Charismatic Catholicism?

[Irish_Polock]

So has a lot of things in the Catholic Church. Perfect example is Greek philosophy, which we picked up aspects of to further our understanding of the faith. Yet I don’t see people criticizing St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine for being so influenced by sources outside Holy Mother Church.

The difference being - in the case of St. Augustine -, that the Greeks were a part of our Church. Your analogy has no merit or truth there. St. Thomas, was of course, empathetic of the Eastern Church, but I am unsure of how we “picked up aspects’ of their spirituality via St. Thomas. Please clarify your argument.

They are also allowed by the Church to speak at church. They’re allowed to say the responses.There are a number of liturgical disciplines St. Paul has in Corinthians we we no longer inforce or have changed. The Church has the power to change things like this, since they are not doctrinal or moral issues. This is a rather silly point. Paul explicitly says: do not forbid speaking in tongues.

The bolded sentence speaks for itself. As far as women not speaking in tongues, let look at scripture:

As in all the churches of the saints,34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, **as even the law says. **35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1Corinthians (RSV) 14)

I find it odd that you push the rest of this chapter and totally discount this particular verse. FYI, the Masses I attend do not have women reading the responses… (again, another forum)

There are authoritative pronouncements, from the US bishops (several in fact) and what the Pope has said. catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/nonattributed/US_Bishops_001.html and see here iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr/

Let me get this straight, do you believe that anything that a Pope says is authoritative? Even if it is outside his office, or as a personal theologian? If you do in fact believe this way, it could lead to a plethora of contradictions. Surly, you are not asserting this idea, I hope I have mistaken your intent.

I would say the opposition to the CCR has its roots in the reformation. Luther and Calvin were very “cessassionistic” (they thought the age of miracles was over, and charisms weren’t for that time). They also took away the sacrament of confirmation, since it obviously didn’t look anything like Pentecost and obviously couldn’t be for that day and age. Traditional Protestant thought is very prevalent in the mentality of the opposition to the movement, I think.

Right, both Luther and Calvin got this idea from the Church that they were taught at, If you don’t remember they were both Catholics at some point. Again, your analogy does your argument absolutely no justice.

This is a bare assertion, and rather a silly comment.

Really? The roots of the CCR are not the charismata, they are the actions of several misled Catholics whom embraced protestant theology in the post VII Church.

I find it strange that people think the Pope should have spoken infallibly on the subject of an ecclessial movement… of course there were no examples of the movement before it started! There were no examples of Opus Dei before that started. There were no examples of any of the other new ecclesial communities and movements before they started. There were no examples of the Benedictines, Fransiscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelites, etc. before they started. There has to be a first time for everything!

Opus Dei and any other authentic Order is nothing like the CCR, you are comparing apples to oranges. If a comparision were to be made, I would compare the CCR to movements such as the Joachimites, followers of Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century, the Fraticelli, schismatic Franciscans in the 13th and 14th centuries, and the Molinists (or “Quietists”) in the 17th century.

Because for many reasons (none of them good), it’s a subject that’s been largely ignored for centuries and that’s why there’s a movement in the first place.

The reason that it has been ignored - for close to 1500 - years is because that these extraordinary phenomena dwindled considerably and disappeared after the Apostolic Age. The Church had by then achieved a moral universality and was established in such a way that these manifestations were no longer either useful or necessary.

If the Catholic faith is clearly taught (as it is), or a better example if the liturgy is clearly explained (as it is), why are there so many liturgical abuses? If the Real Presence is clearly taught, why is it the majority of at least nominal Catholics don’t believe in it?

Well, if you are indeed asking me why these abuses happen, I would tell you that the secular trend in which our society has progressed, is the leading cause, then, I would acknowledge that the ambiguities within the second Vatican Council is not too far behind said progression. Then again, according to most Charismatic’s, I have yet to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit”, although, I would say “Amen, it has not yet been tested“.

 

[vardaquinn]

The difference being - in the case of St. Augustine -, that the Greeks were a part of our Church. Your analogy has no merit or truth there. St. Thomas, was of course, empathetic of the Eastern Church, but I am unsure of how we “picked up aspects’ of their spirituality via St. Thomas. Please clarify your argument.

Really? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their followers were all Christians? Before Christ?

I find it odd that you push the rest of this chapter and totally discount this particular verse. FYI, the Masses I attend do not have women reading the responses… (again, another forum)

Really? Women aren’t allowed to respond “Amen” or say any of the Mass prayers the rest of us men say? Never seen that in a NO Mass…

Let me get this straight, do you believe that anything that a Pope says is authoritative? Even if it is outside his office, or as a personal theologian? If you do in fact believe this way, it could lead to a plethora of contradictions. Surly, you are not asserting this idea, I hope I have mistaken your intent.

When he’s addressing movements and groups, yes he’s still the Pope. He may not be infallible, but he’s speaking as Pope. In any case, I’d certainly consider what these Popes have said as authoritative even if they WEREN’T Popes, considering their status as theologians.

Right, both Luther and Calvin got this idea from the Church that they were taught at, If you don’t remember they were both Catholics at some point. Again, your analogy does your argument absolutely no justice.

And they also got rid of Confirmation and Annointing of the Sick. Because if you look at their Scriptural origins, somethings actually supposed to happen… but nothing happens for Catholics. Thus the Catholics must have invented it right? K, chuck it out.

 

[vardaquinn]

Really? The roots of the CCR are not the charismata, they are the actions of several misled Catholics whom embraced protestant theology in the post VII Church.

No they are the experience of the charismatics gifts.

Opus Dei and any other authentic Order is nothing like the CCR, you are comparing apples to oranges. If a comparision were to be made, I would compare the CCR to movements such as the Joachimites, followers of Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century, the Fraticelli, schismatic Franciscans in the 13th and 14th centuries, and the Molinists (or “Quietists”) in the 17th century.

Opus Dei is not an order, it’s a personal prelature (very unique). In the 20th century there were a whole bunch of new ecclessial movements (especially lay movements), including the CCR. These all met together with Pope John Paul II in 1998 where he proclaimed these movements as authentic workings of the Holy Spirit, and calling the charismatic dimension of the faith essential to the nature of the Church.

The reason that it has been ignored - for close to 1500 - years is because that these extraordinary phenomena dwindled considerably and disappeared after the Apostolic Age. The Church had by then achieved a moral universality and was established in such a way that these manifestations were no longer either useful or necessary.

Which is a bad thing. We weren’t using the gifts God had given us.

 

[vardaquinn]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8281748&postcount=61

I examine some historical reasons for why the charisms fell out of use here. And other places. No time to retype it up again.

 

[gtrenewed]

Maybe the Traditional Catholic forum was the wrong place to discuss Charismatic Catholicism?

I’m just saying… the outcome was predictable!

I am assuming that the OP who asked the question is a TC. Perhaps it was a “baiting” type post to proffer their opinion that everything but their spirituality is a novelty.

I tried my best here but those like Irish_Polock seem to have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. I wish all well that desire to follow this spirituality as some Charismatic Catholics also follow this spirituality.

IMO, It is not an “either-or” proposition; for there are many spiritualities. According to scripture, we are a body and not all the same part of the body and cannot say I have no need for another part of the body. We all come together in the mass and sacraments. How we arrive there is our spirituality, our walk, our path on the journey. God Bless

 

[vardaquinn]

I am assuming that the OP who asked the question is a TC. Perhaps it was a “baiting” type post to proffer their opinion that everything but their spirituality is a novelty.

I tried my best here but those like Irish_Polock seem to have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. I wish all well that desire to follow this spirituality as some Charismatic Catholics also follow this spirituality.

IMO, It is not an “either-or” proposition; for there are many spiritualities. According to scripture, we are a body and not all the same part of the body and cannot say I have no need for another part of the body. We all come together in the mass and sacraments. How we arrive there is our spirituality, our walk, our path on the journey. God Bless

Well, I can understand much of the reasons for why many are so opposed.

Well said with the last bit. It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s essential.

 

[gtrenewed]

Well, I can understand much of the reasons for why many are so opposed.

Well said with the last bit. It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s essential.

I can understand it with my head but it hurts the heart.

Essential - very well said:thumbsup:

 

[vardaquinn]

I can understand it with my head but it hurts the heart.

It does.

 

[guanophore]

Are you asking if there is some other spirit that has influenced us to question what the Church has taught…such as? I feel moved by the Holy Spirit in my questioning of the CCR. (Not to be confused with authentic and proven charisms)

As has been pointed out, we can’t go on our “feelings” to determine what the HS is saying. Our feelings may be accurate, but they have to be submitted to the Magesterium. In this case, your “feelings” are in contradiction to what the Church is teaching. When a person’s personal “feelings” are opposite of what the Church approves, what might cause that? It may not come from an evil spirit. It could come from ignorance, fear, or rebellion. While these factors do give a foothold to the evil one, it does not mean a person who repudiates the Teaching of the Church is under demonic influence.

Has the Church taught errors outside of faith and morals before?

I think you are asking if people in the Church have made errors. Yes, of course they have.

The movement of the Holy Spirit, though, would be INSIDE the realm of faith and morals.

Would you consider the CCR to be an infallibly taught subject, case closed “Rome has spoken”? Could there have been any errors in it creation an promulgation?

The work of the HS through the charisms is part of the infallible deposit of faith. The “movement” is a modern phenomena resulting from the prayers of the Holy Father for an outpouring of the HS “as with a new Pentecost”. The Vatican is teaching that the movement was birthed by the Holy Spirit, and should be received as such.

Yes, there have been many errors in theology and practice. This is why the Holy Father appointed shepherding over those involved, and has given copious instructions to the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

** It seems that **

Fortunately the doctrines of the faith are not based upon what seems right to us. This is what prevents us from getting off track. We can trust in the infallible teaching of the Church.

the gift of tongues was given to “build up the Church” in the beginning of our Church. In all examples of this gift in Corinthians and in Acts it was used for just that, for the unbelieving not for the believing. In Acts, they spoke in tongues strange to the apostles, although, everyone heard them in their own language (it was gibberish, to no one) thus they heard the gospel.

This is only one of a variety of tongues.

. Paul explains that he would rather rather pray silently for the instruction of others then praying in an unknown tongue. All of this chapter in 1 Corinthians seems problematic to you theology. As St. Paul says, “…if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?” how can you answer this?

This is not a problem at all, since he is talking about using the gift of tongues in an assembly. But since this is only one of a variety of expressions of this gift, he can also say that “I want you all to speak in tongues” and that he is glad that he speaks “in tongues more than you all”.

Today, we have way of evangelizing those of another language without this gift of tongues, this is possibly why St. Paul stated that this gift - along with other gifts - would indeed stop at some point, because it is unnecessary today.

So you think your human reasoning is more valuable than God’s idea of what the Church needs? You have unwittingly embraced the heresy of dispensationalism. I often hear detractors say that they think charismatics are “presumptious”. How much more presumtious is it for a person to decide for God what is necessary or not for His own Body?

I found this in the Baltimore’s Catechism #3

Q. 448. Why are these sign’s not continued everywhere at present time?
A. these sign’s are not continued everywhere at present time, because now that the Church is fully established and its divine character and power proved in other ways, such signs are no longer necessary.

I agree with this, and I feel it is “mature thinking”.

It certainly was the common thinking at the time it was written. However, the Baltimore catechism is not an infallible document, and has been superceded by the new Catechism, which validates the charismatic gifts.

12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. 13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. (1Corinthians (RSV) 14)

So, why are you not following the teaching of the Apostle? Why do you not “pray in the spirit, and pray with the mind also”?

If you wish to refuse the gift of praying in the Spirit for yourself, it is certainly your perogative, but why detract others for accepting what God has given?

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

How about a practical suggestion: The Charismatics here list the things that typically happen at:

a) A Charismatic service or meeting and
b) A Charismatic Mass?

I went to a) once and it was mainly singing. Not sure if there were ‘tongues’ as those present may not have been native English speakers. I think ‘whomping it up’ revival-style is not native to Catholicism and I don’t know what its spiritual benefit would be. So it’s off-putting to traditionalists.

A Pope saying “It is great that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are being sought by the people” is not the same as, say, granting a personal prelature to the CCR. Even then, you’d have to have someone to discern who was genuine and who was deluded, going along with the crowd or diabolically oppressed.

Who’s qualified to do that these days in the Church?

 

[guanophore]

How about a practical suggestion: The Charismatics here list the things that typically happen at:

a) A Charismatic service or meeting and

This is not an uncommon approach:

b) A Charismatic Mass?

All the ones I have attended were Novus Ordo, that were just longer. The homily is usually used as a teaching session, particularly by the Bishop here. The priest usually pauses longer at the elevation to allow for a period of adoration. After communion there is a longer time for prayer and contemplation. During that time there may be prophetic words shared. After Mass, there may be individual prayers for healing.

I went to a) once and it was mainly singing. Not sure if there were ‘tongues’ as those present may not have been native English speakers. I think ‘whomping it up’ revival-style is not native to Catholicism and I don’t know what its spiritual benefit would be. So it’s off-putting to traditionalists.

As David used to admonish himself to praise, so we do. David would enjoin his soul (using the imperative voice) to get up and praise the Lord. Awake! Some of us need to bestir ourselves into praise. Honestly, I envy those of you that are not siezed by mood that detract from prayer. Some of us have to command our souls to prayer and praise, and it helps to do it in a group. It reminds me of exercise. Sometimes people try harder when they share the exercise with others. It is also like a lump of coal. It may be on fire, but it will burn a lot hotter when it is put with other coals that are also on fire. The heat may rise to the level of even being able to cook something!

A Pope saying “It is great that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are being sought by the people” is not the same as, say, granting a personal prelature to the CCR.

I am not aware that any Pope has said such a thing. All the papal addresses I have read relate to seeking the Holy Spirit and being close to Jesus, and the Church. The one I was reading the other day was about committing ourselves to evangelization. I will find it again if you want.

Even then, you’d have to have someone to discern who was genuine and who was deluded, going along with the crowd or diabolically oppressed.

Jesus told the people not to pull up the weeds from amongst the wheat, but to allow them both to grow until the harvest. We are each responsible in ourselves to exercise discernment for ourselves. We are not being appointed “fruit inspectors” or made responsible for pulling up the weeds. I f you can’t attend such a meeting, knowing there might be weeds among the wheat, it would be better not to go. It benefits no one for you to be there preoccupied with suspicisions the whole time.

Who’s qualified to do that these days in the Church?

Each believer needs to become qualified to make discernments for himself. If a person does not educate themselves to know the difference between works of the devil, and works of God, then one will be continually at risk. This is the purpose of spiritual formation.

Then, as has been pointed out, everyone in the meeting is subject to the authority that God has appointed over the Church. Any activity that is questionable is brought to the pastoral authority for discernment and direction.

 

[vardaquinn]

I think ‘whomping it up’ revival-style is not native to Catholicism and I don’t know what its spiritual benefit would be. So it’s off-putting to traditionalists.

No, it’s a cultural thing. Especially in American Catholicism, which is rooted in Irish culture. Many European and foreign countries, throughout Church history, certainly “womped things up”. Different cultures did things differently. Just look at some old French Masses with their extravagent organ and Mass pieces. Ireland, on the other hand, has a tradition of very sort of “repressive” and non-enthusiastic liturgies. This is due mostly to the British Protestant persecution that outlawed Catholicism for several centuries. Worshiping together as Catholics (especially in the Mass) couldn’t be “whomped up” at all. There generally was no music, and the laity rarely said the responses. Often Mass was said in fields, woods, barns and in houses hiding from British persecution. Outward displays of enthusiasm couldn’t be shown, it was really often a matter of life and death. All of this had to be very interior and under the surface. It was also very individualistic. The Irish also grew to dislike this, because the only ones in Ireland who could show this were Protestants, who were persecuting them. So it became very repressive - one was always in control of the emotions, and nothing was “wasted”. No extravagance. This carried over to America. Many other European immigrants were forced to submit to the Irish way of worshiping, and there was often conflict between the Irish and Italians, the Germans, Slavs, etc. (not to mention the Protestants).

This puts off many traditionalists who are used to the non-enthusiastic and very controlled style of worshiping. But it’s really not traditional, and it’s really more of a cultural thing. Since Vatican II, many efforts (with varying success) have been made to “bring to the surface” and inspire the genuine enthusiasm and devotion of the people. It’s not supposed to be something buried, but something very clearly evident. Catholicism is not merely a personal private thing. When you go to church, you often see people apparently bored out of their minds. Compare that to what you get at the nearest sports stadium - even it’s just a high school or middle school game! Which is more important, more exciting? A sports game or the worship of the one true God? Worshiping God isn’t supposed to be boring.

Though I don’t agree with everything that charismatics do in their show of enthusiasm, I do commend them for having enthusiasm.

 

[guanophore]

No, it’s a cultural thing. …

Though I don’t agree with everything that charismatics do in their show of enthusiasm, I do commend them for having enthusiasm.

It is this lack of enthusiasm that leads Protestants to the erroneous conclusion that our parishes are “dead”. I used to think that way myself.

 

[SanAgustin]

‘whomping it up’ is not unique to CCR, I think people are mixing up clapping, singing, etc with CCR. If you go to a Spanish Mass, this is very common because it goes with the culture. I’m sure many in these forums would be scandalized by it, it’s very normal to me.

That doesn’t mean that those people are charismatics at all, and actually most are not. Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[vardaquinn]

It is this lack of enthusiasm that leads Protestants to the erroneous conclusion that our parishes are “dead”. I used to think that way myself.

Right. Maybe they’re not dead, but they sure look dead. And that’s a problem.

‘whomping it up’ is not unique to CCR, I think people are mixing up clapping, singing, etc with CCR. If you go to a Spanish Mass, this is very common because it goes with the culture. I’m sure many in these forums would be scandalized by it, it’s very normal to me.

That doesn’t mean that those people are charismatics at all, and actually most are not. Just wanted to clear that up.

Yeah, I’m at a bilingual parish and the Hispanics there are significantly more “happy clappy” at Mass. XD It’s much more of a cultural thing.

 

[guanophore]

Right. Maybe they’re not dead, but they sure look dead. And that’s a problem.

Is that really a problem? I mean, by itself not necessarily. St. Catherine was thought to be “dead” after receiving communion.

I just came from a retreat at a Benedictine Monastery. The community gathers for contempletive prayer. Some of the monks and nuns sit still and unmoving for long periods. They are in a deep state of prayer and communion with the HS.