Charismatic Catholicism?

[patrick127]

I will admit when I hear the term Charismatic Catholic I don’t get the best vision in my mind. I will also admit that I really don’t think about the Charismatic movement at all. However I get a little uneasy when I hear the words Catholic and tounges in the same sentence. But I pride myself on an open mind, so I took your advice and I read 1 Corinthians 12-14 and was surprised that you mentioned these chapters…especially 14. This doesn’t seem like a ringing endorsement for a charismatic movement. It seems like quite the opposite. Paul seems to be admonishing the Corinthians and trying to put some pretty hard limits on the Corinthians and their worhsip.

But I looked at another source: the USCCB commentary on cahpter 14

• [14:20–22] The Corinthians pride themselves on tongues as a sign of God’s favor, a means of direct communication with him (2:28). To challenge them to a more mature appraisal, Paul draws from scripture a less flattering explanation of what speaking in tongues may signify. Isaiah threatened the people that if they failed to listen to their prophets, the Lord would speak to them (in punishment) through the lips of Assyrian conquerors (Is 28:11–12). Paul compresses Isaiah’s text and makes God address his people directly. Equating tongues with foreign languages (cf. 1 Cor 14:10–11), Paul concludes from Isaiah that tongues are a sign not for those who believe, i.e., not a mark of God’s pleasure for those who listen to him but a mark of his displeasure with those in the community who are faithless, who have not heeded the message that he has sent through the prophets.

Am I missing something?

 

[po18guy]

I will admit when I hear the term Charismatic Catholic I don’t get the best vision in my mind. I will also admit that I really don’t think about the Charismatic movement at all. However I get a little uneasy when I hear the words Catholic and tounges in the same sentence. But I pride myself on an open mind, so I took your advice and I read 1 Corinthians 12-14 and was surprised that you mentioned these chapters…especially 14. This doesn’t seem like a ringing endorsement for a charismatic movement. It seems like quite the opposite. Paul seems to be admonishing the Corinthians and trying to put some pretty hard limits on the Corinthians and their worhsip.

But I looked at another source: the USCCB commentary on cahpter 14

Am I missing something?

Simply put, every baptized Christian has a charism. It is to be used for the building up of the Church. 1 Corinthians is where the spiritual gifts are spoken of specifically in scripture. Some do not seem to know of these passages, and it is always good to go back and re-read them. Paul corrects the excesses amongst the Corinthians, just as those excesses must be corrected today. However, these gifts have never stopped, and we are called upon to use our gifts. For the sake of conversation, let’s forget about tongues, as they are the most flamboyant of the gifts. What about all of the other gifts? Are they not also to be used for good? Certainly.

 

[ChiRho]

First, let us agree that charisms are a good thing:
…

OK, so they are a good thing.

Now we have to show that most of the people who claim to be speaking in tongues actually are

 

[Denise1957]

Apparently overlooked in all of this is that the Church, for her part, has well examined this movement over the course of decades, and has declared that those concerns are basically unfounded. There is a Bishop over each group, surveying it and monitoring it, if not actually participating in it. The concern appears to be, not that the charismatics are taking over, but that they exist at all.

A suggestion for any who do not like the charismatic movement: Please consider reading sections 798-801 of the catechism, reading 1 Corinthians 12-14, visiting the diocese’s or movement’s website, or actually attending a charismatic event. Imagine the illumination that might result. It would not matter if even one of them decided that they’d found their new home. What we would see is less fear, and more knowledge.

Boil it all down:

1. The charismatic movement, being primarily spiritual, needs monitoring, as not all spirits desire our good.
2. The Church has monitored, is monitoring, and will monitor it.
3. It is approved from top down, and the preacher of the Papal household is a charismatic Priest.
4. Those with actual experience either approve, or have no objection to it.

I am nearly incredulous that, in this information age, this controversy is even occurring.

Actually, bishops and even the Pope have stressed concerns regarding this particular movement. You mention that you are incredulous that this controversy is even occuring, but the Church does allow us to disagree on this matter, as does CAF (as long as we are charitable, and stay with the subject).

I have read the entirety of Corinthians, 1 and 2. To read it in its entirety will give a better perspective on what St. Paul was trying to tell the faithful at Corinth, who had appealed to him for help because they were having problems with the faithful falling into sin and unruliness.

 

[Denise1957]

First, let us agree that charisms are a good thing:

CCC800 Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.

OK, so they are a good thing.

Answer to your question: If that is God’s will for you, yes. From one who does not have the charism of tongues, I do not think that speaking in a tongue, by the power of the Holy Spirit, once per month at a charismatic event, constitutes being the “main focus” of a spiritual life. Rather, it is the manifestation of a good spiritual life.

Charisms are tools. A tool is not an end unto itself - it is intended to be used for something. You do not purchase a hedge trimmer just to have one - you get it to trim your hedge. And, so it is with charisms. Do we know exactly how God uses those charisms? Nope. We just know that He uses them. I do not oppose them because I fear opposing the very Lord Who gave them.

Yes, charism can be a good thing, provided they are real, and that can’t really be absolutely proven. A qualified priest can be of help in discernment, of course.

You mention that if it is God’s will for you, then yes (it should be the main focus of a Catholic spiritual life). But speaking in tongues and prophesying is not a sign of holiness. As I mentioned, a Catholic can be in a state of mortal sin, and still have use of these charisms. Can some good still come out of this? Yes, I think so. But…the primary duty of a Catholic is to get to Heaven. The gift of speaking in tongues and prophesying does not impart sanctifying grace into the soul, and as such does not in itself lead to personal holiness, but rather it is meant to be used for the building up of the Church.

Also, confessors such as Padre Pio used his particular gift in the confessional, since he was given the gift of reading souls. This is the best uses of this gift, if a priest has it. Catholics from all over the world would seek him out for confession, as you probably know.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Scripture says that the Joy of the Lord is our strength. That Joy can be expressed in music, or an outpouring of spontaneous prayer and praise, in a group or alone. In fact, if our faith is not expressed privately our public worship, traditional or charismatic, is just a show and there are those who just show up at Mass. Hence, the need for renewal in the Church and one form of renewal is the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

The ignorant use words like rubbish, just emotionalism, protestant pentecostalism, all for show, jibberish. Scripture says that the natural man cannot understand spritual things. These supposed discussions are in the natural arena, that is why there is so much animosity and name calling. Scripture says to renew our minds so as not to be conformed to this world. When there is error in any Catholic expression, and there is plenty of non-approved behavior at Mass, it must be corrected in a spiritual way and not out of natural reasoning.

I have been on this forum since 2004 and the discussion has not changed one iota. There have been excellent explanations since that time. If what you want to do is vent ignorance, you will not do prayerful research to learn but continue to post ignorance. To slander a whole group for real or imagined abuses is bigotry. That is what protestants do to us. They know a little or hear a little and slander away without real understanding. They cite personal experience or some expert or some former Catholic and think they got us pegged.

Jesus said “They will know them by their love for one another”. The only thing that this ignorant venting does is to prove that we are not the real disciples when we do this to one another. Fortunately ignorance can be overcome so there is hope for us yet, come join the hope of a spiritual discussion.

I not once slandered a whole group! I was not venting ignorance! I was being absolutely serious and honest, and was asking genuine questions! I grew up in a charismatic parish and live in a charismatic diocese. I am not imagining things, this is what I see and witness frequently.

 

[Road2Damascus]

I found, by the way, in my possession, a Catholic Charismatic Book “Wow God” by Sister Francis Clare. There was a brief thread on her as well… So soon, I will try to read it!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Again, I am not questioning spiritual movements within the Church, I only question this one, no where in the history of our Church have we seen a movement such as CCR. You have cited a few Saints that have indeed had this charism, although, they were not within a sanctuary full of fellow Catholics expecting the same gift as at a charismatic Mass. How do you know who is being genuine? If one person fell or stated dancing during Mass, I would think “weird, but ok. God bless them”, but if 50 out of 200 did so, I would question the source of their enthusiasm.

Please define what the CCR is, so I can have it from someone who is knowledgeable of it, as you seem to be. All of it fruits seem commendable, but this movement is a novelty in our church, why is it that, for centuries it was not even a consideration - even by those whom you have said had this said charism? Why is there a need to redefine our liturgy, when the Saints before us needed no such action in this modern sence?

I am hesitant because this is a movement that demands so little of those attracted to such a said movement, no intellect, no will, just the emotions (although, I agree they might be fruits of it). I would never suppose that the reform that those Saints are attributed with, where made on only their emotions.
Do you feel that the traditional approach spirituality was no depth? Or, somehow lacks the depth of spirituality that the CCR has to offer?
My evidence is obvious, none of those Saints started this said movement. Therefore, I can only assume it was not needed

You seem to have been suspended, although I don’t know why. Be assured that I’ve made no complaints to the moderators. I’m in a hurry right now because my daughter is getting fussy. All I can say is read through my last posts. I have defined what the Renewal is, and so have many others. It is not emotionalism any more than the traditionalist movement is an unhealthy rationalism. Emotions certainly play a part, but in my experience so too do they in the traditionalist movement, just in a different way. I have generally found Charismatic Catholics to be much more knowledgeable of the great mystics of the West, and even some of the East. No Charismatic in their right mind feels that the traditional appraoch to spirituality lacks depth; but anyone who’s studied spirituality in the history of the Church recognizes that there have been many forms and approaches to spirituality not only throughout history, but also coexisting side by side. Charismatic spirituality is just one more spirituality within the Church. It seeks to draw from the experiences of the great mystics and to reinterpret those experiences for the time in which we live - because we do indeed live in a situation different from that of the saints 100, 200, 500, 2000 years ago.

You have stated that the Movement makes little demand on its participants. I can affirm to the contrary. Like any other authentic spirituality, the Renewal calls for true repentance in its adherents, not just guilt over one’s sinfulness. but a true metanoia, a true turning oneself wholly to God in Faith, Hope and Love! Is this in any way contrary to Tradition (not tradition)?

I suppose like the documents of Vatican II it is possible to interpret the Renewal outside of the context of Tradition. But I believe that if one interprets the Renewal within the context of Tradition one will find that it is consistent with the teachings of the great mystics as well as the teachings of the Church. Abuses occur to be sure, be we are, after all, only human. Abuses occur as frequently in the traditionalist movement as they do in the Charismatic Renewal. Does that make either movement bad? Of course not.

Okay. I’ve said all I have to say (as if what I have to say really matters). I’ll leave the rest of the discussion to others.

 

[jsaldar]

I’m going to do research on this. It is the first time I hear of such a movement.

 

[po18guy]

Now we have to show that most of the people who claim to be speaking in tongues actually are

I do not think so at all. Why do we demand proof of the mysterious ways in which God works? If someone is speaking a tongue only to build themselves up, why do we disdain that process? Some of us need much building up.

Anyway, this thread has been derailed. It is about charismatic Catholics who put their charisms to use. Isn’t it?

 

[Road2Damascus]

I do not think so at all. Why do we demand proof of the mysterious ways in which God works? If someone is speaking a tongue only to build themselves up, why do we disdain that process? Some of us need much building up.

I’m not going to find the quote but I thought Paul specifically rejected our parading around as if we had a gift from the Holy Spirit and being vain about it.

scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html

This might cover that some. Here it is:

Therefore, Paul is warning the Corinthians that their abuse of tongue-speaking is a sign of God’s judgment against them. These abuses included many people speaking in tongues, out of turn, without an interpreter, and for pride and not the edification of the church. This is why Paul says that “tongues are a sign…for unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:22). This is the same “sign” that God gave the unbelieving Jews before they were punished.

And more, nothing to do lightly.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, charism can be a good thing, provided they are real, and that can’t really be absolutely proven. A qualified priest can be of help in discernment, of course.

Which is why there are Priests and Bishops involved in the movement.

You mention that if it is God’s will for you, then yes (it should be the main focus of a Catholic spiritual life). But speaking in tongues and prophesying is not a sign of holiness.

You say so! The Holy Spirit disagrees.

As I mentioned, a Catholic can be in a state of mortal sin, and still have use of these charisms. Can some good still come out of this? Yes, I think so. But…the primary duty of a Catholic is to get to Heaven. The gift of speaking in tongues and prophesying does not impart sanctifying grace into the soul, and as such does not in itself lead to personal holiness, but rather it is meant to be used for the building up of the Church.

Which of us is without sin? You may very well have received Holy Communion from a Priest who was in mortal sin. It does not affect the Sacrament, since it is God working through the Priest. God specifically gives graces to the sinful. They came to us while we were yet sinners. No one converts to Christ in the confessional - the grace of conversion arrives when we are in the depths of sin.

Also, confessors such as Padre Pio used his particular gift in the confessional, since he was given the gift of reading souls. This is the best uses of this gift, if a priest has it. Catholics from all over the world would seek him out for confession, as you probably know.

The Church teaches that anyone may receive the charisms - we are supposed to both receive them and use them for the building up of the Kingdom.

I understand your hesitance, as I was also hesitant until I broke down and submitted to God in the Holy Spirit. My fear evaporated. Recall that, up to the Pentecost, the disciples were behind locked doors for fear of the Jews. Once they received their charisms, they immediately went outside and began preaching in public, having lost all fear.

I pray that you will investigate the charisms. They are intended, by God, to be used for His glory.

 

[po18guy]

I’m not going to find the quote but I thought Paul specifically rejected our parading around as if we had a gift from the Holy Spirit and being vain about it.

scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html

This might cover that some. Here it is:

And more, nothing to do lightly.

Did Paul condemn the charisms, or teach their right use?

 

[Road2Damascus]

Did Paul condemn the charisms, or teach their right use?

You are correct.

He taught their proper use and as said, they should have an interpreter, I don’t see that as a translator necessarily but one who might interpret the message. This would still seem to largely forgo any language that could not be translated or understood.

 

[po18guy]

You are correct.

He taught their proper use and as said, they should have an interpreter, I don’t see that as a translator necessarily but one who might interpret the message. This would still seem to largely forgo any language that could not be translated or understood.

Indeed, some individuals need building up, by the power of the Holy Spirit, before they can put their charisms to full use. As you have noted, tongues was misused then, as it sometimes is now. But, Paul spoke more in a tongue than all of them (1 Corinthians 14:18-19). Thus, he knew the value of the gifts, but, as with all of his letters, taught their proper use while admonishing those who misused God’s gifts.

But, let us focus not solely on tongues, since Paul did not. Much better for the building up of the Church are the many other gifts. All are included in the charismatic movement.

 

[Denise1957]

Which is why there are Priests and Bishops involved in the movement.
You say so! The Holy Spirit disagrees.

Which of us is without sin? You may very well have received Holy Communion from a Priest who was in mortal sin. It does not affect the Sacrament, since it is God working through the Priest. God specifically gives graces to the sinful. They came to us while we were yet sinners. No one converts to Christ in the confessional - the grace of conversion arrives when we are in the depths of sin.

The Church teaches that anyone may receive the charisms - we are supposed to both receive them and use them for the building up of the Kingdom.

I understand your hesitance, as I was also hesitant until I broke down and submitted to God in the Holy Spirit. My fear evaporated. Recall that, up to the Pentecost, the disciples were behind locked doors for fear of the Jews. Once they received their charisms, they immediately went outside and began preaching in public, having lost all fear.

I pray that you will investigate the charisms. They are intended, by God, to be used for His glory.

You mention that the Holy Spirit disagrees regarding what I said about speaking in tongues and prophesying not being a sign of holiness. I probably should have said instead that it doesn’t mean that the person who is speaking in tongues or prophesying is holy, nor did I mean to say that they aren’t holy - it’s just that the Church does not have a specific teaching that says that these are signs (in themselves) of holiness.

I understand what you are saying regarding the sacrament of Holy Communion being given by a priest in mortal sin. But we know exactly what the Church teaches regarding this - the confection of the sacrament by a priest in mortal sin. There is specific objective teaching about this.

I’m not sure it can be said that no one converts to Christ in the confessional. We are in a continual state of conversion; certainly we are reconciled to Him after a sincere act of contrition and absolution by the priest.

While I agree that anyone may receive charisms, I disagree with what you said regarding that we are supposed to receive them and use them for building up for the kingdom. The Church does not teach that we must intentionaly seek out speaking in tongues and prophesying in order to save our souls. The building up of the Church is another matter. What we must do, however, is to do what we can in order to co-operate with the sanctifying graces given by the Holy Ghost, in order to grow in holiness. This is something that we do need to do, as Catholics. This is of primary importance.

 

[po18guy]

I disagree with what you said regarding that we are supposed to receive them and use them for building up for the kingdom. The Church does not teach that we must intentionaly seek out speaking in tongues and prophesying in order to save our souls.

Saint Paul, in scripture, does. The Church is in agreement with all of scripture. If the Church does not so teach, it is no fault of the charisms, or of the scriptures, but of the Church alone.

The building up of the Church is another matter. What we must do, however, is to do what we can in order to co-operate with the sanctifying graces given by the Holy Ghost, in order to grow in holiness. This is something that we do need to do, as Catholics. This is of primary importance.

I am not jealous of those who speak in a tongue - neither am I jealous of any of the charisms. I simply try to put mine quietly to work, as is expected of me. Remember that, on the Pentecost, the devout men of Jerusalem thought the twelve were drunks - but listened to Peter speaking in the power of the Spirit. 3,000 of them converted and were baptized. Charisms are no joke.

Let us abandon our focus on but two of the charisms to the exclusion of all the others. God uses them, via His mysterious and inscrutable ways, for the good of His Kingdom. Do you or I, or anyone, truly understand the charisms? Impossible. They are celestial gifts.

Why do we sometimes assume that, when one is manifesting a charism, that they are doing this by their own power? Or simply to show off? You or I may appear to be doing exactly this when we are in prayer. Are we showing off, or is the viewer misunderstanding what is actually happening?

I thought that the manifestations of the gifts were hokey - until I actually experienced them. No more.

 

[Denise1957]

Saint Paul, in scripture, does. The Church is in agreement with all of scripture. If the Church does not so teach, it is no fault of the charisms, or of the scriptures, but of the Church alone.

I am not jealous of those who speak in a tongue - neither am I jealous of any of the charisms. I simply try to put mine quietly to work, as is expected of me. Remember that, on the Pentecost, the devout men of Jerusalem thought the twelve were drunks - but listened to Peter speaking in the power of the Spirit. 3,000 of them converted and were baptized. Charisms are no joke.

Let us abandon our focus on but two of the charisms to the exclusion of all the others. God uses them, via His mysterious and inscrutable ways, for the good of His Kingdom. Do you or I, or anyone, truly understand the charisms? Impossible. They are celestial gifts.

Why do we sometimes assume that, when one is manifesting a charism, that they are doing this by their own power? Or simply to show off? You or I may appear to be doing exactly this when we are in prayer. Are we showing off, or is the viewer misunderstanding what is actually happening?

I thought that the manifestations of the gifts were hokey - until I actually experienced them. No more.

So what you mean to say (if I’m understanding correctly) is that if the Church does not so teach that speaking in tongues and prophesying are needed in order to save our souls, then it is the fault of the Church. Are you meaning to say that the Church has been in error all this time?

If we had ever been expected to speak in tongues and prophesy in order to save our souls, then wouldn’t it be considered a mortal sin, by the Church, to NOT use these types of gifts?

 

[po18guy]

So what you mean to say (if I’m understanding correctly) is that if the Church does not so teach that speaking in tongues and prophesying are needed in order to save our souls, then it is the fault of the Church. Are you meaning to say that the Church has been in error all this time?

If we had ever been expected to speak in tongues and prophesy in order to save our souls, then wouldn’t it be considered a mortal sin, by the Church, to NOT use these types of gifts?

Whoa! Not at all!

What I am trying to say is that, if the Church does not teach about charisms, (in light of the catechism and scripture), and about how they are desirable for the building up of the Church, then and only then, it is the fault of the Church.

What is your specific objection to the charisms? Do you think that using them is somehow harmful?

 

[Denise1957]

What makes you think that they are tied to salvation? And, why only these particular gifts?

Go back and look at post #115. When I said that the Church does not teach that we must speak in tongues and prophesy in order to save our souls, you specifically replied to this that St. Paul does, in scripture, and that the Church is in agreement with all of scripture, and that if the Church does not so teach, it is no fault of the charisms, or scripture, but of the Church alone.

I took what you wrote to mean that you think the Church has been in error by not teaching that we must speak in tongues and prophesy in order to save our souls. Or did you mean something else?