Charismatic Renewal.

[Sirach2]

There is sufficient information on this subject in many areas of CAF for anyone who is seriously interested in learning. In addition, most dioceses have liaison offices with knowledgable clergy to assist an honest inquirer.

Those who need to express their angst, carry on. I’m unsubscribing.

 

[MarMax]

I think it’s safe to say, after reading the rest of your post, that this is a failed attempt at “charity”, because you showed zero hesitation in mocking and making false claims.

I wrote what I wrote based ON the video I linked and claims FROM the CCR rep in the video. In addition, I pulled FROM my OWN “experience” within the Protestant variant of this movement-- of which they ADMIT they draw from. Is something so dangerous outside the Church suddenly benign within it? Rarely.

Charity is loving God with your whole heart, mind and soul first and your neighbor as yourself second. I wrote what I wrote in charity per the definition of charity, not some sycophantic idea of charity as being “nice”. I honestly worry for these people. I don’t hate them. I don’t want to see them dragged in chains to the TLM. I just want them to be weary of putting themselves on the auction block of Satan’s slave market wherein they serve self and their own neuroses while thinking they do work in the fields of the Kingdom of God. Believe me, having come from it, the focus is ALWAYS going back to self with the excuse of the Holy Ghost. Want to get more status? Pray more in tongues, prophesy, etc. The quiet ones in that milieu (speaking of the Protestant milieu) end up believing that they are forsaken if they don’t do these things so they begin to essentially make them up. We should not seek signs, tongues, prophesy, etc. We should seek first the Kingdom of God and if it be the will of God, these things shall be added. Simply put, it’s dangerous what these people are doing.

Let the babblers babble, it doesn’t affect anything in my life. But they need to understand this is pulled directly from Protestantism, and not a particularly sound variant at that. Slapping a Catholic label on it doesn’t make it Catholic. It just mixes Truth with Error.

 

[TrueLight]

You will not understand, Truelight, because it is not the way you are being called by God to walk. Those who are not gifted by God to grasp the spirit of CCR ought not to pronounce about what they do not know. It is for the Church to guide us in that respect, and as Melchior remarked, She has not spoken against it. That being said, who are any of us to counter the Magisterium and clergy who have the vocational call to make such judgments?

Hi Sirach,

Are you attempting to censor me? I can speak even more strongly, but I try to restrain myself when it comes to discussions on the charismatic renewal, specifically because it speaks to some people and it is not my intention to offend.

There are movements that are allowed but clearly have some problems like the neo-catechumenical way. These movements stir up excitement for the faith for some and that is a good thing. Why does Holy Mother Church allow it? I don’t know but the article below has some good points.

For the most part, I just stay away from threads that discuss it, but here it is right in the TC forum.

I think this article from EWTN gives a balanced answer. I’ve included some of it here:

Thus the Church on the one hand recognizes that the Holy Spirit moves where He will, and so she does not want to oppose His working, and on the other, that the Church must discern the authenticity of each charism, lest it be a deception of the evil one. For this reason to say that the Charismatic Renewal is approved by the Church is not a blanket approval of every alleged charismatic gift or every charismatic group or individual within the Church. The discernment of the Holy Spirit’s action is an ongoing necessity within the Church and within the Charismatic Renewal. Dorothy spoke of Discernment.

Discernment of Charisms

The Apostle John encourages us to test the spirits (1 John 4) and over the years the Church has developed criteria to determine whether the fruits are good or bad (Mt. 7:15-20). St. John teaches that if anyone denies Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:3) it is proof that the person does not have the Spirit of God. We can call this the doctrinal test of the fruit. The Spirit of God would never lead one away from the truth about Christ. Since the Church is an extension of the mystery of the Incarnation, the Spirit of God would never lead one away from the Catholic Church or Her teachings. Similarly, the Spirit of God would never lead one away from the practice of the faith (morally, devotionally, sacramentally). Christ has left us the means of salvation and His Spirit would never deprive us of them. This could be called the practical test of the fruit. “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mt. 7:21-23). Positively said, the Holy Spirit’s activity (including among non-Catholics) must necessarily tend toward Catholic truth and unity (doctrine and practice), no matter how remote that unity might appear.

On the other hand, a spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2). Such doctrinal correctness is a motive of credibility in the authenticity of a charism or event. Yet, a person may simply be operating by the human spirit fortified by Faith and may not be manifesting an extraordinary gift. To determine whether a given phenomenon exceeds human nature calls for a discernment beyond simple orthodoxy. For example, in the special case of an apparition, when a bishop declares an event to be “worthy of belief” or “not worthy of belief” he does so based upon both scientific (can it be explained?) and theological (is it from God?) criteria. So, orthodoxy is the necessary beginning of the discernment, not the end.

There is yet another dimension of the discernment which needs to be considered. Since charisms are given to build up the Church, there is no necessary connection with personal sanctity. Saints, sinners and even unbelievers have manifested these gifts. The pagan prophet Balaam was given the Divine spirit of prophecy in order to authenticate Israel as the People of God (Num. 22). Thus the moral state of the recipient (good or bad) does not by itself indicate a true or false charism. When actually under the constraint of the Spirit of God, however, the true charismatic could not say or do anything contrary to that Spirit. No one could claim, for instance, that the Spirit of God led him to get drunk or do anything sinful, although he might at other times do such things.

**Practically speaking, therefore, the many instances of extraordinary charisms within the Charismatic Renewal will never come under the official scrutiny of the Church. Priests and Catholic laity associated with the Renewal will most likely have to discern each instance themselves, according to the theological criteria of Catholic theology and prudence. It is easier to dismiss a phenomenon as NOT from God than it is to determine its other possible sources (human or divine spirit). **A basic question prayerfully asked must be “is this particular event a credible example of the action of the Spirit of God - a Spirit incapable of any lie or sin and which can only lead people (even non-Catholics) to a deeper Catholic faith and unity?” This should do much to protect us from the roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8), even if it cannot produce the judgement that something is certainly from God - a fact which only the Holy See can ultimately state.

 

[TrueLight]

Think about it, TL. I remember a rather lengthly thread of yours that discussed Dominican spirituality.

Well of course Dominicans have been around since the middle ages. Besides, I asked the moderator if I could start that thread before starting it. Let’s not make this about me. We’re discussing a movement, not my specific threads.

Edited: Well actually, I’ve said all I’m going to say.

 

[Melchior_1]

I wrote what I wrote based ON the video I linked and claims FROM the CCR rep in the video. In addition, I pulled FROM my OWN “experience” within the Protestant variant of this movement-- of which they ADMIT they draw from. Is something so dangerous outside the Church suddenly benign within it? Rarely.

Charity is loving God with your whole heart, mind and soul first and your neighbor as yourself second. I wrote what I wrote in charity per the definition of charity, not some sycophantic idea of charity as being “nice”. I honestly worry for these people. I don’t hate them. I don’t want to see them dragged in chains to the TLM. I just want them to be weary of putting themselves on the auction block of Satan’s slave market wherein they serve self and their own neuroses while thinking they do work in the fields of the Kingdom of God. Believe me, having come from it, the focus is ALWAYS going back to self with the excuse of the Holy Ghost. Want to get more status? Pray more in tongues, prophesy, etc. The quiet ones in that milieu (speaking of the Protestant milieu) end up believing that they are forsaken if they don’t do these things so they begin to essentially make them up. We should not seek signs, tongues, prophesy, etc. We should seek first the Kingdom of God and if it be the will of God, these things shall be added. Simply put, it’s dangerous what these people are doing.

Let the babblers babble, it doesn’t affect anything in my life. But they need to understand this is pulled directly from Protestantism, and not a particularly sound variant at that. Slapping a Catholic label on it doesn’t make it Catholic. It just mixes Truth with Error.

Right, one video seals the deal on the entire movement. I’ll be sure to base my entire opinion of the “traditionalist movement” off of the newsletter submitted by His Grace Williamson.

Casual suggestion; read up on the Companions of the Cross, and their founder, Fr. Robert Bedard.

 

[clem456]

People of all kinds engage in idolatry. (that’s really what we’re talking about here) People may think they have the Holy Spirit in a box cause they can speak in tongues. People may think they have a the Holy Spirit in a box because they pray in Latin or attend a certain Mass, and believe all the rest worship an inferior God. It’s all the same. Each fanatic can point to dancing clowns or babbling charistmatics as an extreme example of idolatry, and use it to discredit the worship of others. It’s really tiresome. Both sides scream “the Church approves, the Church approves!”

It -can be-, not necessarily -is-, idolatry, on any part of the spectrum of liturgical practice. Get over it please.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve yet to meet a Traditional Catholic who was involved in Charismatic Renewal. I think it’s safe to say that most have no interest in it whatsoever.

 

[wendy_w]

It was a catholic charismatic conference it was not protestant

If this is the way God is bringing you closer to him it’s fine. Everyone is call to worship in different ways. I go to a youth rally (catholic) every year at the March for Life. It is one of the most powerful masses I attend every year. I wish I could find something like it i my area. I don’t think there is anything wrong with feeling joy in the Lord, but this just my opinion.

 

[MarMax]

Right, one video seals the deal on the entire movement. I’ll be sure to base my entire opinion of the “traditionalist movement” off of the newsletter submitted by His Grace Williamson.

Casual suggestion; read up on the Companions of the Cross, and their founder, Fr. Robert Bedard.

I have no devotion to the one who wears a tin-foil Mitre and espouses conspiracy theories and Holocaust revisionism, crypto-sedevacantism, or otherwise rants and raves against even his own Society’s superior-- a Society of which I desire no part.

youtube.com/watch?v=-0qkT9CI6WI

Start at around 8:05, it goes all weird. What they’re doing is very, very similar to what is seen in Hindu Kundalini cults as well as Caribbean voodoo practice: giving themselves over to a frenzy. Even the drumming is straight out of the wilds of demon-possessed Africa and its mutated variants in the Caribbean. It has no edifying qualities and is not Biblical in its purpose. The first two songs are, well, evangelical Protestant trash. Heck, I think, I know in fact, that somewhere I have my old songbook with these very songs as I used to play them in the “church” band before converting to the True Church. They’re insipid, saccharine junk and all feelings based.

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses TRUE tongues in the Summa Theologica:

newadvent.org/summa/3176.htm

Tongues is NOT senseless babbling, and to do so without prophesying is pointless unless a word be given which needs proofs of Divine origin-- of which, it must be subject TO the Magisterium and in line with the teaching of the Church (This is why Medjugorje is so suspect, as the things being “said” are totally out of line).

I’ve researched this and all I see is the stealing of Protestant modes of worship which is essentially worship of self and mankind, community, and party, not God.

You’ve offered nothing to counter my claims, as these claims are in fact truthful-- it comes from the Protestant milieu, it’s dangerous within the Protestant milieu, and there is simply nothing to peg this as authentically Catholic or truly the direct work of the Holy Ghost. The fruits I see are plastic, inedible, and dangerous to spiritual health. It all started around 40+ years ago. Maybe the Holy Ghost got a little distracted in the previous oh, 1900+ years and His iCalendar beeped a “make em Protestant” alarm. Imagine the embarrassment of forgetting to give this to the Church for 1900 years. Silly.

Meanwhile, St. Padre Pio actually spoke in tongues per the real understanding of it: infallible-catholic.blogspot.com/2012/04/padre-pios-special-intervention.html

He didn’t just babble on like a voodoo victim of possession and demonic influence.

 

[clem456]

What is said above^^ is the is the same tired attack I see in political ads all day long. Pick an extreme example of behavior and use it to paint other human beings (who worship the same God!) with a broad brush.

Argue with the Magisterium that approves the renewal, not the people who find this kind of worship edifying to their faith. And good luck with that.

 

[Melchior_1]

I have no devotion to the one who wears a tin-foil Mitre and espouses conspiracy theories and Holocaust revisionism, crypto-sedevacantism, or otherwise rants and raves against even his own Society’s superior-- a Society of which I desire no part.

youtube.com/watch?v=-0qkT9CI6WI

Start at around 8:05, it goes all weird. What they’re doing is very, very similar to what is seen in Hindu Kundalini cults as well as Caribbean voodoo practice: giving themselves over to a frenzy. Even the drumming is straight out of the wilds of demon-possessed Africa and its mutated variants in the Caribbean. It has no edifying qualities and is not Biblical in its purpose. The first two songs are, well, evangelical Protestant trash. Heck, I think, I know in fact, that somewhere I have my old songbook with these very songs as I used to play them in the “church” band before converting to the True Church. They’re insipid, saccharine junk and all feelings based.

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses TRUE tongues in the Summa Theologica:

newadvent.org/summa/3176.htm

Tongues is NOT senseless babbling, and to do so without prophesying is pointless unless a word be given which needs proofs of Divine origin-- of which, it must be subject TO the Magisterium and in line with the teaching of the Church (This is why Medjugorje is so suspect, as the things being “said” are totally out of line).

I’ve researched this and all I see is the stealing of Protestant modes of worship which is essentially worship of self and mankind, community, and party, not God.

You’ve offered nothing to counter my claims, as these claims are in fact truthful-- it comes from the Protestant milieu, it’s dangerous within the Protestant milieu, and there is simply nothing to peg this as authentically Catholic or truly the direct work of the Holy Ghost. The fruits I see are plastic, inedible, and dangerous to spiritual health. It all started around 40+ years ago. Maybe the Holy Ghost got a little distracted in the previous oh, 1900+ years and His iCalendar beeped a “make em Protestant” alarm. Imagine the embarrassment of forgetting to give this to the Church for 1900 years. Silly.

Meanwhile, St. Padre Pio actually spoke in tongues per the real understanding of it: infallible-catholic.blogspot.com/2012/04/padre-pios-special-intervention.html

He didn’t just babble on like a voodoo victim of possession and demonic influence.

You know, I seriously ask this every time this topic comes up, and every time I do not receive an answer.

The Companions of the Cross are a Society of Apostolic Life (pontifical), who received their status in 2002. Becoming a Society of Apostolic Life does not happen overnight, and the approvals come from some of the highest levels within the Church. Is it an exercise in infallibility? Probably not, but it sure is an exercise in authority.

One of the Companions’ four pillars is charismaticism.

I’d like to know, if charismaticism is so bad and so protestant, why did the Companions get approval?

I’d also like to know why it’s acceptable for people to slam one of the pillars of the Companions, yet they rush to the defense of groups that has no canonical place within the Church?

I’d also (also) like to point out that protestants often take what is Catholic and make it into their own. Several protestant services look very similar to Lectio Divina, for example. Yet there are several people who would look at Lectio Divina and say “this seems protestant” if they didn’t know any better. Some of the reading I’ve done would indicate that charismaticism was practiced by some religious houses (I lost my sources when I moved, I will try to find more of them) before the 60’s and 70’s.

Look, I understand it’s not for everyone. I get that, and that’s fine. What I don’t understand is the lack of respect, the fear, and outright hatred some people have for it. Some people need to stop to consider; maybe the charismatic renewal didn’t come out due to the “70’s”, maybe it actually came about as a counter-reformation to oppose what the 70’s stood for, and it stands now to oppose what the 90’s/2000’s stand for today.

When you consider orthodox people within the Vatican, orthodox schools, orthodox parishes, orthodox Societies, orthodox religious households are all involved with this movement, plus the personal approval of three Popes, that should tell you something.

Finally, I find it hilarious that people are fine with the Anglican Use, which is cribbed DIRECTLY from a protestant service, and they are fine with the Eastern Rites which were essentially cribbed DIRECTLY from the Orthodox, yet have a problem with the charismatic renewal.

 

[TrueLight]

… e, and they are fine with the Eastern Rites which were essentially cribbed DIRECTLY from the Orthodox, yet have a problem with the charismatic renewal.

That’s like a clarion call to Constantine. Just wait.

 

[TrueLight]

You know, I seriously ask this every time this topic comes up, and every time I do not receive an answer.

The Companions of the Cross are a Society of Apostolic Life (pontifical), who received their status in 2002. Becoming a Society of Apostolic Life does not happen overnight, and the approvals come from some of the highest levels within the Church. Is it an exercise in infallibility? Probably not, but it sure is an exercise in authority.

One of the Companions’ four pillars is charismaticism.

I’d like to know, if charismaticism is so bad and so protestant, why did the Companions get approval?

I’d also like to know why it’s acceptable for people to slam one of the pillars of the Companions, yet they rush to the defense of groups that has no canonical place within the Church?

I’d also (also) like to point out that protestants often take what is Catholic and make it into their own. Several protestant services look very similar to Lectio Divina, for example. Yet there are several people who would look at Lectio Divina and say “this seems protestant” if they didn’t know any better. Some of the reading I’ve done would indicate that charismaticism was practiced by some religious houses (I lost my sources when I moved, I will try to find more of them) before the 60’s and 70’s.

Look, I understand it’s not for everyone. I get that, and that’s fine. What I don’t understand is the lack of respect, the fear, and outright hatred some people have for it. Some people need to stop to consider; maybe the charismatic renewal didn’t come out due to the “70’s”, maybe it actually came about as a counter-reformation to oppose what the 70’s stood for, and it stands now to oppose what the 90’s/2000’s stand for today.

When you consider orthodox people within the Vatican, orthodox schools, orthodox parishes, orthodox Societies, orthodox religious households are all involved with this movement, plus the personal approval of three Popes, that should tell you something.

Finally, I find it hilarious that people are fine with the Anglican Use, which is cribbed DIRECTLY from a protestant service, and they are fine with the Eastern Rites which were essentially cribbed DIRECTLY from the Orthodox, yet have a problem with the charismatic renewal.

I really can’t answer this without being offensive, and drawing attention to myself. If you want, we can chat privately.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s like a clarion call to Constantine. Just wait.

I didn’t think of that, but now that you mention it…

I really can’t answer this without being offensive, and drawing attention to myself. If you want, we can chat privately.

Sure, we can chat about in PM’s or E-Mail.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Well, look at it this way:

Charismatics are saying: “The Holy Spirit is acting on me in a direct way”.

This is like saying: “Jesus is acting on me in a direct way”.

or

“God is acting on me in a direct way”.

The sensible response to an assertion like that is: “Hmmmm”. Let us examine the fruits: first off, is the person a bit mad? And so on.

Invoking an unnamed Spirit to come into you? Well, that’s just asking for trouble. No occultist or spiritualist would do that, unless in very controlled circumstances. There is no guarantee the Spirit is holy.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Be careful that your worship doesn’t become all about what you feel.

That’s the main problem with any Charismatic group in any denomination. The things you see/do/feel on a personal level may eventually eclipse your worship of God. Whenever people base their religious beliefs mostly on how they feel it worries me. Feelings change and they change quickly. It’s guaranteed that you won’t feel the way you felt when you are twenty as when you are forty and you won’t feel the way you felt when you were forty when you are sixty.

Feelings are worldly. You need to start from a place of faith. My suggestion would be to research. Buy a catechism and learn what the Church teaches. Don’t just get by with your feelings make the effort to know why you bieve what you believe and why you feel how you feel. To really know if you are ready to fully enter the Catholic Church you should know exactly what the Church teaches. Study Scripture and study the Catechism. Worry less about your feelings and more about understanding at this point in your journey.

I agree with this. Good post.

 

[ltwin]

When the Apostles ‘spoke in tongues’, everyone listening understood in their own language. Now that was impressive. Having to have someone interpret the ‘tongue’ is the exact opposite result.

You do realize that the Apostle Paul identifies interpretation of tongues as one of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10? Furthermore, Paul devotes 1 Corinthians 14 almost entirely to the topic of speaking in tongues within the church and how this should be done. He specifically states that if someone speaks in tongues in the church, they should interpret the tongue for the others listening.

Despite whether you believe the “speaking in tongues” in the Charismatic movement are the same or different from the speaking in tongues of the Bible, you have to admit that according to Paul, the gift of tongues and interpretation are intimately connected and where the first occurs the latter should follow.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

You do realize that the Apostle Paul identifies interpretation of tongues as one of the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10? Furthermore, Paul devotes 1 Corinthians 14 almost entirely to the topic of speaking in tongues within the church and how this should be done. He specifically states that if someone speaks in tongues in the church, they should interpret the tongue for the others listening.

Interesting. Then it follows: why did this die out as a popular practice in the Church until after the Protestants revived it?

 

[ltwin]

Interesting. Then if follows: why did this die out as a popular practice in the Church until after the Protestants revived it?

Well, I wouldn’t say it died out. There are various accounts of glossolalia or what sounds like glossolalia throughout Christian history. As to why tongues and interpretation did not remain apart of public Christian worship you can point to a number of things.

One obvious point is that even Paul prioritizes the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues and interpretation. In the 14th chapter of his letter, Paul tells the Corinthians,

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

So, prophecy is the preferred vocal gift to be used in public worship because it is more direct than the gift of tongues.

A second point to note is that in the early centuries of the Church glossolalia comes under more intense scrutiny because it figures prominently in heretical sects, such as Montanism and some Gnostic groups.

And finally, we can see that the way in which the liturgy of the Church developed is not very conducive to spontaneous vocal messages, whether they are prophetic or glossolalic. When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, worship was a lot less formal then it would be later. He writes in chapter 14,

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

So, in earlier times, there was a lot more room for individuals within the congregation to contribute to pubic worship through prophetic and glossolalic messages. As ideas about what is and what is not “good order” changed, opportunities for both public prophecy and glossolalia were limited. Eventually, glossolalia became a private spiritual experience.

 

[mlz]

I have no devotion to the one who wears a tin-foil Mitre and espouses conspiracy theories and Holocaust revisionism, crypto-sedevacantism, or otherwise rants and raves against even his own Society’s superior-- a Society of which I desire no part.

youtube.com/watch?v=-0qkT9CI6WI

Start at around 8:05, it goes all weird. What they’re doing is very, very similar to what is seen in Hindu Kundalini cults as well as Caribbean voodoo practice: giving themselves over to a frenzy. Even the drumming is straight out of the wilds of demon-possessed Africa and its mutated variants in the Caribbean. It has no edifying qualities and is not Biblical in its purpose. The first two songs are, well, evangelical Protestant trash. Heck, I think, I know in fact, that somewhere I have my old songbook with these very songs as I used to play them in the “church” band before converting to the True Church. They’re insipid, saccharine junk and all feelings based.

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses TRUE tongues in the Summa Theologica:

newadvent.org/summa/3176.htm

Tongues is NOT senseless babbling, and to do so without prophesying is pointless unless a word be given which needs proofs of Divine origin-- of which, it must be subject TO the Magisterium and in line with the teaching of the Church (This is why Medjugorje is so suspect, as the things being “said” are totally out of line).

I’ve researched this and all I see is the stealing of Protestant modes of worship which is essentially worship of self and mankind, community, and party, not God.

You’ve offered nothing to counter my claims, as these claims are in fact truthful-- it comes from the Protestant milieu, it’s dangerous within the Protestant milieu, and there is simply nothing to peg this as authentically Catholic or truly the direct work of the Holy Ghost. The fruits I see are plastic, inedible, and dangerous to spiritual health. It all started around 40+ years ago. Maybe the Holy Ghost got a little distracted in the previous oh, 1900+ years and His iCalendar beeped a “make em Protestant” alarm. Imagine the embarrassment of forgetting to give this to the Church for 1900 years. Silly.

Meanwhile, St. Padre Pio actually spoke in tongues per the real understanding of it: infallible-catholic.blogspot.com/2012/04/padre-pios-special-intervention.html

He didn’t just babble on like a voodoo victim of possession and demonic influence.

My dear fellow Catholic Christian, you are sounding to me so angry and hateful toward those who are sincere Catholic Charismatic believers…do you realize you are coming off this harsh, maybe not? I too am a convert and was once Protestant but have a completely different outlook than you about this.

In His love, your sister in Christ,
mlz