Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

What does make up its innards? Please, explain. What is a “traditionalist”.

Do you want me to start a thread?

 

[Melchior_1]

Ah, those things of course aren’t essential and whilst they may outwardly dominate the movement, they’re not what make up its innards.

Now, apply this principle to the charismatic movement. You’re focusing on the external (tongues misc etc), and missing the internal elements. This would be no different than me getting hung up on “smells’n’bells” and frilly head gear.

 

[Simpleton]

No but there are authoritative Church documents, more authoritative then the Baltimore Catechism, that state things to the contrary. And it is simply an indefensible claim. Signs and wonders occur all the time, and have through out history.

Please list these more authoritative documents and the things they state that are contrary to whatthe Baltimore Catechism has stated.

Wasn’t it Christ that said “a wicked generation asks for a sign?” :shrug:I find it odd that Christ would say this to the Jews asking for a sign so they might believe, while on the other hand we have the Holy Spirit coming down to start reviving these gifts so signs can be given in order to convert people. I mean that is why you’re saying this out pouring of the Holy Spirit happened and why these dormant gifts have resurfaced so Catholics can build up the Church aka covert non-Catholics right? If “building up the Church” doesn’t mean converting non-Catholics then what does “building up the Church” mean? Maybe you can also explain why these gifts have been dormant for so long until 60-100 years? One would think that God would never stop the work of building up His Church, especially if His Church isn’t finished being built! Yet we have this gap from Pentecost all the way until 1901 (although in reality it looks more like 1960) where we got nothing that even remotly looks like the practices of the CCR. Even the Protestant charismatic movements didnt start happening until 1900’s! Isn’t the suspicious date argument the common argument Catholics have toward Protestant beliefs and practices? The whole “you’re telling me Gods Church was around in the beginning but disappeared only to resurface 1900 hundred years later?”

Also is protestantism the fullfilment of Christianity? If it isnt then maybe you should ask your self why Catholics (the CCR) who belong to the True Church are taking stuff from the Protestant Churches? Shouldnt it be the other way around?

 

[Melchior_1]

Something I also want to throw out there:

The Companions of the Cross is a Society of Apostolic Life originally based in Ottawa. Since their inception they also have priests in parishes in Toronto, Houston, and most recently have sent a Priest or two to Detroit to handle some work there.

They are very charismatic. One could probably call them the charismatic equivalent to the FSSP.

I mention this for a few reasons:

1. Rome saw fit to grant a charismatic group the status of a Society of Apostolic Life.
2. They have full faculties, they are not suspended.
3. They have received no recriminations, as a group, from Rome. In fact, they’ve received nothing but praise.
4. They were granted their status during a time where the current Pope had the role of protecting the Faith.

Whole Societies are being formed with the charismatic movement, and being given the blessings of Rome. I’d love to know what some of you think of this.

 

[jmj1984]

Now, apply this principle to the charismatic movement. You’re focusing on the external (tongues misc etc), and missing the internal elements. This would be no different than me getting hung up on “smells’n’bells” and frilly head gear.

Actually no, if you look back at my list of reasons why I disagree with the movement they include both internal and external elements. Besides whereas what you call ‘smells and bells’ are not suspect the external actions of charismatics are suspect as the quotes I have provided so, there is therefore no comparison between the two.

 

[jmj1984]

Something I also want to throw out there:

The Companions of the Cross is a Society of Apostolic Life originally based in Ottawa. Since their inception they also have priests in parishes in Toronto, Houston, and most recently have sent a Priest or two to Detroit to handle some work there.

They are very charismatic. One could probably call them the charismatic equivalent to the FSSP.

I mention this for a few reasons:

1. Rome saw fit to grant a charismatic group the status of a Society of Apostolic Life.
2. They have full faculties, they are not suspended.
3. They have received no recriminations, as a group, from Rome. In fact, they’ve received nothing but praise.
4. They were granted their status during a time where the current Pope had the role of protecting the Faith.

Whole Societies are being formed with the charismatic movement, and being given the blessings of Rome. I’d love to know what some of you think of this.

It’s worth noting several things:

1)The congregation doesn’t appear to be the typical running around and talking gibberish charasmatics, which are the charasmatics I’m condemning. Now seeing as there is no mention of Glossolia on their website or their constitutions or in fact any of these gifts I hardly see how it can be taken as an approval of the charasmatic movement In fact the word charasmatic doesn’t turn up once on their seminarian formation page which means one of two things. A)They’re presenting a misleading portrait of themselves or B) They are not representative of the catholic charasmatic movement
2)Rome also approved Assisi 1 and 2, actions widely condemned by theologians, bishops and yes even the current pope who has seen fit to specifically distance Assisi 3 from either of the previous two events that share its name. So whilst I cannot claim Rome has condemned this congregation I can’t see how its an approval of the Charasmatic movement.
3)Sorry do you think there’s any Pope who doesn’t have the role of protecting the faith?

 

[Melchior_1]

It’s worth noting several things:

1)The congregation doesn’t appear to be the typical running around and talking gibberish charasmatics, which are the charasmatics I’m condemning. Now seeing as there is no mention of Glossolia on their website or their constitutions or in fact any of these gifts I hardly see how it can be taken as an approval of the charasmatic movement In fact the word charasmatic doesn’t turn up once on their seminarian formation page which means one of two things. A)They’re presenting a misleading portrait of themselves or B) They are not representative of the catholic charasmatic movement
2)Rome also approved Assisi 1 and 2, actions widely condemned by theologians, bishops and yes even the current pope who has seen fit to specifically distance Assisi 3 from either of the previous two events that share its name. So whilst I cannot claim Rome has condemned this congregation I can’t see how its an approval of the Charasmatic movement.
3)Sorry do you think there’s any Pope who doesn’t have the role of protecting the faith?

1. They do the whole “spontaneous praise” business during their 11am Mass, if that means anything (they have approval to do this, by the way). They also run Spiritual Gifts seminars and Life in the Spirit Seminars as well.
2. This is different than the Assisi events. Those were events, a singular event for a singular time. This is a 100% legit Scoiety of Apostolic Life. This is ongoing, a living community, who are ordaining men and doing parish formation. These guys have the exact same status and credentials as the FSSP. The charismatic nature of the Companions is crucial. It’s at the very least a tacit approval of the charismatic movement because of how the Society was built with that as one of the main tenants.
3. All Popes have a role of protecting the faith. What I’m saying that, in addition to Blessed John Paul II being Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. They both had no issues with this Society of Apostolic Life, and no issues with their charisms.

 

[Warrenton]

It is either true or not true that Mary answered my prayer.

That is my point. The truth of this statement is subjective, because none but you can verify your prayer, or whether you feel it was answered.

You said truth is always objective. I disagreed.

What I am talking about is this: the charismatic dimension is essential to the very nature of the church (along with the institutional dimension). That’s really how the Mystical Body works. If you disagree with this, you disagree with an aspect of Church teaching found in Scripture and the teaching of the Magisterium

I think we need to be specific. I don’t know what is meant by the “charismatic dimension” being essential to the “nature” of the Church (I presume you meant Church with a capital C - please correct me if I mistook you).

How the Mystical Body of Christ works is probably beyond the scope of this thread. The OP was specifically asking about the relationship between “charismatic” practice and “traditional” Catholics. This really has mostly to do with speaking in tongues and some other practices that are related to that.

With respect to those practices, I deny that the modern practice of speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, or being overcome by the Holy Ghost have direct scriptural
antecedents. I believe them to be modern innovations. I deny that these practices are essential to the Catholic faith. That is the bad news, so to speak.

The good news is that I agree the same practices to be licit. I agree (as I have repeatedly written) that they may be beneficial.

My contentions are in keeping with my liberty as a Catholic. It is not dogma that I hold your understanding of these practices. Neither, however, is it dogma that you abandon your beliefs for mine.

In a subsequent post, you imply that this approach is “Protestant.” I deny this strenuously. As a Catholic, I have liberties that neither you nor anyone else may abrogate. I am bound to believe what the Church teaches regarding dogma. I am bid to recite the Apostle’s creed, and by virtue of being a Latin, also the Nicene with the filioque. In addition to that, I assent to the efficacy of the seven sacraments. With a few additions, that is the sum of what I must believe. There we have it.

If you examine Protestant thought, you will see that Protestants deny various parts of the whole that I have described. Indeed, many Protestant churches denied the ability of other Protestants to engage in charismatic behavior, as being an unlawful development of a discipline that was allegedly closed sometime prior to the 5th century.

Nowhere am I commanded to believe that what someone says about someone else engaging in glossalalia is or is not the actual descent of the Holy Ghost on that person. Neither am I commanded to disbelieve it. It is matter of Church discipline. I agree that it is within the episcopal power, or the papal power, to permit this development and to regulate its use. There is no authority to ask me for more, and it not valid to suggest I am taking a Protestant approach to the thing.

Unless, of course, unbeknown to me, Protestants have started acknowledging the power of the Pope!

 

[Warrenton]

I was speaking facetiously there, noting how connected to Protestants those who pick and choose what Catholic doctrine to believe are. Which is most ironic, in the light of their fierce and uncharitable hatred of Protestants!

Got it!

By the way, I hope I am not uncharitable to Protestants. I do deeply believe that the tendencies of Protestantism are detrimental to Christendom, over time, but that this is not something that is chargeable to Protestants as a class or as individuals. It’s just a fact of life. I find much Protestant thought and writing very suggestive and helpful to spiritual growth, even when parts of it are facially anti Roman. Examples are Paradise Lost, and Pilgrim’s Progress.

Cheers!

 

[Melchior_1]

Got it!

By the way, I hope I am not uncharitable to Protestants. I do deeply believe that the tendencies of Protestantism are detrimental to Christendom, over time, but that this is not something that is chargeable to Protestants as a class or as individuals. It’s just a fact of life. I find much Protestant thought and writing very suggestive and helpful to spiritual growth, even when parts of it are facially anti Roman. Examples are Paradise Lost, and Pilgrim’s Progress.

Cheers!

I’m a big fan of Clive, but that’s just me

 

[Indyann]

It’s worth noting several things:

1)The congregation doesn’t appear to be the typical running around and talking gibberish charasmatics, which are the charasmatics I’m condemning. Now seeing as there is no mention of Glossolia on their website or their constitutions or in fact any of these gifts I hardly see how it can be taken as an approval of the charasmatic movement In fact the word charasmatic doesn’t turn up once on their seminarian formation page which means one of two things. A)They’re presenting a misleading portrait of themselves or B) They are not representative of the catholic charasmatic movement
2)Rome also approved Assisi 1 and 2, actions widely condemned by theologians, bishops and yes even the current pope who has seen fit to specifically distance Assisi 3 from either of the previous two events that share its name. So whilst I cannot claim Rome has condemned this congregation I can’t see how its an approval of the Charasmatic movement.
3)Sorry do you think there’s any Pope who doesn’t have the role of protecting the faith?

Another fruit of the CCR for you to criticize.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_20051114_associazioni_en.html#EMMANUEL%20COMMUNITY

 

[vardaquinn]

Got it!

By the way, I hope I am not uncharitable to Protestants. I do deeply believe that the tendencies of Protestantism are detrimental to Christendom, over time, but that this is not something that is chargeable to Protestants as a class or as individuals. It’s just a fact of life. I find much Protestant thought and writing very suggestive and helpful to spiritual growth, even when parts of it are facially anti Roman. Examples are Paradise Lost, and Pilgrim’s Progress.

Cheers!

Great, glad we’re on the same page there.

 

[vardaquinn]

And yet the charasmatic movement is renowned for its failure to discern spirits and is born out of a protestant movement likewise renowned for its failure to discern spirits.

So now you’re calling saints stupid and a hypocrite And no, the gift of tongues as its known today hasnt been displayed by Catholic saints probably since the age of the apostles if ever. Its arguable if tongues means talking gibberish or whether it means talking in the tongues of men.

Yep, another doctor of the church is wrong as well and now you see why I have a problem with the charasmatic movement. And no you haven’t shown it whereas Augustine mentions miracles in his later recantation he makes no explicit mention of Glossolia as he did before so its stretching it to say he recanted this as well. His argument is also as a whole sound, whereas he does not oppose individual miracles being performed he does believe that these extraordinary gifts are no longer required.

Actually no saints have encouraged them in the way the charasmatic movement has, certainly no saint has encouraged healing services they were all too humble. So they’re only straw man arguments if your mind is so ‘lost’ in the charasmatic doctrine that you can longer even understand clear writings against it.

For the last time, it did not come from Protestantism. Yes, it may be that many charismatics do not practice proper discernment. But in any case, your argument remains a straw man.

I am not calling him stupid, and I am simply casting a dubious light on your source there, since St. Vincent Ferrer himself was such a renowned miracle worker. Tongues does not mean talking gibberish, and nobody here except you are claiming that.

What do you think the sacrament of anointing of the sick is supposed to do? There’s a whole sacrament, which has a partial role of miraculously healing the sick person if it is the will of God.

These gifts aren’t required, but they’re certainly helpful, and the cases of some individuals, they simply will not believe until they see a miracle. coughSt.Thomascough*.

 

[Indyann]

And another: (couldn’t get the link to work)

OFFICIAL NAME

FONDACIO. CHRISTIANS FOR THE WORLD
ALSO KNOWN AS Fondacio
ESTABLISHED 1974
HISTORY

Fondacio was established in France under the name of Christian Formation Community, in the wake of Catholic Charismatic Renewal and at the initiative of Jean-Michel Rousseau, a young married layman. It was originally intended to provide Christian instruction for young adults, but from 1980, with the admission of people with social responsibilities and lay persons engaged in parish activities, it decided to broaden its sphere of activity and to become international in character. It was in those years that the new name was adopted, Foundations for a New World. In 1991, following a serious internal crisis, Rousseau and some of the membership quit the association. Many others were convinced that it was a work of God, and under the guidance of Gérard Testard they revived it with a more collegiate government. The Foundations were given recognition as an association of diocesan right by the Bishop of Versailles in 1995, the Archbishop of Santiago de Chile in 1996, and by the Archbishop of Brussels in 1998. Fondacio. Chrétiens pour le monde, the present name which it adopted in 2002, is a member of the Catholic Fraternity of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowships .

 

[vardaquinn]

Go back, I have already posted quotes from several.

That is my point. The truth of this statement is subjective, because none but you can verify your prayer, or whether you feel it was answered.

You said truth is always objective. I disagreed.

Hmm, that’s another philosophical debate, and I see what you’re saying, but I think you’re wording it very poorly.

I think we need to be specific. I don’t know what is meant by the “charismatic dimension” being essential to the “nature” of the Church (I presume you meant Church with a capital C - please correct me if I mistook you).

Yes, Church with a capital C. What Bl. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was referring to when he made that claim was the use of the charisms described in 1 Corinthinans 12 (and other charisms). The Holy Spirit gives a variety of gifts to different people for different purposes. We have different roles in the Body. We should all seek an abundance of these gifts for the service of the church.

See LG 12 for a better and more detailed explanation.

With respect to those practices, I deny that the modern practice of speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, or being overcome by the Holy Ghost have direct scriptural
antecedents. I believe them to be modern innovations. I deny that these practices are essential to the Catholic faith. That is the bad news, so to speak.

Being slain in the spirit, I must note, is not a charism but does fall under the category of an extraordinary spiritual consolation. But it does occur in Scripture, and throughout the lives of a good many saints (St. Catherine of Siena, for one, who was slain in the spirit everytime she received communion).

We can discuss the scriptural antecedents for tongues. What do you think the modern form of tongues is? Let’s define some terms. So many misconceptions floating around.

We should not pick and choose through Church teaching. We should remain as faithful as possible to the teaching of the Magisterium. The charismatic dimension, so says the Magisterium, is not something negotiable but essential.

I call denying that Protestant, because it is denying a teaching of the Magisterium and picking and choosing what to believe. It is a “protest” of certain aspects of teaching.

Let’s define some terms and get more specific here. Start with tongues.

 

[Indyann]

Seems the CCR is bearing many good fruits to be of the devil!

EVANGELISATION
ALSO KNOWN AS ICPE Mission
ESTABLISHED 1985
HISTORY ICPE Mission was founded in Malta by Mario and Anna Cappello, supported by the leaders and members of the Glory of God International Covenant Community, a Catholic Charismatic Renewal community, of which it aims to be the missionary outreach. After receiving canonical recognition from the Archbishop of Malta in 1992, across the years the Institute has set up community centres in various countries, made up of missionaries of varying nationalities who have given up their own professional commitments and, by trusting themselves to Providence, dedicate themselves to a life of prayer and evangelisation. On 19 May 2002, the Pontifical Council for the Laity decreed recognition of the Institute for World Evangelisation-ICPE Mission to be an international association of the faithful of Pontifical Right.

 

[ClayPots47]

Something I also want to throw out there:

The Companions of the Cross is a Society of Apostolic Life originally based in Ottawa. Since their inception they also have priests in parishes in Toronto, Houston, and most recently have sent a Priest or two to Detroit to handle some work there.

They are very charismatic. One could probably call them the charismatic equivalent to the FSSP.

I mention this for a few reasons:

1. Rome saw fit to grant a charismatic group the status of a Society of Apostolic Life.
2. They have full faculties, they are not suspended.
3. They have received no recriminations, as a group, from Rome. In fact, they’ve received nothing but praise.
4. They were granted their status during a time where the current Pope had the role of protecting the Faith.

Whole Societies are being formed with the charismatic movement, and being given the blessings of Rome. I’d love to know what some of you think of this.

There are many communities like this one. And they fall under the same reasons you listed.

Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ are a Religious Institute of Diocesan Right

Franciscan Friars of the Renewal do not mention their connection to the CCR, but the founders; Father Benedict Groeschel, Father Stan Fortuna, Father Robert Stanion, Father Glen Sudano, and Father Andrew Apostoli, have all been linked to the CCR. Father Andrew Apostoli was recently at the yearly Charismatic Gathering in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The CFR’s are under the Franciscan Rule and follow the Capuchin tradition, and are a Religious Institute of Diocesan Right

The Brothers and Sisters of Charity founded by musician John Michael Talbot, also has a strong CCR presence, currently they are a Public Association of the Faithful (Canon 312), with approved statutes (Canon 314).

There are other communities born of the fruit of the CCR;

Servants of God’s Love Lansing Ann Arbor , MI
Renewal Ministries Lansing Ann Arbor , MI
Fathers of Pentecost Cincinnati Cincinnati , OH
Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and Mary Miami Coral Gables , FL
Servants of Divine Mercy Houma-Thibodaux Houma , LA
Our Lady of Guadalupe Abbey Santa Fe Pecos , NM
Brothers of the Beloved Disciple San Antonio San Antonio , TX
Monastery of the Risen Christ Monterey in California San Luis Obispo , CA
Brotherhood of Hope Boston Somerville , MA
Franciscan Brothers of Peace St. Paul and Minneapolis St. Paul , MN
The Companions of Christ St. Paul and Minneapolis St. Paul , MN
Franciscan Sisters TOR Steubenville Toronto , OH
Benedictine Monastery of Hawaii Honolulu Waialua , HI

These are just the ones in the US, many more exist around the world.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

The reasoning here is flawed. ‘Some saints exhibited behaviour like modern Charismatics, therefore The Charismatic Renewal is traditional.’

After nearly 2000 years the Church now needs a movement which began in Protestantism: the non-sacramental seeking after mystical effects in a group setting, by amateurs?

The path to mystical power is the same in all religions: prayer, self-negation, chanting, meditation, fasting, chastity and in occultism, visualisation. The nobler religions and writers on occultism have warned against seeking after mystical powers by people who haven’t eradicated egotism first; you can get in serious spiritual, mental and physical trouble. Cult leaders use these effects to lead spiritually hungry people astray.

I see the ‘renewal’ as the result of the loss of the sense of direct contact with God through organised religion and self-confidence in the Bride Of Christ. In Catholicism, The Way became something we talked and wrote about more than just did. People are going elsewhere to try to find … something … and they are going down well-worn false paths. They think this is all marvellous and new whereas it’s as old as mankind.

It’s easy to get mystical effects, using the methods above. It’s also very easy, after a few interesting experiences, to think that you are becoming a spiritual master. And then, if you’re lucky, you get a wake-up call.

The phrase comes to mind: ‘Be still, and know’.

 

[jmj1984]

1. They do the whole “spontaneous praise” business during their 11am Mass, if that means anything (they have approval to do this, by the way). They also run Spiritual Gifts seminars and Life in the Spirit Seminars as well.

And yet as I said theres no evidence of this in their constutions or website, nor for that matter does that mention Glossolia or any of the other problems with the charasmatic movement. As for them running seminars, what does this prove? The jesuits openly tout that the point of ecumenicism is not to convert people, they’re approved by The Holy See and yet that view has been condemned by numerous popes. Approval from The Holy See means merely an approval of a groups constitutions or in ther older days the rule. It in no way constitutes an approval of their actions.

1. This is different than the Assisi events. Those were events, a singular event for a singular time. This is a 100% legit Scoiety of Apostolic Life. This is ongoing, a living community, who are ordaining men and doing parish formation. These guys have the exact same status and credentials as the FSSP. The charismatic nature of the Companions is crucial. It’s at the very least a tacit approval of the charismatic movement because of how the Society was built with that as one of the main tenants.

As I said above approval means nothing more than an approval of the constitutions, not an approval of the movement as a whole. Besides which the movement still lacks support from catholic tradition and always will do, so no matter how many popes approve it this criticism will remain true.

1. All Popes have a role of protecting the faith. What I’m saying that, in addition to Blessed John Paul II being Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. They both had no issues with this Society of Apostolic Life, and no issues with their charisms.

And? That could mean any number of things, they were too busy to deal with it, they saw prudentially it was alright to let it grow for a while. Besides the fundamental criticism remains, a lack of support of catholic tradition and for this reason the movement will always be suspect.

 

[jmj1984]

So do charismatics. You can potentially understand these if 1) you know the language or 2) you are given an interpretation.

No, its a tongue of man not some weird tongue that someone can decipher, a tongue of man, a human language.