Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[guanophore]

I don’t understand this post.

It is especially confusing because you did not operate the quote feature correctly. Most of the post appears to attribute statements to me that were made by another poster. I would appreciate if you could master this skill so that I would not be misrepresented in this way.

 

[rugger4christ]

It is especially confusing because you did not operate the quote feature correctly. Most of the post appears to attribute statements to me that were made by another poster. I would appreciate if you could master this skill so that I would not be misrepresented in this way.

Umm I think I had fixed it before you made this post.

 

[guanophore]

Umm I think I had fixed it before you made this post.

Thanks.

 

[Derek_Ellery]

Something that Gregory I could have also said:
Many key leaders of the SSPX have their origins in disobedience to the church.

See how easy this game is?

Also, if we accept converts without a need to re-baptize them, then obviously the Holy Spirit is outside the Church in some forms.

Patently idiotic. The SSPX never disobeyed The Church, they obediently disobey the modernists that wish to suppress Catholic Tradition. It’s no different from the new order Bishop’s trend of disobeying the Pope whenever he doesn’t agree with their modernist novelties, except that when the SSPX does it’s in faithful obedience to The Church’s immutable teaching. Yourself, by claiming that the Holy Spirit is active in man-made religions is promoting heresy, holding on to this believe puts you in direct disobedience to The Church. Get properly Catechized before you make accusations, hypocrite.

 

[guanophore]

Patently idiotic. The SSPX never disobeyed The Church, they obediently disobey the modernists that wish to suppress Catholic Tradition. It’s no different from the new order Bishop’s trend of disobeying the Pope whenever he doesn’t agree with their modernist novelties, except that when the SSPX does it’s in faithful obedience to The Church’s immutable teaching. Yourself, by claiming that the Holy Spirit is active in man-made religions is promoting heresy, holding on to this believe puts you in direct disobedience to The Church. Get properly Catechized before you make accusations, hypocrite.

Wow, must have hit a nerve there! Perhaps you are SSPX, or sympathetic, so you are up in arms over the idea that they are disobedient?

If you are so inclined then you probably also reject the Catechism this is currently lauded by the Holy Father as a “true norm” for the teaching of the faith?

You commanded (rather rudely I note) that one be “properly catechized”, so I am going to post what the Catechism teaches on this point, even though you may reject it.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[Derek_Ellery]

You commanded (rather rudely I note) that one be “properly catechized”, so I am going to post what the Catechism teaches on this point, even though you may reject it.

It’s not a matter or rejecting Conciliar teaching, but accepting infallible Church dogma…

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: ‘Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”[4]

Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.”

Disobey the Holy Catholic Church through obedience to the modernist heresy that was condemned by St Pius X at your own peril.

 

[Warrenton]

The fact that you do not know about it does not mean it did not exist. While I will concede that it was not commonplace, clearly the writings of the saints and the history of the Church make it plain that these gifts have always resided in the Church.

True, but I am not sure that the history makes it “clear” that modern speaking in toungues existed before the modern era.

I am not at all convinced that what occurs today is the same thing as referenced in the Acts, or the Epistles, or in the Gospel accounts of Pentacost.

I don’t know of any saint who engaged in the practice, but of course there are thousands of them, so I am open to any reference on that point.

Let me add, however, that I do not consider the antiquity vel non of the practice to be dispositive of the question of whether it is “catholic.” It could be thirty years old, and valid. It could be 1,000 years old, and invalid (though that is less likely).

Why would having a different spiritual practice cause a “rift” between faithful Catholics? Do Dominicans think that Benedictines are “deficient catholics”?

For the same reason that having a different understanding of justification caused a rift between Catholics 500 years ago.

People take ritual and interpretation of how grace is dispensed very seriously - and rightly so. The reason that they do is that Catholics, almost alone of the world’s many people, really believe in free will. Most of the rest believe in fate, to a greater or lesser extent. Anything that tends to increase the role of fate, as opposed to free will, tends to be questioned by Catholics. If Catholics perceive that charismatic activity is a kind of ineffable magic that covers someone for reasons unknown and unknowable, it is liable to strike them as an expression of predestination in the Calvinist vein. As we know, old fashioned devotionals could also degrade into a similar kind of fetishism, and they were censured. But that could explain the rift.

Mind, I am not saying this occurs generally among modern Charismatic Catholics, just explaining the concerns.

The better analogy between Charismatic practice and older Catholic forms would be to the medieval flagellants - the extreme penitents. Most people did not practice that. The Church did not say it was bad or perverse in itself, and considering the violence of the plague, I personally think many flagellants were probably saved by the practice - since they had not long to live anyway. But the practice lent itself to certain abuses, or misinterpretations, and the perceived setting apart of some Catholics from others.

I am confused about this. Where in Catholic Teaching is it ever forwarded that a person who is called and gifted still not end up in hell?

I was probably unclear. I was attempting to illustrate the conundrum caused by two strands of thinking: one one hand, if the Holy Ghost operates through non-Catholics, then it follows that non-Catholics can be saved. But if non-Catholics can be saved, and if one need not be a Catholic to receive the Holy Ghost, how can we maintain the necessity of being formally Catholic? The best we can say is that it might be preferable to be a Catholic, in the same way it is preferable to attend mass daily. Lumen Gentium (to me) raises more questions than it answers, and the CCC is not much more help than L.G. I leave the conundrum where I find it, and presume insufficient revelation or understanding at present, after St. Thomas Aquinas.

To your last questions, I’ll try to answer with a general statement. First, I am a big tent Catholic. Bring 'em all in, I say. At the same time, I tend to shy away from most practices that post date 1880. For example, I don’t like frequent communion by lay people. Charismatic practices strike me as quite novel, and I do not attend them or attempt to replicate them. But neither do I wish the authorities to forbid them. The memory of being an outlaw in the Church is still raw, and I don’t wish it on anyone.

If Charismatic practices helps some people grow in the service of the Lord, have at it.

 

[Warrenton]

Yes, I can follow that. I can see that their perception is incorrect. Anyway, there is no such thing as a “Charismatic theory”, so that in itself is a vain imagination.

I see what you mean - I did not use “theory” in the sense of “hypothetical” or “merely possible.”

“Conception” might be have been a better way of putting it. People who practice Charismatic activity have an understanding of what it means, why it happens, and what it achieves. I guess we could call it “belief” but sometimes that word is used when we don’t want to credit the holder of the belief with factual accuracy, and I did not want to imply that.

We could also substitute “theory” with “charismatic devotion.”

Cheers!

 

[guanophore]

True, but I am not sure that the history makes it “clear” that modern speaking in toungues existed before the modern era.

I am not at all convinced that what occurs today is the same thing as referenced in the Acts, or the Epistles, or in the Gospel accounts of Pentacost.

Indeed, I think we can conclude that abuse of the gifts has occurred since the inception of the Church. Given observations of present day phenomena, we can also surmise that the gifts were not encouraged so that abuses could be avoided.

At the present time I am examining mystics,and I must confess, the language used makes it difficult to discern. St. Teresa of Avila writes about “ecstasies” and “favors” as well as “locutions”. She strongly urges that, though she affirms these phenomena, as well as “visions” are from God, they are not to be sought.

I don’t know of any saint who engaged in the practice, but of course there are thousands of them, so I am open to any reference on that point.

AT this point I am finding most of the references in the writings if the mystics, particularly contempletives.

Let me add, however, that I do not consider the antiquity vel non of the practice to be dispositive of the question of whether it is “catholic.” It could be thirty years old, and valid. It could be 1,000 years old, and invalid (though that is less likely).

Do you espouse the Protestant Dispensationalist view that the gifts recorded in the NT died out with the Apostles?

For the same reason that having a different understanding of justification caused a rift between Catholics 500 years ago.

Which Catholics were those?

If Catholics perceive that charismatic activity is a kind of ineffable magic that covers someone for reasons unknown and unknowable, it is liable to strike them as an expression of predestination in the Calvinist vein.

I agree. What puzzles me is why that would be believed by a Catholic. Such a significant portion of Apostolic Teaching has to be set aside, it just seems like the last thing a Traditional Catholic would do.

 

[guanophore]

The better analogy between Charismatic practice and older Catholic forms would be to the medieval flagellants - the extreme penitents. Most people did not practice that.

Can any of those extreme penitential activities be substantiated with Scripture and Church TEaching? I don’t find that at all. On the contrary, I think it reflects abuses of excess. None of the Fathers or the Doctors of the Church support such behavior.

The Church did not say it was bad or perverse in itself, and considering the violence of the plague, I personally think many flagellants were probably saved by the practice - since they had not long to live anyway. But the practice lent itself to certain abuses, or misinterpretations, and the perceived setting apart of some Catholics from others.

Yes, abuses have that effect.

I was probably unclear. I was attempting to illustrate the conundrum caused by two strands of thinking: one one hand, if the Holy Ghost operates through non-Catholics, then it follows that non-Catholics can be saved. But if non-Catholics can be saved, and if one need not be a Catholic to receive the Holy Ghost, how can we maintain the necessity of being formally Catholic?

How do you NOT maintain it, would seem a better question. If a person has only part of the Revelation is not the Church obligated to ameliorate such a deficiency?

Protestants stand in the tradition of Apollos in the NT. What did the Apostles do? There are examples of what was done with those who were only partially united in faith.

Acts 8:14-17

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

They didn’t just separate themselves from the Samaritans because they were deficient.

Acts 19:1-7

19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all.

These disciples may not even have known what they were missing!

Acts 18:24-27

24 Now a Jew named Apol’los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq’uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately. 2

Those that are like Apollos, who are fervent in faith, but lacking in accuracy, need to be taken aside and taught more accurately.

If Charismatic practices helps some people grow in the service of the Lord, have at it.

I think this is a mature attitude. There are some spiritual practices that dont commend themselves to me, but I know they work for others and any devotions that help one to more effectively know and serve God are to be encouraged.

 

[Simpleton]

I’m interested to see any historical evidence for the method of worship used by the Charismatic Renewal. I think it would help calm a lot of people down who are opposed to it. Like is there artwork depicting people convulsing during a Church service because they were fille with the holy spirit somewhere in ancient texts or in any Catholic literature regarding the Mass before 1967? Have any of the Popes worshipped in this method at all in the history of the Catholic Church?

 

[TrueLight]

Acts 19:1-7

19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all.

These disciples may not even have known what they were missing!

Except that we weren’t baptized into John’s baptism.

What bothers me about the charismatic movement is that it seems to suggest that millions of Catholics did not really receive the Holy spirit or as you said somewhere else, they were not taught how to “unwrap” it.

So Guanaphore, we do receive the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean it has to be in the form of speaking in tongues or dancing in the spirit or in any other pentecostal expression.

 

[Warrenton]

How do you NOT maintain it, would seem a better question. If a person has only part of the Revelation is not the Church obligated to ameliorate such a deficiency?

I’m having trouble expressing what I am thinking. What I am getting at is the concept of necessity: if a non-Catholic receives the Holy Ghost, then it follows that the person can be saved. If the non-Catholic can be saved, then a person does not need to be Catholic in order to be saved. If this is the case, then being Catholic is not “necessary” stricltly speaking.

This is distinct from the obligation of the Church to teach. I mean, it could be possible for a non-Catholic to be saved, and it could be possible for the Church to have an obligation to teach, right?

Like I said, I do not attempt to answer these questions, and they are tangential to the OP’s post. I brought it up only to suggest a line departure with traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics.

 

[Warrenton]

I’m interested to see any historical evidence for the method of worship used by the Charismatic Renewal.

My guess is there is not going to be much concrete evidence. I think Guanaphone may be on to something when he/she suggests that we look to late medieval or renaissance saints. There were practices then that were very different, if not bizarre, to the modern way of thinking. I am open to the suggestion that ululating, or glossolalia, may have been among them. This would not mean, however, that I would agree that a medieval antecedent was somehow preserved among some Protestant sect, only to re-join maintstream Catholic devotional life after some centuries.

After Vatican 2, however, I am not certain it really matters. If we agree that things, including rites and sacraments, can be consciously changed, then there is not much basis to forbid new rituals or practices, provided they are not heretical.

I believe that the best course is for the magesterium is to permit charismatic action. This should be coupled with assurances to traditional Catholics that their ability to worship under the old forms will be respected. In such a way, the Church can build amity between her different flocks. If I look at a Charismatic Catholic, and perceive him as a brother whose liberty reinforces and protects, my own, that is catholicism writ large. I am optimistic that we can do this.

Moreover, we should. If, for example, the Church extinguished Charismatic expression by fiat right now, we would lose at least half of the Mexican and Central American Catholics in the Washington, DC area. That would be a total waste, on the order of the waste that happened when countless traditional Catholics just left the Church after the suppression of the old rites. The Church has existed in periods were the faithful were free to exercise their faith in ways that were quite heterodox. Think of the diversity in the Church circa 600 - just before the Arab onslaught. We can afford to go back down that path a bit.

 

[vardaquinn]

So I see some questions about historical evidence.

Warrenton, who I must commend for having very clear and articulate post asked:

I don’t know of any saint who engaged in the practice, but of course there are thousands of them, so I am open to any reference on that point.

Well, first off ‘the modern version of speaking in tongues’ is actually very Biblical. If you read the many instances in Acts (for instance, when Paul goes to Ephesus) when people receive the Holy Spirit it says the “began to proclaim in tongues” or something along those lines. What has been the common understanding of tongues is that it was the ability to preach in a language one had never studied before. Well, it seems unlikely that these people are preaching anything - Paul just asked “have you received the Holy Spirit”, they say “we didn’t even know there was a Holy Spirit” (unless I’m mixing up stories, I stand corrected if I am - don’t have a Bible near me to check) and then when Paul lays hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit, they start proclaiming in tongues. They’re obviously not instructing or preaching, and no interpretation is given.

What Paul outlines in 1 Corinthinas 14 about tongues, specifically praying in a tongues, is an accurate description of what takes place when someone prays in tongues. I myself have this gift.

And actually what happens at Pentecost seems to describe this. The Apostles and Mary start speaking in tongues before they even leave the room. Who are the preaching to yet? In fact, the line says that the people gathered heard the Apostles “extolling God” in their own languages. It seems to me that what is happening here is the disciples praying in tongues, not necessarily knowing what they are saying, but that the languages they are speaking are the languages of the people gathered there. THEN Peter starts preaching. And the people there would have already shared at least one or two common languages.

Many saints throughout time though have had this gift. St. Francis of Assisi is reported to have had it, in this form. Many more had it for the use of preaching - St. Dominic, St. Vincent Ferrar… etc.

St. Teresa of Avila had this gift:

In the midst of these experiences that are both painful and delightful together, our Lord sometimes gives the soul feelings of jubilation and a strange prayer it doesn’t understand… What I am saying seems like gibberish, but certainly the experience takes place in this way, for the joy is so excessive the soul wouldn’t want to enjoy it alone but wants to tell everyone about it so that they might help this soul praise our Lord. All its activity is directed to this praise. Oh, how many festivals and demonstrations the soul would organize if it could that all might know its joy!.. The devil cannot give this experience, because there is so much interior joy in the very intimate part of the soul and so much peace; and all the happiness stirs the soul to praise of the Lord. (from Interior Castle)

I have heard mention that St. John of the Cross did as well, and would certainly not be surprised, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that.

Hildegard Von Bingen had it…

Actually, St. Patrick had a dream in which he was speaking in tongues: “And another night– God knows, I do not, whether within me or beside me– most words which I heard and could not understand, except at the end of the speech it was represented thus: ‘He who gave his life for you, he it is who speaks within you.’ And thus I awoke, joyful.”

Bl. Pope John Paul II definitely had both forms of speaking in tongues.

I am sure there are many more saints who had this, if judging by what they say about it is any evidence (especially earlier saints and church fathers), and certainly every saint exercised the charisms. I am willing to bet a lot of money that you yourself have used the charisms before. Ever been in a debate about the faith, while trying to evangelize to someone, and being able to really clearly say something and be very surprised at it? And kind of step back for a minute like “That was really good…”. Good evidence for the use of one of the word gifts, particularly the word of wisdom. I am sure that there have been times when the Holy Spirit has popped the words right into your mouth. Most priests and spiritual directors I am sure use the charism of discernment of spirits on a regular basis, even if they don’t know what that is. The charisms are still used by the faithful, even if they are totally oblivious as to what they are called.

 

[vardaquinn]

Moreover, we should. If, for example, the Church extinguished Charismatic expression by fiat right now, we would lose at least half of the Mexican and Central American Catholics in the Washington, DC area. That would be a total waste, on the order of the waste that happened when countless traditional Catholics just left the Church after the suppression of the old rites. The Church has existed in periods were the faithful were free to exercise their faith in ways that were quite heterodox. Think of the diversity in the Church circa 600 - just before the Arab onslaught. We can afford to go back down that path a bit.

And it would also fly in the face of what the Church has actually said about the charismatic movement. It would be a total contradiction. I think it’s the other way around, actually.

 

[vardaquinn]

. . . for which cause also his [Christ’s] true disciples having received grace
from him use it in his name for the benefit of the rest of men, even as
each has received the gift from him. For some drive out demons with
certainty and truth, so that often those who have themselves been
cleansed from the evil spirits believe and are in the church, and some
have foreknowledge of things to be, and visions and prophetic speech,
and others cure the sick by the laying on of hands and make them whole
and even as we have said, the dead have been raised and remained with
us for many years. And why should I say more? It is not possible to tell
the number of the gifts which the church throughout the whole world,
having received them from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was
crucified under Pontius Pilate, uses each day for the benefit of the
heathen, deceiving none and making profit from none. For as it received
freely from God, it ministers also freely.

Just as also we hear many brethren in the church who have gifts of
prophecy, and who speak through the Spirit with all manner of tongues,
and who bring the hidden things of men into the clearness for the
common good and expound the mysteries of God. - St. Ireneus

“If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” - Justin Martyr

Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of interpretation, that thou
mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in
a tongue,” saith he, “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou
how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is
such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For
if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not
understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there
were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed,
and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their
understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, “but my
understanding is unfruitful.”
What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one
to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with
the understanding.” Wherefore also he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray
with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the
understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may
speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken. - St. John Chrysostom

 

[guanophore]

  I’m interested to see any historical evidence for the method of worship used by the Charismatic Renewal.

What “method of worship” are you talking about?

All the Charismatic Catholics I know worship at the Mass.

 I think it would help calm a lot of people down who are opposed to it.

I guess you are being facetious?

 Like is there artwork depicting people convulsing during a Church service because they were fille with the holy spirit somewhere in ancient texts or in any Catholic literature regarding the Mass before 1967?

What makes you think that people convulse when they are filled with the HS? Do you think this is what happened in the Upper Room?

Have you ever observed this during Baptism or when converts are received into the Church through RCIA?

 Have any of the Popes worshipped in this method at all in the history of the Catholic Church?

Perhaps you are confused, and think that “convulsing” is a method of worship?

I think it is clear from the Scriptures that these “convulsions” have another origin, don’t you?

 

[guanophore]

Except that we weren't baptized into John's baptism.

The point is that they were believers, but poorly catechized. They clung fervently to the little bit of Truth they had. This is what Protestants do.

What bothers me about the charismatic movement is that it seems to suggest that millions of Catholics did not really receive the Holy spirit or as you said somewhere else, they were not taught how to "unwrap" it.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they did not unwrap the gifts they received when they received the HS in baptism.

So Guanaphore, we do receive the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t mean it has to be in the form of speaking in tongues or dancing in the spirit or in any other pentecostal expression.

Certainly not. The problem, though, is that the charismatic gifts are intended to build up the Church. One of the reasons the Church is suffering so much today, and why the pews are warmed with lukewarm “cafeteria” Catholics, is because the gifts of the Spirit are not active in our lives. The gates of hell loom large, because the Church is weak. If all faithful Catholics lived and voted their faith, our country would not be in the state it is now.

 

[TrueLight]

I think it would be more accurate to say that they did not unwrap the gifts they received when they received the HS in baptism.

I’m still not sure what you mean by this? Can you go a little more into this?