Charismatic Renewal

[LegoGE1947]

As is my experience in these threads:

1. Almost all who are flatly opposed to the charismatic renewal have no actual experience with the movement. What does that say?
2. The same names, dates and places relating to the origins of the charismatic renewal are repeated as if that, by itself, actually means something.
3. Almost all opponents seem to claim that the manifestations of the charisms is a protestant invention - as if protestants are wrong about everything - and are ignoring obvious references to the charisms in scripture and the catechism.
4. All will acknowledge that the movement has been examined, tested and approved by the Church, then go on to say why it should not be.
5. Nearly all, sooner or later, manage to work the term “emotion” into their statements.
6. Opponents will often use terms such as “afraid” “frightening” or “worried” to describe how they feel about the movement, then deny that fear is driving their opposition.
7. Many who oppose the Church-endorsed movement also claim to be obedient Catholics.

If only as much energy would be devoted to recognizing and using their charisms…

My only experience with “charismatic renewal” was as a Protestant in some of those weird churches (or whatever they are called) and as such if that is what “charismatic” means, yes I am afraid of it and I don’t want it. Now if someone can show me that the Catholic idea of “charismatic” is something different then I will accept it. Otherwise, no thanks!

 

[TrueLight]

My only experience with “charismatic renewal” was as a Protestant in some of those weird churches (or whatever they are called) and as such if that is what “charismatic” means, yes I am afraid of it and I don’t want it. Now if someone can show me that the Catholic idea of “charismatic” is something different then I will accept it. Otherwise, no thanks!

So two of you said you were “afraid”, which is proving po18guy’s point. What are you indeed afraid of?

 

[LegoGE1947]

So two of you said you were “afraid”, which is proving po18guy’s point. What are you indeed afraid of?

In my experience it resembles too much of New Age movement. I’m afraid of speaking in tongues because how do I know if I’m not saying something against God? Also the charismatics I have experienced had too much of an obsession with demons under “every rock.” Also obsessed with “prosperity” as if you weren’t prosperous there was something “second class” about you. Pretty much every televangelist claims to be “charismatic” yet their teaching is a mile wide and 1/2 inch deep. Well, that’s my story.

 

[grasscutter]

My only experience with “charismatic renewal” was as a Protestant in some of those weird churches (or whatever they are called) and as such if that is what “charismatic” means, yes I am afraid of it and I don’t want it. Now if someone can show me that the Catholic idea of “charismatic” is something different then I will accept it. Otherwise, no thanks!

I don’t know if it would be available on tv where you are, but every Friday at 9:30 am (pst) a program called Food For Life is televised by the Companions of the Cross where I live. These are devout Catholic Priests who, by their sensible and not-at-all overt behaviour, helped me to understand a bit better about what the charismatic renewal means. Like I stated earlier, ostentatious outward means of expressing God`s love (and the Holy Spirit) are not for me. (I vastly prefer silent prayer in front of the Real Presence) However, there is nothing inherently wrong with it and it has a place in our diverse worship of God.

Just saw your last post: done while I was still typing! The groups you saw may not have represented charismatic renewal in its correct form. *Thats the trouble when human beings get all involved with God`s work.*

 

[LegoGE1947]

I don’t know if it would be available on tv where you are, but every Friday at 9:30 am (pst) a program called Food For Life is televised by the Companions of the Cross where I live. These are devout Catholic Priests who, by their sensible and not-at-all overt behaviour, helped me to understand a bit better about what the charismatic renewal means. Like I stated earlier, ostentatious outward means of expressing God`s love (and the Holy Spirit) are not for me. (I vastly prefer silent prayer in front of the Real Presence) However, there is nothing inherently wrong with it and it has a place in our diverse worship of God.

Just saw your last post: done while I was still typing! The groups you saw may not have represented charismatic renewal in its correct form. *Thats the trouble when human beings get all involved with God`s work.*

Not available here. It seems to be available only in Canada. My home is near Chicago, Illinois in the Central Time Zone.

 

[po18guy]

I was baptized as an Evangelical at age 26 and came into the Catholic Church 10 years ago at age 55.

If you know what your charism is, then you need only the working of the Holy Spirit within you to accomplish what the Lord desires. Mostly, the Holy Spirit waits for our invite. But, if you know your charism, and use it, the Catholic charismatic movement may not be your cup of tea. Yet, what you describe sounds a bit different from the Catholic charismatics of my acquaintance.

I am not regularly involved in the movement (and I don’t speak in a tongue), but I defend it, as through it my faith life was awakened. There is an amazing difference in all aspects of my faith. Yet, for some the movement has immediate appeal, for others it is an acquired taste, and some just aren’t cut out for it.

What bothers me is the blanket condemnation that it receives, from those who usually have no experience with it.

 

[LegoGE1947]

If you know what your charism is, then you need only the working of the Holy Spirit within you to accomplish what the Lord desires. Mostly, the Holy Spirit waits for our invite. But, if you know your charism, and use it, the Catholic charismatic movement may not be your cup of tea. Yet, what you describe sounds a bit different from the Catholic charismatics of my acquaintance.

I am not regularly involved in the movement (and I don’t speak in a tongue), but I defend it, as through it my faith life was awakened. There is an amazing difference in all aspects of my faith. Yet, for some the movement has immediate appeal, for others it is an acquired taste, and some just aren’t cut out for it.

What bothers me is the blanket condemnation that it receives, from those who usually have no experience with it.

Have no clue what my charism is or even whether I have one. Charismatic phenomenon has no appeal for me.

 

[curlycool89]

In my experience it resembles too much of New Age movement. I’m afraid of speaking in tongues because how do I know if I’m not saying something against God? Also the charismatics I have experienced had too much of an obsession with demons under “every rock.” Also obsessed with “prosperity” as if you weren’t prosperous there was something “second class” about you. Pretty much every televangelist claims to be “charismatic” yet their teaching is a mile wide and 1/2 inch deep. Well, that’s my story.

If you do truly speak in tongues, then it is the Holy Spirit praising God through you (the link I posted had a concise explanation of the gift of tongues). It is always for the praise and glory of God, never something against Him.

Personally, it’s never happened to me, but I know people who have spoken in tongues.

Ignore the prosperity theology though. The correct way to say it is if you trust in God then you will have everything you need and you will find peace and joy. It never means you have lots of stuff to excess, or you have the most friends. Success is a hard one to measure, because sometimes your plans succeed because of your cooperation with God’s Will, and sometimes you succeed in spite of it (“by their fruits you will know them” is a good measure for that).

Have no clue what my charism is or even whether I have one. Charismatic phenomenon has no appeal for me.

Do you not like the outward expressions? Do the people seem phoney or something?

For the question of what your charism is, take a look at what you’re good at. God gives us talents to use to help our fellow man and to give Him glory. Being musically talented or good with math/numbers or having leadership skills would all be talents that could be used for the greater glory of God (those are off the top of my head, we could make a list a mile long if we wanted to and that still wouldn’t be all-encompassing).

 

[po18guy]

Have no clue what my charism is or even whether I have one. Charismatic phenomenon has no appeal for me.

I am not saying that you need be a member of any group or movement. Sharing your faith and building up the Church should be of interest, should they not? That is the purpose of our charisms.

 

[Portrait]

What are your thoughts on Charismatic Renewal? Does it betray our Catholic identity and heritage? Is it irreverent? Or do you see it as a good way to revive the relevance of Catholicism and bring more people into the Church? What are your personal thoughts?

A link if you don’t know what I’m talking about:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal

Dear smndtupidisaftr,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Whilst many today sing the praises of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, it emerged on to the ecclesiastical scene back in 1967 and owes its origin to Protestant Fundamentalism, which had become deeply influenced by the hippy-culture and the so called ‘Jesus People’. In retrospect one can now see how it fitted in so well with the milieu of those halcyon days of ‘love, joy and peace’. Adapting this outlook to Protestant Christianity, which had drifted away from historical and traditional norms was not too difficult, especially given the doctrinal/moral laxity and liberalism that was so prevalent in those times. Remember Anglican Bishop, John Robinson, had only recently published his heretical book, Honest to God, a few years earlier, advocating the ‘New Morality’, which certainly chimed with secular thinking and the general mood of the age.

Pentecostalism, be it in its Catholic or Protestant manifestations, argues that the Church has been seriously impoverished without the extra-ordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy and tongue speaking (i.e. languages). However, this is to meet the counter-argument that the greatest periods of Church history were antecedent to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and Protestant Pentecostalism, whilst the most ineffective and worldly period of the Church has been, sadly, the time since the CCR appeared on the ecclesiatical stage. Now, I freely admit that other factors, such as the whole secular drift of Western society, must certainly share some of the blame and it would be preposterous to attribute the present crisis within Holy Mother Church soley to the impact of the CCR. Nevertheless, the presence among us now for somewhile of Catholic Charismatic parishes has not ushered in a world-wide revival that has resulted in a greater passion for the pursuit of holiness or separation from the godless world - especially in the West where this is the most urgent need of the hour. The whole course of this life is a state of probation and it is only by an earnest seeking after holiness that men shall see the the Lord and finally enjoy the beatific vision of God - “Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14). It all boils down, dear friend, to no holiness, no heaven, irrespective of any claims to the charismata.

Surely what is needed in the Laodicean times in which our lot is cast, is a sober return to the good old “ancient paths” (cf. Jer. 6: 16) of our forefathers in the faith and this entails not a seeking after charismatic gifts, which are no longer the property of the Church today, but rather a burning desire for sanctity and a manful striving to live up to the arduous requirements of our most holy religion.

The extra-ordinary endowments were given to the nascent Church as a witness of the divine origin of the Christian religion, their end being accomplished they were gradually withdrawn. There was no need of them once Christianity had aquired a foothold in the then known world and was firmly established. When a buliding has been erected the scaffolding is always removed as it is no longer required to support the edifice - ditto with the charismata, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Melchior_1]

As for being charismatic, there’s nothing un-Catholic about it. Companions of the Cross (CotC) in Ottawa (mainly I believe) are a fairly charismatic group. Catholic Christian Outreach (CCO) is a ministry mostly of university students, and their spirituality is fairly charismatic (their major Christmas conference, Rise Up, has ample Praise and Worship time).

The CotC are a Society of Apostolic Life, and CCO got a letter from Bl. John Paul praising their work. So it’s not like these are groups of outliers or dissidents or anything.

The Companions are based out of Ottawa. They also have a presence in Houston and recently sent Father Lobo to Detroit. They took over Blessed Sacrament Parish in Ottawa, on request by the Archbishop after the previous priest was involve din a gambling scandal. I’ve known the Companions for several years, and spoke with Father Bedard a few times. I actually met with him for some spiritual direction, he was very wise and sharp as a tack.

I was there when they celebrated becoming a Society of Apostolic Life. Everyone please note one does not become a SoAL unless you’re on the up-and-up. I’ve known the Companions for YEARS. Funny enough; my parish is now run by them. In addition to being Charismatic, a couple of them also did a Latin Mass a few weeks ago.

CCO has their HQ in Ottawa. I know the founders personally, and know their kids. I give six CCO staff members money, as they fundraise their salaries to do university ministries and bring students closer to Christ. Blessed John Paul II has given them a letter praising their work, I’ve seen the letter personally. I met my wife at a CCO event I was volunteering at, funny enough.

NET Ministries also has their HQ in Ottawa. I’ve written reference letters for several young adults who have gone and done a tour with NET.

We also have a Dominican run college, with a few professors there being involved in the movement.

Whilst many today sing the praises of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, it emerged on to the ecclesiastical scene back in 1967 and owes its origin to Protestant Fundamentalism, which had become deeply influenced by the hippy-culture and the so called ‘Jesus People’.

This isn’t the first time someone has said this, and it won’t be the last.

Franciscans & Dominicans have been engaging in charismatic activities since their founding. We have had Franciscans post here with historical references stating as much, and some of the folks have said the same at the local Priory.

 

[Portrait]

This isn’t the first time someone has said this, and it won’t be the last.

Franciscans & Dominicans have been engaging in charismatic activities since their founding. We have had Franciscans post here with historical references stating as much, and some of the folks have said the same at the local Priory.

Dear Melchior,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

What I think we need to bear in mind, dear friend, is that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were indispensable in the early days of Christianity when the faithful had not yet experienced many of the signs of Christ’s presence that intervening history has offered. By their very nature they could only be but a temporary phenomena within Holy Mother Church. The more spectacular charismata were quite common in the first generations of Christianity and were, as I stated previously, temporary helps given to the infancy of the Church.

As regards the charismatic activities of the Franciscans and Dominicans, it is a sad fact, my dear friend, that even the most sincere men can, on occasions, be sincerely mistaken. Therefore it is all too possible that an individual may easily deceive himself respecting the genuiness of his special gifts, especially those more spectacular ones such as prophecy or tongues speaking.

Whilst it is quite true that the Popes (and some theologians) of recent decades have given their support and approval of the CCR, this hardly equates with dogmatic magisterial teaching that must be believed without question by all of the faithful. Thus we are, at least as I understand it, perfectly entitled in good concience to respectfully disagree with them and still remain in good standing with Holy Mother Church. Opinions are clearly not authoritative teaching.

The famous Baltimore Catechism surely reflects accurately what the Church has officially believed regarding the charismata down through the ages:

"Question 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?

Answer. These signs are not continued everywhere at the 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".

As far as I am aware no one ever challenged the truth of this part of the BC or suggested that it was an indefensible position that could not be sustained, except until recent times with the emergence of the CCR. Thus perhaps it is the CCR that is out of kilter with the long standing tradition of the Church as regards the ceassation of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Melchior_1]

Dear Melchior,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

What I think we need to bear in mind, dear friend, is that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were indispensable in the early days of Christianity when the faithful had not yet experienced many of the signs of Christ’s presence that intervening history has offered. By their very nature they could only be but a temporary phenomena within Holy Mother Church. The more spectacular charismata were quite common in the first generations of Christianity and were, as I stated previously, temporary helps given to the infancy of the Church.

At what point did they stop? And if you look around the world, you can’t tell me they wouldn’t be useful now.

I’d also love to see evidence in Scripture where it indicates the gifts mentioned therein has an expiration date.

As regards the charismatic activities of the Franciscans and Dominicans, it is a sad fact, my dear friend, that even the most sincere men can, on occasions, be sincerely mistaken. Therefore it is all too possible that an individual may easily deceive himself respecting the genuiness of his special gifts, especially those more spectacular ones such as prophecy or tongues speaking.

Holy Father Francis of Assisi himself, the Mirror of Perfection, had several charismatic experiences. Catherine of Sienna. So too have others.

Question the fellow sitting next to you all you want, but I’m inclined to go with Francis. There’s also a reason the University of Steubinville is run by Franciscans, you know.

Whilst it is quite true that the Popes (and some theologians) of recent decades have given their support and approval of the CCR, this hardly equates with dogmatic magisterial teaching that must be believed without question by all of the faithful. Thus we are, at least as I understand it, perfectly entitled in good concience to respectfully disagree with them and still remain in good standing with Holy Mother Church. Opinions are clearly not authoritative teaching.

I’ll remember this the next time someone extols the virtues of certain old customs. “Oh, it’s just an opinion”.

Of course, no one has to agree with it. At the same time, acknowledgement that these charisms have been around for the last 2000 years should happen.

The famous Baltimore Catechismsurely reflects accurately what the Church has officially believed regarding the charismata down through the ages:

"Question 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?

Answer. These signs are not continued everywhere at the present time, because now that the Church is fully established and its divine character and power prove in other ways, such signs are no longer necessary".

Does it reflect what the Church has officially believed? Considering that there has been documented charisms that have happened throughout the last 2000 years. Things such as prophecy, discernment of spirits, misc etc.

 

[arkwright]

The famous Baltimore Catechism surely reflects accurately what the Church has officially believed regarding the charismata down through the ages:

"Question 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?

Answer. These signs are not continued everywhere at the 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".

The above quote shows Cessationism .

It is wrong .

Documents of the Second Vatican Council , the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and the words of Popes Paul VI , John Paul II , and Benedict XVI all speak of the charisms being for the Church today .

 

[po18guy]

Dear Melchior,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

What I think we need to bear in mind, dear friend, is that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were indispensable in the early days of Christianity when the faithful had not yet experienced many of the signs of Christ’s presence that intervening history has offered. By their very nature they could only be but a temporary phenomena within Holy Mother Church. The more spectacular charismata were quite common in the first generations of Christianity and were, as I stated previously, temporary helps given to the infancy of the Church.

As regards the charismatic activities of the Franciscans and Dominicans, it is a sad fact, my dear friend, that even the most sincere men can, on occasions, be sincerely mistaken. Therefore it is all too possible that an individual may easily deceive himself respecting the genuiness of his special gifts, especially those more spectacular ones such as prophecy or tongues speaking.

Whilst it is quite true that the Popes (and some theologians) of recent decades have given their support and approval of the CCR, this hardly equates with dogmatic magisterial teaching that must be believed without question by all of the faithful. Thus we are, at least as I understand it, perfectly entitled in good concience to respectfully disagree with them and still remain in good standing with Holy Mother Church. Opinions are clearly not authoritative teaching.

The famous Baltimore Catechism surely reflects accurately what the Church has officially believed regarding the charismata down through the ages:

"Question 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?

Answer. These signs are not continued everywhere at the 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".

As far as I am aware no one ever challenged the truth of this part of the BC or suggested that it was an indefensible position that could not be sustained, except until recent times with the emergence of the CCR. Thus perhaps it is the CCR that is out of kilter with the long standing tradition of the Church as regards the ceassation of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

How odd it is that your ever-so-graciously worded replies run counter to Church teaching. By what authority to you oppose the Church?

 

[po18guy]

it is a sad fact, my dear friend, that even the most sincere men can, on occasions, be sincerely mistaken.

I strongly suggest that you read and reflect on your own words.

 

[po18guy]

The above quote shows Cessationism .

It is wrong .

Documents of the Second Vatican Council , the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and the words of Popes Paul VI , John Paul II , and Benedict XVI all speak of the charisms being for the Church today .

To underscore his point, he should be able to demonstrate, from scripture and the magisterium, just when the gifts of the Holy Spirit were declared to be of no further importance to the Church. The catechism flatly opposes him in this regard.

 

[Portrait]

The above quote shows Cessationism .

It is wrong .

Documents of the Second Vatican Council , the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and the words of Popes Paul VI , John Paul II , and Benedict XVI all speak of the charisms being for the Church today .

Dear arkwright,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou kindly for your response.

To say that the Baltimore Catechism is wrong is merely your opinion, dear friend, and not necessarily an actual fact. On the contrary, the BC accurately states what has been the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the years respecting the extraordinary gifts, which were given to the Church in its very infancy.

The charisms of the Holy Spirit are certainly “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” (CCC, para. 800). However, we read nothing here of Christians being encouraged to seek those special extraordinary gifts, such as prophecy, tongues or miraculous healings, all of which were the “signs of an apostle” and which accompanied the Apostles very unique and necessarily temporary ministry in the early days of Christianity.

Moreover, as regards the CCR movement, it is not a doctrine or de fide and no Catholic man, as I understand it, is required to accept or believe it to be a genuine work of God in our times. As for papal statements/addresses, dear friend, these do not constitute part of the magisterium and thus Catholic charismatics should not make the claim that they constitute an official and authoritative endorsement of the movement by the ordinary magisterium. Clearly, speeches and statements are not encyclicals.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

How odd it is that your ever-so-graciously worded replies run counter to Church teaching. By what authority to you oppose the Church?

Dear po18guy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

Can you kindly point me, dear friend, to the source of official Church teaching, that forms part of the ordinary magisterium, which you think that my beliefs run counter to. Moreover, where am I, or others, officially required to accept as genuine the CCR movement and its erroneous claims?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I strongly suggest that you read and reflect on your own words.

Dear po 18guy,

Hello again.

Yes, my dear friend, it is possible that I could be sincerely mistaken, but then so could the Catholic charismatic. However, it is my conviction that I am not mistaken and that my position respecting the extraordinary sign gifts is consonant with the teaching of the Church down through the ages, which has always held that these sign gifts petered out once the Church was fully established in the world. Scaffolding is no longer needed once an edifice has been erected.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax