Charismatic Mass

[Marian_Carroll]

**GENERAL REMINDER:

For those posters preferring pre Vatican II, SSPX or other traditional groups CAF has provided a forum for discussing those issues and POV.

Here: forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102

Additionally, please be reminded of Banned Topics - Item 16.

Links to blatantly anti-Catholic sites, except as a valid reference point for discussion

Your assistance in observing the above is appreciated.**

 

[palmas85]

I was recently to a “Charismatic Mass” and our Bishop was the celebrant. During the Mass, people were speaking in tongues, and people even came up to speak prophetic words. Although people seemed more free to “move” in the Holy Spirit, there was a good deal of structure.

Our Bishop is very Orthodox, but open to various spiritualites within the Catholic Church. We even have a sanctioned Tridentine (Latin) Mass and parish community for those who are drawn to more Traditional Catholicism.

In my opinion, this diversity only enhances the local Church, as well as draws newcomers. The Church should be open to these expressions assuming they are in line with proper teaching. JPII was definitely a big fan of the renewal.

I’m not sure all dioceses are equipped to do this, but the Harrisburg diocese has been very blessed. (Especially in the surrounding suburbs.) Vocations are definitely on the rise here, and we have an active lay community.

I appreciate some of the concerns regarding the Charismatic movement, but I believe this could be essential to the vitality of the Church in these time. In many areas of the world (especially Africa) they have incorporated this spirituality in greater measure.

For more information…

nsc-chariscenter.org
in-unity.org
iccrs.org/

 

[palmas85]

When i went to my first Charismatic Mass, i thought OMG what has happened to my Church? After talking to my mother who had begun going to the 7pm CM at our Cathedral, i then had the desire to find out a bit more. When you first hear people talking in tongues it blows you away (it did me anyway.) I sort of felt at first that this wasn’t ‘normal’ but gave them the benefit of doubt. In the last 10 years i have grown to love the CM, it has brought me closer to God and brought me back into my Catholic Faith wholly. It was the love and compassion of the people who attended these Masses which blew me away. I had NEVER felt such LOVE in any Church ever before as i did there. I felt GOD there and he was so very pleased with his praising children. They worship differently i have found. Not saying anything about my local parish who love Jesus just as much, but the Charismatics ‘show’ it to Jesus. That is where we have Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and it is the Eucharistic Centre for Catholics in the Capital of Australia where i live. The Charismatics have opened up my eyes, ears, mind, soul and heart to Jesus. I have them to thank for finding God again and my Church which i so dearly loved as a child but wandered away from for many years. I have heard many a Catholic say that they the Charismatics are weird and a bit like a cult, but even our late Pope John Paul II spoke in tongues and loved the CM and that is good enough for me! Thank you - I don’t go as much as i used to as my mum has been sick and we used to go together, but am planning it again as after this post, my heart is yearning for it. It is not for everyone, but worked wonders in me.
Shalom.

I suggest you do a study of the ancient heresy. Montanism, then perhaps you may have a slightly different view of the Charismatic movement.

 

[christcnection1]

Differences between Montanism and orthodox Christianity

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

Let us compare some of the major differences of ancient Montanism to the Charismatic Renewal…

The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
(Those in the Charismatic Renewal do not believe this.)

The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in orthodox Christianity at the time and since.
(This is only partly true at best, and even this can be argued.)

The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner’s restoration to the church.
(Those in the Charismatic Renewal do not believe this.)

The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: “Thus saith the Lord,” but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,” said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: “Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake” (Epiphanius, “Panarion”, xlviii, 4).
(Those in the Charismatic Renewal do not believe this.)

A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage.
(Those in the Charismatic Renewal do not believe in forbidding marriage; nor do they over or under admonish the seriousness of sin.)

Some of the Montanists were also “Quartodeciman” (“fourteeners”), preferring to celebrate Easter on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. The orthodoxy held that Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)
(Those in the Charismatic Renewal do not believe this.)

I’m sure there are many more examples…

---

Perhaps I’m missing something, but the Charismatic Renewal appears to be in line with the Church on all these issues, unlike Montanism. If JPII, countless bishops and priests have embraced the movement (when ordered and understood correctly), I think it’s reasonable to assume they are not out of bounds. If we can’t trust the Church on this one, who can we trust? If that’s true, the only thing we can be sure about is that we can’t be sure.

It’s clear that scripture endorses charisms and spiritual gifts, but it’s possible to get out of hand. The Charismatic Renewal does not equal Montanism. There is an important place for it (as well as Traditonal Catholicism), for the vitality and growth of the Church.

I am personally a fan of both movements. There is not doubt in my mind that we can learn from one another.

 

[Tweety]

I suggest you do a study of the ancient heresy. Montanism, then perhaps you may have a slightly different view of the Charismatic movement.

I read this before i went to Mass this morning…and prayed.

I am home and have just read about Montanism on the Wikipedia site. ( Thank you Christcnection 1) and i am content with attending Charismatic Masses when i am able to and learning more from them and about them. My views on this have *not *changed. I don’t think i have done anything wrong, but will talk to my Parish Priest. We actually have a wonderful Priest who has come back to our parish after spending the last 20 plus years in the Vatican, and he is *very learned *in the history of our Church, philosophy and so much more, so i am sure that he will give me instructions if i am doing something wrong by my faith.

I am at peace with my decision and am enjoying my journey with the Lord.

God Bless you on *your *personal journey with the Lord.

 

[I_Believe]

My opinion of the movement is that it is sort of a spiritual “pep rally”. If it helps one to jumpstart or renew his faith, fine.

I saw where my parish had a Charismatic Mass to be held one Friday evening. It stirred my curiosity, and I googled away
I asked a fellow parishioner about the Mass, as we were leaving after a weekday Mass, and they said “yes join us, we’ll be speaking in tongues and …”

Whoa. I’m not going to a Mass where folks plan to speak in tounges.

As an activity for the laity, I see it as a good thing. Invoking the Holy Ghost can bring nothing but good things for the soul. And if speaking in tongues is one of the results, praise God !
But let it fuel our hunger for The Mass and devotions. Not replace it.

 

[Deidre]

When was speaking in tongues or allowing people freedom to “move in the spirit” added to the liturgical norms.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

114.] “At Sunday Masses in parishes, insofar as parishes are ‘Eucharistic communities’, it is customary to find different groups, movements, associations, and even the smaller religious communities present in the parish.”[202] While it is permissible that Mass should be celebrated for particular groups according to the norm of law,[203] these groups are nevertheless not exempt from the faithful observance of the liturgical norms.

The Charismatic Masses that I’ve attended are never held on Sunday. They are always held on a week night. Nobody is obligated to go. I wonder if that might make a difference.

A Mass is a Mass but I think some dioceses specify ‘Charismatic’ to alert people that it might be a little longer than your average Mass, with a healing service inserted after the homily. Plus, the worhip style tends to be a little more expressive and with some people praying in tongues and ‘resting in the Spirit’, it may make someone not expecting or understanding that type of worship a little uncomfortable.

 

[christcnection1]

I think we all agree the Mass is the Mass, but we use other titles for different Masses, right?

Charismatics Mass
Tridentine Latin Mass
Low Mass
High Mass
Byzantine Mass
I’m sure there are several others…

I don’t see anything wrong with making these distinctions. It helps the faithful know what to expect.

 

[Walking_Home]

The Charismatic Masses that I’ve attended are never held on Sunday. They are always held on a week night. Nobody is obligated to go. I wonder if that might make a difference.

A Mass is a Mass but I think some dioceses specify ‘Charismatic’ to alert people that it might be a little longer than your average Mass, with a healing service inserted after the homily. Plus, the worhip style tends to be a little more expressive and with some people praying in tongues and ‘resting in the Spirit’, it may make someone not expecting or understanding that type of worship a little uncomfortable.

---

A Mass held during the week is still to follow the liturgical norms.

 

[Joysong]

Walking_Home:

A Mass held during the week is still to follow the liturgical norms.

Have you been to any of these masses where you can positively state that liturgical norms are NOT being followed?

A Mass is a Mass but I think some dioceses specify ‘Charismatic’ to alert people that it might be a little longer than your average Mass, with a healing service inserted after the homily.

It seems you might be objecting to this part of Deidre’s post, since you requoted it. Have you never seen a baptism within mass right after the homily? There are lawful manners of celebrating the various liturgies that are not always spelled out in the GIRM or RS, and if this is the only document a person reads, it would be best to withhold one’s opinion until checking with the options allowed in the Sacramentary and those that the priests understand privately in consultation with their bishops. These are not always known by the average layperson who reads a document on the internet and concludes that a priest is therefore wrong.

I hope the wagons will not circle once again and cause disharmony with regard to a lawful liturgy and movement within the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
A Mass held during the week is still to follow the liturgical norms.

Have you been to any of these masses where you can positively state that liturgical norms are NOT being followed?

It seems you might be objecting to this part of Deidre’s post, since you requoted it. Have you never seen a baptism within mass right after the homily? There are lawful manners of celebrating the various liturgies that are not always spelled out in the GIRM or RS, and if this is the only document a person reads, it would be best to withhold one’s opinion until checking with the options allowed in the Sacramentary and those that the priests understand privately in consultation with their bishops. These are not always known by the average layperson who reads a document on the internet and concludes that a priest is therefore wrong.

I hope the wagons will not circle once again and cause disharmony with regard to a lawful liturgy and movement within the Church.

---

Deidre apparently has been to the “Charismatic Mass” and follows with an explanation of what occurs.

I am not disputing baptism—but since you state that what happens within the “Charismatic” Mass is lawful—prove it. Provide Church documents that state that speaking in tongues and whatever else is innovated into the “Charismatic” Mass is lawful.

And no—it does not make it lawful even if a priest and/or a bishops decides on their own to allow this-- if it is outside what Rome has stated.

 

[Joysong]

Walking_Home:

I am not disputing baptism—but since you state that what happens within the “Charismatic” Mass is lawful—prove it.

Those were not my words. I said: “There are lawful manners of celebrating the various liturgies,” which would include charismatic, and it is truly not always our entire ability to know what is permitted.

Sorry, W.H., I’m not about to prove anything, because I realize your mind is not open. Since you alone are the one objecting, the burden of proof is upon you to show the papal document that forbids anyone to pray in tongues at a charismatic mass. Or for that matter, to prove that no communication has taken place privately between Rome and the bishops concerning this. We are not privy to ALL communications outside of the GIRM and RS.

The bishops know what is permitted, and yes … they do have authority to permit charismatic masses with all the rubrics that go with it, which neither you nor I are totally familiar with. The movement has been around 40 years, so I would think that if Rome objected (and surely reports have reached its desk from objectors), that all of these masses would have been stopped, and/or the rubrics spelled out clearly to ALL bishops.

Traditionists and charismatics are at two completely opposite spectrums of worship, and neither would be comfortable in the other one’s mass, I would think. Yet I have never seen a charismatic go to the TC forum and demean the traditionists’ manner of celebration, such as the TC’s do here. Why, if any of us is not in accord with their style of worship, can we not let them be?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1312111&postcount=10

 

[Deidre]

---

A Mass held during the week is still to follow the liturgical norms.

[39.] For promoting and elucidating active participation, the recent renewal of the liturgical books according to the mind of the Council fostered acclamations of the people, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and canticles, as well as actions or movements and gestures, and called for sacred silence to be maintained at the proper times, while providing rubrics for the parts of the faithful as well.[99] In addition, ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to the established liturgical norms. In the songs, the melodies, the choice of prayers and readings, the giving of the homily, the preparation of the prayer of the faithful, the occasional explanatory remarks, and the decoration of the Church building according to the various seasons, there is ample possibility for introducing into each celebration a certain variety by which the riches of the liturgical tradition will also be more clearly evident, and so, in keeping with pastoral requirements, the celebration will be carefully imbued with those particular features that will foster the recollection of the participants. Still, it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated.[100]

Is it possible liturgical norms have more to do with not skipping any normal components of the Mass, not doing anything out of order, etc? and less to do with how people use the gifts the Spirit has blessed them with?

In the Charismatic Masses that I’ve attended all the components of the Mass have been there. The only difference is what is added that is not in your everyday Mass. I’ve been to graduation Masses, funeral Masses, wedding Masses, and all of these particular Masses are still Masses but with specific rites or ceremonies celebrated “within” the Eucharist. It seems to me a Charismatic Mass is the same situation.

 

[Walking_Home]

[39.] For promoting and elucidating active participation, the recent renewal of the liturgical books according to the mind of the Council fostered acclamations of the people, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and canticles, as well as actions or movements and gestures, and called for sacred silence to be maintained at the proper times, while providing rubrics for the parts of the faithful as well.[99] In addition, ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to the established liturgical norms. In the songs, the melodies, the choice of prayers and readings, the giving of the homily, the preparation of the prayer of the faithful, the occasional explanatory remarks, and the decoration of the Church building according to the various seasons, there is ample possibility for introducing into each celebration a certain variety by which the riches of the liturgical tradition will also be more clearly evident, and so, in keeping with pastoral requirements, the celebration will be carefully imbued with those particular features that will foster the recollection of the participants. Still, it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated.[100]

Is it possible liturgical norms have more to do with not skipping any normal components of the Mass, not doing anything out of order, etc? and less to do with how people use the gifts the Spirit has blessed them with?

In the Charismatic Masses that I’ve attended all the components of the Mass have been there. The only difference is what is added that is not in your everyday Mass. I’ve been to graduation Masses, funeral Masses, wedding Masses, and all of these particular Masses are still Masses but with specific rites or ceremonies celebrated “within” the Eucharist. It seems to me a Charismatic Mass is the same situation.

---

The following is from Sacrosanctum Concilium–Vat II.

You will note that no one—even a priest is to add, remove, or change anything on his own authority. Can you provide where Rome has given the Charismatic movement their own “rite”. Unless it is authorized by Rome—it is an innovation.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2litur.htm

Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

 

[Walking_Home]

Those were not my words. I said: “There are lawful manners of celebrating the various liturgies,” which would include charismatic, and it is truly not always our entire ability to know what is permitted.

Sorry, W.H., I’m not about to prove anything, because I realize your mind is not open. Since you alone are the one objecting, the burden of proof is upon you to show the papal document that forbids anyone to pray in tongues at a charismatic mass. Or for that matter, to prove that no communication has taken place privately between Rome and the bishops concerning this. We are not privy to ALL communications outside of the GIRM and RS.

The bishops know what is permitted, and yes … they do have authority to permit charismatic masses with all the rubrics that go with it, which neither you nor I are totally familiar with. The movement has been around 40 years, so I would think that if Rome objected (and surely reports have reached its desk from objectors), that all of these masses would have been stopped, and/or the rubrics spelled out clearly to ALL bishops.

Traditionists and charismatics are at two completely opposite spectrums of worship, and neither would be comfortable in the other one’s mass, I would think. Yet I have never seen a charismatic go to the TC forum and demean the traditionists’ manner of celebration, such as the TC’s do here. Why, if any of us is not in accord with their style of worship, can we not let them be?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1312111&postcount=10

Quote=Joysong
There are lawful manners of celebrating the various liturgies that are not always spelled out in the GIRM or RS, and if this is the only document a person reads, it would be best to withhold one’s opinion until checking with the options allowed in the Sacramentary and those that the priests understand privately in consultation with their bishops.

---

As always Joysong–you are good at turning things around—but I am familiar with how you work.

I provided documentation to back up my position–so that leaves you. You say there is some form of authorization for the “Charismatic Mass”—so come on Joysong —Provide it. If you cannot provide said documentation—you have no foot to stand on.

By the way–Joysong—Rome has objected.

RS 2004

114.] “At Sunday Masses in parishes, insofar as parishes are ‘Eucharistic communities’, it is customary to find different groups, movements, associations, and even the smaller religious communities present in the parish.”[202] While it is permissible that Mass should be celebrated for particular groups according to the norm of law,[203] these groups are nevertheless not exempt from the faithful observance of the liturgical norms.

 

[Deidre]

---

The following is from Sacrosanctum Concilium–Vat II.

You will note that no one—even a priest is to add, remove, or change anything on his own authority. Can you provide where Rome has given the Charismatic movement their own “rite”. Unless it is authorized by Rome—it is an innovation.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2litur.htm

Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

A) General norms

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

On St. Blaise’s Feast Day, people go forward to have their throats blessed after the homily. Is that also going against the liturgical norms? And if not, why would that be any different than people going forward to be blessed at a Charismatic Mass (or to receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick as I’ve seen done at Charismatic Masses?)

 

[Walking_Home]

On St. Blaise’s Feast Day, people go forward to have their throats blessed after the homily. Is that also going against the liturgical norms? And if not, why would that be any different than people going forward to be blessed at a Charismatic Mass (or to receive the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick as I’ve seen done at Charismatic Masses?)

---

We were not talking about St Blaise here—so stay on topic. Can you provide proof where Rome has included speaking in tongues as part of the liturgy.

 

[Joysong]

Walking Home,

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

Once again, I repeat that none of us knows with certainty what the bishops have determined is lawful, because not ALL of the details which may be found in a Sacramentary or private communication are within these documents you cite for personal interpretation of what is lawful.

1. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

You know nothing about what you speak, since you never attend these masses, nor have you inquired at the level of the hierarchy to learn whether or not the priest changes anything “on his own authority.” Strawman argument.

As I stated earlier, the burden of proof is upon you, if you are desirous of opening your mind to what the Church allows for charismatic masses. Neither Deidre nor any other charismatic needs to prove anything to you, for there are plenty of threads that have discussed this entire matter in depth. Surely, as antagonistic as you are to this, you would have seen them.

Nevertheless, you still challenge the participants as though they are in error, while clinging to your own private interpretation of Church documents to presume their guilt. THERE IS NO GUILT. Period. This is a lawful movement within the church and the masses have been celebrated for 40 years now.

Why does this concern you, when you have no desire to participate in the movement? Why not allow the OP the courtesy to hear from those who know what they are about, rather than someone like yourself who is merely guessing and has never been involved.

As angry as you traditionists become whenever anyone challenges anything in your manner of celebrating the liturgy, especially when they do not attend them as you do, can you see how charismatics might consider your private opinion offensive?

And by the way, W.H., this is the fourth time you have been disrespectful toward me in your posts, with slurring innuendos. I suggest that you confine your comments to the content, in light of the 8th commandment.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**As the Charismatic Movement within the church is both allowed and currently celebrated it behooves all participating in the thread to respect differing POV. It helps to separate personal preferences from what the Church allows.

Wiki has a bit of a background on it for those who seek additional information, here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

Your charitable interchange with each other is encouraged. Please continue to address post content eliminating presumptive judgments upon/about individual posters in the thread. We are united in faith, we vary in practice, yet we all belong to the Lord.

**

 

[Deidre]

---

We were not talking about St Blaise here—so stay on topic. Can you provide proof where Rome has included speaking in tongues as part of the liturgy.

To be honest I not trying to prove anything. I’m trying to understand why it would be within liturgical norms to receive a blessing in one Mass but outside liturgical norms to receive a similar blessing in another.

It really isn’t my responsibility to interpret the guidelines and laws set down by the Vatican. That is the responsibility of the bishop of my archdiocese. Each individual person trying to interpret Rome would be like each individual trying to interpret the bible. It gets us nowhere, really.

Obviously, we’ll just need to agree to disagree on this subject.