from the Holy Spirit on equal importance as the hierarchical gifts.

So I hope you can understand why we want to distance ourselves from the Pentecostals and the Protestant Charismatics.

Basically there is control in what we should do in exercising the gifts which are the least that should occupy our mind but instead the important changes in our lives should be the focus. And that is Jesus Himself.

Having control is not the same as stifling the Holy Spirit.

Thus it is important to know the various marks of the Holy Spirit like, He is the Spirit of order not of confusion, He gives peace instead of strive, He brings you more and more to be like Jesus. In other word, the Charismatic Renewal should make us even more Catholics.
Wannano said:
I am not known as a "charismatic ", I too see many dangers. I see some on TV that give me shivers. Unfortunately for every good thing God has given, the evil one prostitutes.
Click to expand...
True. I think in the Protestant circle, they do not have that control unlike in Catholicism where we already have the Catholic faith (as I told you). Anything that deviates from that would be a no, no, to the Catholics Charismatics.
Wannano said:
I interests me greatly that Christ’s church was started with the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Tongues, healings, exorcisms etc. In that sense you Catholics are the first Pentecostals!
Click to expand...
I would see that as a compliment to the Holy Spirit. Thanks! 🙂

Yes, there were miracles and healings and deliverances of the demons. That was why it was very powerful and drew the crowd. When the CCR first started, they drew thousands upon thousands of people who hunger for God. The leaders were given the gift of preaching and proclaiming the Word which often came with signs and wonders.

Ironically, that in itself was the problem. The local clergy suddenly found their sheep could be more effective than them. They couldn’t handle that. But to be fair, most saw it in a positive light. If the parishioners could help the in the parish, then it must be a good thing.

So if those healings and deliverance bring people to deeper faith and love for Christ, who then can say they are wrong?
Wannano said:
Not sure exactly what you mean when you say Catholics receive the Holy Spirit by virtue of baptism but that for Protestants it was the beginning. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for the Protestants. As for the Catholics, they already received the Holy Spirit in their Baptism. In the CCR, it is a matter of activating the Holy Spirit that is in them. Actually we have the Sacrament of Confirmation for that but many of us even after being confirmed do not experience our lives being changed which they should be.

In the case of Protestant Charismatics, they do not believe in Baptism the way we do, thus their turning point in their lives which is a beginning for them, is when they receive the Holy Spirit at that point in time. However, I could be wrong in that though.
 
I am also insulted at being told I have placed the HS in a box. I see this as Protestantism masquerading as Catholicism. I don’t know what goes on in their meetings,but if it involves this tongue mumbo jumbo, you can count me out too!
 
Michael68 said:
I am also insulted at being told I have placed the HS in a box. I see this as Protestantism masquerading as Catholicism. I don’t know what goes on in their meetings,but if it involves this tongue mumbo jumbo, you can count me out too!
Click to expand...
I used to see this box idea as all tied up with a pretty ribbon…

And… the Holy Spirit chooses wnat and how gifts are given. Not the need to conform with the noisy and loud and violent ideas…no clashing cymbals always or tongues of fire

With we weaker and gentler mortals, a quiet gentle warmth and healing… smiling at the memory
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top