Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[jmj1984]

There has been COUNTLESS amounts of information posting from several people containing several sources. Everything from the Bible to Vatican II documents. Extensive posting from several people who have given a lot of information. Early Church Fathers for example, have been referenced speaking about the charisms. Personally, I have referenced on a few occasions that there has been an entire Society of Apostolic Life which has this movement as a crucial portion, and if Rome disagreed with this movement so they would not have went a head with it. They would have exercised caution, they would have brought up some red flags.

But they didn’t. The Companions of the Cross, a charismatic Society of Apostolic Life, was given the full blessing to become what they are today.

But those things don’t matter, do they? That whole groups are being formed based around these charisms? That Steubinville continues to be wildly successful? That our very traditionalist Pope endorses the charismatic renewal?

No, it doesn’t matter I guess. Instead it’s easier to accuse others of “ad-homineneseddesswhatever” and say “I’ve given all the proof in the world!” and ignore what others have posted (literally, since you’ve publicly stated that you were ignoring people).

Actually no there has been an underwhelming amount of evidence, the existence of a few societies, church fathers talking about charisms and thats about it. Oh and then an argument ‘oh its succesful it must be right’, as for the pope being a traditionalist, no, he’s a ‘neo-conservative’ that much is fairly obvious.

There are no encyclicals on the matter and on the other hand encyclicals condemning the practices out of which the movement was born and which it continues to practice. There has been no reference to saints or doctors of the church and on the other hand no less than 3 condemn the practices of the movement.
Nor has there even been any documents issued by the CDF. So I don’t see any overwhelming evidence

Yet others have said other eye witnesses have said otherwise, so who do we trust?

But thats the beauty of eyewitness evidence, you can read what they say and seeing as I don’t paraphrase their words but quoted them directly what people say about what they said has got nothing to do with it.

 

[Melchior_1]

Everything you have produced so far has been refuted fairly adroitly IMHO.

I’m sorry, BXVI is not a traditionalist? He certainly has some traditionalist values and beliefs though, doesn’t he? What more do you want from the Supreme Pontiff which would make him a true traditionalist?

At the end of the day though, you consider me and the others to be heretics so I’m not shocked you’re putting people on the ignore list and not accepting what is being said.

 

[jmj1984]

Everything you have produced so far has been refuted fairly adroitly IMHO.

I’m sorry, BXVI is not a traditionalist? He certainly has some traditionalist values and beliefs though, doesn’t he? What more do you want from the Supreme Pontiff which would make him a true traditionalist?

At the end of the day though, you consider me and the others to be heretics so I’m not shocked you’re putting people on the ignore list and not accepting what is being said.

Its really quite sad that charasmatics have to resort to this kind of nonsense in order to prove their point.

Nothing I’ve said has been refuted, sorry, its either been ignored, claimed as not applicable or insulted. Thats not dealt with, thats brushing it under the carpet.

He’s a neo-conservative not a traditionalist, someone like Lefebvre was a traditionalist or Castro de Mayer, benedict XVI can in no way said to be a traditionalist as one can see from reading his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger.

And no I didn’t call you heretics, I put 2 people on the ignore list because of their inability to accept facts, argue properly and a total lack of knowledge of catholic theology.

 

[Melchior_1]

Its really quite sad that charasmatics have to resort to this kind of nonsense in order to prove their point.

Resort to what sorry?

Nothing I’ve said has been refuted, sorry, its either been ignored, claimed as not applicable or insulted. Thats not dealt with, thats brushing it under the carpet.

The others (who you’ve ignored now) have met all of your claims head-on. Just because you disagree with their points doesn’t mean they’re nonsense.

He’s a neo-conservative not a traditionalist, someone like Lefebvre was a traditionalist or Castro de Mayer, benedict XVI can in no way said to be a traditionalist as one can see from reading his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger.

If Lefebvre was a true traditionalist he would have remained obedient to the Holy See. If a charismatic or, say, and Eastern Church did what Lefebvre did you’d be demanding excommunications until the cows came home. But because you admire him and have the same beliefs, he’s a hero.

And no I didn’t call you heretics, I put 2 people on the ignore list because of their inability to accept facts, argue properly and a total lack of knowledge of catholic theology.

You called the movement I belong to as heretical. How can I not take that to mean that I’m a heretic?

I don’t see others doing things like this. I see some fellows engaging in dialogue and people trying to learn more. But all I’m seeing from you is what amounts to a heart of stone.

It seems to me they are well versed in Catholic theology. They presented items from Sacred Scripture, Council documents, Church Fathers, examples, writings and documents from people, the opinions of a few Popes, and other such things.

 

[jmj1984]

jmj1984;8363281:

Its really quite sad that charasmatics have to resort to this kind of nonsense in order to prove their point.

Resort to what sorry?

The others (who you’ve ignored now) have met all of your claims head-on. Just because you disagree with their points doesn’t mean they’re nonsense.

If Lefebvre was a true traditionalist he would have remained obedient to the Holy See. If a charismatic or, say, and Eastern Church did what Lefebvre did you’d be demanding excommunications until the cows came home. But because you admire him and have the same beliefs, he’s a hero.

You called the movement I belong to as heretical. How can I not take that to mean that I’m a heretic?

I don’t see others doing things like this. I see some fellows engaging in dialogue and people trying to learn more. But all I’m seeing from you is what amounts to a heart of stone.

It seems to me they are well versed in Catholic theology. They presented items from Sacred Scripture, Council documents, Church Fathers, examples, writings and documents from people, the opinions of a few Popes, and other such things.

Really? They presented private interpretations of scripture, council documents that do not even speak of the charasmatic gifts, church fathers which say nothing more than the charasmatic gifts exist, the speeches of a the last 3 popes and thats it. None of which consists of authority.

As for a heart of stone, No, I deal in cold hard facts, none of which people supporting the movement have been able to address and none of which they’ve been able to present to support the movement.

I used lefebvre as an example of a ‘traditionalist’ I did not ask or give a character judgement why you felt the need to do so is beyond me Only an idiot would claim he wasnt a traditionalist, you can criticise his actions but his beliefs were traditionalist and that is what i’m referring to.

My claims have not been met head on, for the most part clear authority has been ignored or met with opinion, facts have been ignored or twisted beyond anything a reasonable person could do and no authority has been presented.

 

[AntiqueCatholic]

‘The Holy Spirit’ is a tabula rasa on which you can write just about anything and say it’s the work of God. That’s a big claim: ‘God make me speak gibberish’. ‘God made me faint/swoon/die in the Spirit(?)’, ‘God moved me to babble at Mass’.

When someone makes claims like that they have to be tested. Even writing them like that, they look daft. I don’t think these phenomena should be sought in themselves. That’s a fairly basic spiritual trap. And the fact that these effects are trivial is a giveaway.

 

[vardaquinn]

This is all getting very long to read and most is extremely repetitive… I have seen very few posts on here that demonstrate any accurate understanding of what the movement is, and so consequently most of the argument are straw mans… All the same, great posts guanaphore and ClayPots and others.

On the subject of disagreeing with the Pope’s speeches, I once again want to point out how you are diverting from actually addressing what they are saying.

The Church is already united, indeed it cannot lose its unity, it is called The Catholic church, young children properly catechized know of this, how you are therefore ignorant of it I don’t know

If the Church is united then why are there 40,000 + other Christian denominations and a heck of a lot of disunity even among the Catholics (as evidenced by this thread alone)?

‘It depends on the literature’ no you don’t get spiritual gifts out of reading protestant literature and you are certainly not inspired to start a movement by them.

Are you aware of what a “straw man” argument is? Nobody is saying you get spiritual gifts out of a book written by anyone (unless you want to argue that you can get them out of Scripture). You know, nobody sat down and said “Hey, we’re reading these books by Protestants, let’s start a movement based off of their heretical viewpoints!” Nobody even sat down and said “let’s start a movement!”. It really just happened. Just because it is written by a Protestant doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessarily heresy. That’s ridiculous. Use your head.

I’m happy to see you read that article from the Catholic Encyclopedia! That’s good information you posted. And I don’t disagree with it.

1)Healing services are presumptous
2)It shows a lack of that heroic humulity demonstrated by thoe miracalous healers you speak of

Alright, just off the top of my head, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was passing through a village which was being ravaged by either a plague or disease. He blessed some bread, and gave it to the bishop saying “Everyone who eats the bread will be healed of the sickness” and the bishop was horribly uncomfortable and said “Well, surely if they have the right faith…” and St. Bernard said no, just give them the bread. And what he said would happen, happened. A whole lot of saints went around healing the sick, sometimes gathering them together or more likely going to places where the sick were.

I am boggled why you have a problem with getting sick people together and praying for physical and spiritual healing. What is wrong with that?

This is a lie, a lie you keep repeating so you cannot claim to be in good fath as I have refuted it numerous times.

sigh Now you’re just being childish.

Not really if people are speaking gibberish, then there are not using the gift of tongues but something utterly unknown, who can say whether it comes from God?

The person, a competent spiritual director, someone with a gift of discerment, someone who knows the actual language…

This is the error of ‘Private interpretation’, they followed what they believed was in scripture after reading protestant literature on the subject, praying with protestants and being lectured by protestants.

And were their conclusions wrong? Were they contrary to Church teaching? No. So what’s the problem?

 

[vardaquinn]

Its really quite sad that charasmatics have to resort to this kind of nonsense in order to prove their point.

Nothing I’ve said has been refuted, sorry, its either been ignored, claimed as not applicable or insulted. Thats not dealt with, thats brushing it under the carpet.

He’s a neo-conservative not a traditionalist, someone like Lefebvre was a traditionalist or Castro de Mayer, benedict XVI can in no way said to be a traditionalist as one can see from reading his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger.

And no I didn’t call you heretics, I put 2 people on the ignore list because of their inability to accept facts, argue properly and a total lack of knowledge of catholic theology.

If this is all you can do, when we’ve refuted what you’ve said, simply resort to saying “Everybody is just ignoring what I’m saying…”

 

[jmj1984]

This is all getting very long to read and most is extremely repetitive… I have seen very few posts on here that demonstrate any accurate understanding of what the movement is, and so consequently most of the argument are straw mans… All the same, great posts guanaphore and ClayPots and others.

On the subject of disagreeing with the Pope’s speeches, I once again want to point out how you are diverting from actually addressing what they are saying.

If the Church is united then why are there 40,000 + other Christian denominations and a heck of a lot of disunity even among the Catholics (as evidenced by this thread alone)?

Are you aware of what a “straw man” argument is? Nobody is saying you get spiritual gifts out of a book written by anyone (unless you want to argue that you can get them out of Scripture). You know, nobody sat down and said “Hey, we’re reading these books by Protestants, let’s start a movement based off of their heretical viewpoints!” Nobody even sat down and said “let’s start a movement!”. It really just happened. Just because it is written by a Protestant doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessarily heresy. That’s ridiculous. Use your head.

I’m happy to see you read that article from the Catholic Encyclopedia! That’s good information you posted. And I don’t disagree with it.

Alright, just off the top of my head, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was passing through a village which was being ravaged by either a plague or disease. He blessed some bread, and gave it to the bishop saying “Everyone who eats the bread will be healed of the sickness” and the bishop was horribly uncomfortable and said “Well, surely if they have the right faith…” and St. Bernard said no, just give them the bread. And what he said would happen, happened. A whole lot of saints went around healing the sick, sometimes gathering them together or more likely going to places where the sick were.

I am boggled why you have a problem with getting sick people together and praying for physical and spiritual healing. What is wrong with that?

sigh Now you’re just being childish.

The person, a competent spiritual director, someone with a gift of discerment, someone who knows the actual language…

And were their conclusions wrong? Were they contrary to Church teaching? No. So what’s the problem?

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks its getting repetetive, I hardly think pointing out the truth is childish. Calumny is a serious sin and to repeatedly state that someone else believes something which they have said they do not and shown they do not is calumny plain and simple.

As for using my head I am, I have yet to see your refute anything I have said about the movement. It was born in an non-catholic retreat at a non-catholics house amongst catholics who read protestant literature to inspire themselves for the retreat and prayed with and were prayed over by non-catholics. That all comes from the eyewitness accounts. The later retreat likewise had a protestant preacher and the eyewitness clearly ascribes to herself a desire to have the gifts of the protestant and a complete approval of what they are saying. Further the books they read display striking paralells to the charasmatic movement itself and the ‘gifts’ they claimed to receive, to state that these books had no influence on them is therefore incredibly ignorant.

The church is united, these other sects and churches are not part of The One True Church of christ, the Catholic Church is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church of christ and has unity as something she can never lose. This can be read in any number of ecumenical councils or thelogians or catechisms. Your questioning of a fact that even a catholic child should know therefor demonstrates a complete ignorance of the most basic tent of The Catholic Faith.

St Bernard healed a town of a plague, are you honestly going to sit there and tell me thats the same as people putting up posters and advertising healing services where everything from minor to major injuries get healed? It is self-evidently not and to claim it is, is an absurdity.

Clearly I believe their conclusions were wrong and contrary to church teaching or I wouldnt be contesting them, would I?

 

[jmj1984]

If this is all you can do, when we’ve refuted what you’ve said, simply resort to saying “Everybody is just ignoring what I’m saying…”

Actually that isn’t what I said, the very fact you believe you’ve refuted anything is proof of your utter and total inability to deal with or in facts.
You have not refuted a single quote I’ve provided, you have attempted and failed miserable to belittle the doctors of the church and saints and theologians I’ve quoted and then answered it with papal speeches. Thats not refuting, thats desperately clutching at straws.

As for ignoring no, its worse than ignoring, its a plain and simple inability to deal with reality or truths.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks its getting repetetive, I hardly think pointing out the truth is childish. Calumny is a serious sin and to repeatedly state that someone else believes something which they have said they do not and shown they do not is calumny plain and simple.

As for using my head I am, I have yet to see your refute anything I have said about the movement. It was born in an non-catholic retreat at a non-catholics house amongst catholics who read protestant literature to inspire themselves for the retreat and prayed with and were prayed over by non-catholics. That all comes from the eyewitness accounts. The later retreat likewise had a protestant preacher and the eyewitness clearly ascribes to herself a desire to have the gifts of the protestant and a complete approval of what they are saying. Further the books they read display striking paralells to the charasmatic movement itself and the ‘gifts’ they claimed to receive, to state that these books had no influence on them is therefore incredibly ignorant.

The church is united, these other sects and churches are not part of The One True Church of christ, the Catholic Church is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church of christ and has unity as something she can never lose. This can be read in any number of ecumenical councils or thelogians or catechisms. Your questioning of a fact that even a catholic child should know therefor demonstrates a complete ignorance of the most basic tent of The Catholic Faith.

St Bernard healed a town of a plague, are you honestly going to sit there and tell me thats the same as people putting up posters and advertising healing services where everything from minor to major injuries get healed? It is self-evidently not and to claim it is, is an absurdity.

Clearly I believe their conclusions were wrong and contrary to church teaching or I wouldnt be contesting them, would I?

You completely bypassed all of the guy’s points to talk about calumny. I’m also assuming that since you don’t like the healing things having posters that you are opposed to parish bulletins, Churches putting ads in the yellow pages and other such things.

It’s pretty rich for someone who advocates for an excommunicated Bishop (and if I’m mistaken, I read on another post of yours that you visit a SSPX chapel) to be talking about “Church unity”.

As an FYI; repeatedly calling people childish, idiots, and heretics won’t win them over to your side, and actually damages how people consider taking what you have to say.

 

[FAB]

There has been COUNTLESS amounts of information posting from several people containing several sources. Everything from the Bible to Vatican II documents. Extensive posting from several people who have given a lot of information. Early Church Fathers for example, have been referenced speaking about the charisms. Personally, I have referenced on a few occasions that there has been an entire Society of Apostolic Life which has this movement as a crucial portion, and if Rome disagreed with this movement so they would not have went a head with it. They would have exercised caution, they would have brought up some red flags.

But they didn’t. The Companions of the Cross, a charismatic Society of Apostolic Life, was given the full blessing to become what they are today.

But those things don’t matter, do they? That whole groups are being formed based around these charisms? That Steubinville continues to be wildly successful? That our very traditionalist Pope endorses the charismatic renewal?

No, it doesn’t matter I guess. Instead it’s easier to accuse others of “ad-homineneseddesswhatever” and say “I’ve given all the proof in the world!” and ignore what others have posted (literally, since you’ve publicly stated that you were ignoring people).

Yet others have said other eye witnesses have said otherwise, so who do we trust?

It’s not the charisms that I particular have a disagreement with, it is how the movement claims that one gets them, “baptism in the Spirit” as though that is some kind of straight line to heaven. I have a number of gifts from the Spirit or charisms, but my realaztion of them came through discernment and prayer, not a zap form the heavens. Despite what Chrismatic believe, prayer and dicernment is the way they are realizing their charisms and if they stopped being “baptism in the Spirit” would not them anyone from realizing their gifts.

 

[jmj1984]

You completely bypassed all of the guy’s points to talk about calumny. I’m also assuming that since you don’t like the healing things having posters that you are opposed to parish bulletins, Churches putting ads in the yellow pages and other such things.

It’s pretty rich for someone who advocates for an excommunicated Bishop (and if I’m mistaken, I read on another post of yours that you visit a SSPX chapel) to be talking about “Church unity”.

As an FYI; repeatedly calling people childish, idiots, and heretics won’t win them over to your side, and actually damages how people consider taking what you have to say.

I actually did address the persons points

As for not advocating for church bulletins, well, clearly this discussion is a little too complicated for you if you have to resort to saying such absurdities.

And lastly, repeatedly ignoring the facts, accusing the other person of not accepting scripture, VII and tradition is authority is not going to win anyone either.

Have you got anything useful to contribute or are you just going to post more inane criticisms?

 

[vardaquinn]

It’s not the charisms that I particular have a disagreement with, it is how the movement claims that one gets them, “baptism in the Spirit” as though that is some kind of straight line to heaven. I have a number of gifts from the Spirit or charisms, but my realaztion of them came through discernment and prayer, not a zap form the heavens. Despite what Chrismatic believe, prayer and dicernment is the way they are realizing their charisms and if they stopped being “baptism in the Spirit” would not them anyone from realizing their gifts.

Charismatics get their charisms through prayer and discernment too…

Yet ANOTHER straw man. Hardly any of the objectors have any idea what the charismatic movement even is or what it believes. I guess that’s partially the fault of charismatics themselves. sigh

 

[jmj1984]

Charismatics get their charisms through prayer and discernment too…

Yet ANOTHER straw man. Hardly any of the objectors have any idea what the charismatic movement even is or what it believes. I guess that’s partially the fault of charismatics themselves. sigh

Oh please, even JW’s arent this bad

 

[FAB]

Charismatics get their charisms through prayer and discernment too…

Yet ANOTHER straw man. Hardly any of the objectors have any idea what the charismatic movement even is or what it believes. I guess that’s partially the fault of charismatics themselves. sigh

I have attended the retreat were “baptism in the Spirit” was done. It was laying on hands and annoiting with oil and calling the Spirit down so I could get my charism, at that moment, no discernment. To those who did get the gifts, tongue healing, prophacy, it was indicated that, oh you will get yours latter. There not way to gage later.

It’s not a straw man, it is a real issue of misdirecting people. Many who were at this retreat were there in the center for the first time, without understanding of the Church’s teaching. In the long run it can do more harm than good.

 

[vardaquinn]

Alright. Listen up. Couple things you don’t get.

1. Several individuals experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit at the home of a charismatic Protestant. Before you jump on me, baptism in the Holy Spirit is not a second baptism, it is simply an experience of Pentecost and the renewed awareness of the grace of baptism and confirmation, and a point of conversion. The movement itself was not born until the retreat, which was later. This was a Catholic retreat at a Catholic university.
2. Yes, the early leaders in the movement were inspired by reading books by Protestants, notably the Cross and the Switchblade which is the inspiring story of a Protestant minister who worked with gangs in New York, and which demonstrates that the stuff in Acts of Apostles still happens today. That idea we’ve shown is supported and taught by the Church.
3. The movement is obviously the fruit of the Pope’s prayer for a new Pentecost.
4. Yes, there is a lack of a lot of information on this subject, because it’s almost been entirely ignored (for whatever reason, I have written many long examinations of the historical reasons for this on this and other threads, which I do not feel like typing up again). It would be nice if the Pope could come out with more instruction, perhaps he will.
5. I can’t for the life of me understand why you anyone has a problem with healing services. I don’t care if nobody has done that before (which I doubt). They should have! It’s a great idea! Get sick people (emotionally, spiritually and physically) together, and pray with them for spiritual and physical healing! Newsflash: God likes healing the sick! Read the Gospels.
6. I can understand many of the hang ups on the subject of speaking in tongues, since most of the Church even forgot that that’s something that can actually happen. But think about it seriously: why wouldn’t you want that? I do NOT understand the criticisms that deal with “what’s the point if you don’t understand what you’re saying” when they come from traditionalists (who like Latin, yes?). In the words of St. Catherine of Siena (who is my absolute favorite saint): “We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues!” Sing a new song to the Lord! Pray in the Holy Spirit, in words spoken by the Spirit. I need all the help I can get. I need every single gift I can get. It is just pure senselessness to say no to a gift like tongues. Read Acts 2 and think long and hard about your decision that you don’t want the gift of tongues, especially in the light of the fact that the Blessed Mother herself likely had tongues.

I would like you all to pray this prayer with the Church supplies for the liturgy for Pentecost (at least the Liturgy of the Hours, I think it is also an alternate prayer for the Mass). Please, stop for a moment, put yourself in the presence of God, and humbly say to God the Father:

Father of light,
from whom every good gift comes,
send your Spirit into our lives
with the power of a mighty wind,
and by the flame of your wisdom
open the horizons of our minds.
Loosen our tongues to sing your praise
in words beyond the power of speech,
for without your spirit man could never
raise his voice in words of peace
or announce the truth that Jesus is Lord,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, forever and ever.
– Amen.

1. Show me where it says in anything from the Church to turn away from the charisms. Before you criticize charismatics for acting contrary to the teaching of the Church, stop for a moment and consider yourself: aren’t YOU acting contrary to the teaching of the Church, by turning away from charismatic gifts, by “being in control” of what gifts God gives you and doesn’t give you? Where is there ANY backup for that from ANY official source? I defy you to find anything from the Church that says: Say no to the charisms, close yourself off to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, those gifts which are primarily meant to be of service to the Church. Read what Scripture says on it. Read the Acts of the Apostles. Read how God the Holy Spirit moves in His Church. You have access to just as much grace as the Apostles did. God does not play favorites. “For God has no favorites.” (Col 3:25).
2. Read the Popes’ opinions. Read what they think about it. Be honest. Don’t just say “well they’re not speaking with authority”. Whatever. Read what they say. Are they just deluded? Why are they wrong? Think twice before you openly contradict the opinions of three Popes.
3. I would also think twice before criticizing any group who is centered on trying to be open to the working of God the Holy Spirit, and wants to do His will, and let Him get to work. We give the Holy Spirit far too little room to work with. He’s a gentlemen: He wants your cooperation. He stands at the door and knocks.
4. Ultimately, I don’t care at all what you think about the Charismatic Renewal. What I do care is that you get out of the way of God the Holy Spirit, and we all surrender completely and give ourselves entirely to Christ, and you open yourself to whatever gifts the Holy Spirit wants to give. I would humbly request that everyone reading this stops for a moment, and prays to Our Lord: “Lord, anything you want to give me is fine with me. I just need more, more of you.”

In the words of Bl. John Paul the Great: **Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St Peter’s Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church. **vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980530_riflessioni_en.html

 

[Warrenton]

I appreciate your participation. It is worth the wait.

 

[Melchior_1]

It’s really an interesting question, because both Traditionalists and Charismatics are seeking something more than what is commonly offered in the vast bulk of the world’s parishes.

This is a very astute point Warrenton, one that we could perhaps focus on a bit. It brings to mind that there are several spiritualities within the Church (Dominican, Franciscan, Trapist, misc etc), so perhaps this is something similar.

I have witnessed that the more “alive” parishes in my area are either run by the Companions, with one FSSP parish being very active as well.

 

[vardaquinn]

It’s really an interesting question, because both Traditionalists and Charismatics are seeking something more than what is commonly offered in the vast bulk of the world’s parishes.

Indeed! Very good point. Perhaps we should define some things. What are charismatics, what are traditionalists? Especially the latter?

Because, personally, I consider myself to be both. I don’t think they should be at odds at all, though I can see how they would be.

@ Melchior: No, I don’t think this is like a difference in spiritualities. I think aspects of that might be part of this, but ultimately I don’t think that’s the root of the issue here. Bl. John Paul the Great called the charismatic dimension essential to the nature of the Church. And I think many aspects of “traditionalism” are also very important, if not essential. Perhaps we may call it “The Philosophy of More-ness”. :XD: The bare minimum is not enough - we need, and we want, MORE!!