Defending the Holy Spirit, Defending the Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement

[guanophore]

I’d say the Church doesn’t have a formal way for people to exercise their ‘gifts’ because quality control is impossible, unless you appointed advanced mystics to do it.

What is a “formal way”? Are you suggesting that the gifts should be incorporated into the Divine Liturgy?

Imagine Father Psychic going along a row of applicants and saying “‘Deluded’, ‘Deluded’, ‘Deluded’, ‘Oppressed’ (see me later)’, ‘Deluded’, ‘Deluded’, ‘Aha!, you I can use…’”

Do you imagine this ritual would follow Holy Commuion,or be placed just after the Liturgy of the Word?

I guess if it occurs, it’s informal. One asks around and goes to see Fr. So-and-so, who has a touch, or Fr. Clued-in, who knows a certain lady who is a living saint.

You seem to have a very rebellious attitude toward the authroity that God has appointed over the Church.

HOLY FATHER’S SPEECH FOR THE WORLD CONGRESS OF ECCLESIAL MOVEMENTS AND NEW COMMUNITIES
8. How is it possible to safeguard and guarantee a charism’s authenticity? It is essential in this regard that every movement submit to the discernment of the competent ecclesiastical authority. For this reason no charism can dispense with reference and submission to the Pastors of the Church. The Council wrote in clear words: “Those who have charge over the Church should judge the genuiness and proper use of these gifts, through their office not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good (cf. 1 Thes 5:12; 19-21)” (Lumen gentium, n. 12). This is the necessary guarantee that you are taking the right road.

The Holy Father is quite clear about th eneed to submit these charisms to the Church.

Perhaps you feel that you have been hurt or unsupported by the lack of pastoral response to your situation?

The Holy Father has put structures into place to serve the laity in the Charismatic Renewal. The appropriate step is to contact the service committee for your region, or the NSC.

 

[guanophore]

I mean, where, in print, has the Magesterium taught that the Charismatic Renewal is an approved movement of the Holy Spirit? Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

I am sorry, Antique, I did not realize that the speeches of the Popes, the writings of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Councils and appointments were not considered part of the ordinary Magesterium of the Church. I guess you and jmj are waiting for an encyclical, and to my knowlege, this is not forthcoming.

The expressions of the Bishops of the Church, such as this one by Pope Paul give Charismatics the notion that this movement is a valid and recognized work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SanAgustin]

It also starts in the “middle” of the story really. It leaves out the Papal prayers that initiated the movement of the Spirit in a “new Pentecost”, as well as the Vatican council that clarified the role of la ministry.

I think chasing down the rabbit trail of abuses and movments not supported by the Church is not going to help (Protestant Pentecostalism). I think we can all agree that the abuse of the gifts without proper authority through the Apostolic Succession is inappropriate, and causes more problems than it solves.

You don’t think that the history of the CCR shouldn’t include at all the rise of Pentecostalism, considering it started as an american phenomena as it seems like the CCR has too?

It seems to me that his adds context to the history of the movement.

 

[vardaquinn]

You don’t think that the history of the CCR shouldn’t include at all the rise of Pentecostalism, considering it started as an american phenomena as it seems like the CCR has too?

It seems to me that his adds context to the history of the movement.

I believe it should include the rise of Protestant Pentecostalism. Definitely. The renewal of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity, an essential component of the Church, began on a large scale outside the visible structure of the Church. Far from decrying this as a sign of the sure heresy of the movement in general, I see it as a sign of immense hope, and an impetus towards Christian re-unity.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t think that the history of the CCR shouldn’t include at all the rise of Pentecostalism, considering it started as an american phenomena as it seems like the CCR has too?

It seems to me that his adds context to the history of the movement.

It is an erroneous context, though. It is like understanding the doctrine of the Trinity by studying the heresies it was developed to contradict. It is true that one can understand the need for the doctrinal development by studying Marcionism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism.

American Pentecostalism has taken a gift of the HS given to Jesus’ One Church, misused, abused, and fallen into heresies with regard to it. It has been well pointed out that good fruit does not come from a bad tree. The Charismatic Gifts are Catholic, and when they are removed from the context of the Catholic Church, and the authority appointed by Christ to guide His One Body, misifnormation and misuse abound.

The Popes and the Council prayed for a New Pentecost for the Catholic Church. These prayers are being answered through the Renewal. Looking to those who misuse the gifts of God for explanations will not be helpful.

21. The Second Vatican Council speaks of the ministries and charisms as the gifts of the Holy Spirit which are given for the building up of the Body of Christ and for its mission of salvation in the world(64). Indeed, the Church is directed and guided by the Holy Spirit, who lavishes diverse hierarchical and charismatic gifts on all the baptized, calling them to be, each in an individual way, active and coresponsible.

 

[guanophore]

I believe it should include the rise of Protestant Pentecostalism. Definitely. The renewal of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity, an essential component of the Church, began on a large scale outside the visible structure of the Church. Far from decrying this as a sign of the sure heresy of the movement in general, I see it as a sign of immense hope, and an impetus towards Christian re-unity.

There is nothing valid in Protestantism that did not first come through the Catholic Church. Of course the HS always works through these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself, but it is more a matter of working in spite of the errors.

To The International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Office Council:

By Pope John Paul II, March 14, 1992

“The emergence of the Renewal following the Second Vatican Council was a particular gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. It was a sign of a desire on the part of many Catholics to live more fully their Baptismal dignity and vocation as adopted sons and daughters of the Father, to know the redeeming power of Christ our Saviour in a more intense experience of individual and group prayer, and to follow the teaching of the Scriptures by reading them in the light of the same Spirit who inspired their writing. Certainly one of the most important results of this spiritual reawakening has been that increased thirst for holiness which is seen in the lives of individuals and in the whole Church.” Pope John Paul II

 

[vardaquinn]

There is nothing valid in Protestantism that did not first come through the Catholic Church. Of course the HS always works through these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself, but it is more a matter of working in spite of the errors.

Right. Exactly.

 

[SanAgustin]

There is nothing valid in Protestantism that did not first come through the Catholic Church. Of course the HS always works through these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself, but it is more a matter of working in spite of the errors.

But even the terminology seems directly derived from the language of Pentecostalism. We don’t really see an apostolic tradition for “holy laughter” (what just seems like the giggles), or things like “slaying in the spirit” (resting in the spirit) …

 

[SanAgustin]

BTW, guanophore, thanks for being so patient and respectful in your answers. I know they come off rather harsh, but I’m actually learning a lot from our exchanges that I hope will prove useful to my own spiritual life (like when I talk to my Catholic Charismatic friends )

Please forgive any instances where I come rather rude, you’ve been very charitable in this and I’m sure it can be somewhat frustrating.

 

[vardaquinn]

But even the terminology seems directly derived from the language of Pentecostalism. We don’t really see an apostolic tradition for “holy laughter” (what just seems like the giggles), or things like “slaying in the spirit” (resting in the spirit) …

Well, a lot of our terminology in Catholic philosophy and theology comes from the language of the Greeks, and their own philosophical traditions. Are any of the realities described using the Greek philosophical tradition any less true simply because the words come from non-Christian Greeks? No.

Holy laughter I’m dubious about, seeing as I myself can almost never control my laughter, so I’d be willing to bet many of the cases aren’t genuine. Or rather, I doubt that they’re coming directly from God, but from the person. Jesus makes me laugh all the time, without him having to give me a special grace of “holy laughter”.

Being “slain in the Spirit” definitely has roots in Apostolic tradition, though the term does not. Many many times through out Scripture we see individuals “falling prostrate”, “falling on their faces”, being overcome by the “glory of God” and falling prostrate. And we see it also in the lives of many saints. St. Catherine of Siena was slain in the Spirit almost every time she received communion, even to the point where people thought she was dead.

 

[guanophore]

But even the terminology seems directly derived from the language of Pentecostalism. We don’t really see an apostolic tradition for “holy laughter” (what just seems like the giggles), or things like “slaying in the spirit” (resting in the spirit) …

I do think that Catholics can use more appropriate terminology. Do you have any in mind?

If a person is overcome with joy in the presence of God, and starts laughing, what might that be called? St. Teresa of Avila called it the “gift of jubilation”. Perhaps that would be more appropriate?

BTW, guanophore, thanks for being so patient and respectful in your answers. I know they come off rather harsh, but I’m actually learning a lot from our exchages that I hope will prove useful to my own spiritual life (like when I talk to my Catholic Charismatic friends )

The issues you are bringing up are certainly valid, and worthy of a respectful and informative answer. The reason the Pope had to appoint a liaison for the movement is because there are so many problems that require authorative intervention.

** **Please forgive any instances where I come rather rude, you’ve been very charitable in this and I’m sure it can be somewhat frustrating.

I am much more frustrated by those that refuse to accept the reality that the “movement” despite all the problems that have arisen, has been accepted as valid by the authorities that God has placed over us to shepherd us.

 

[Mike30]

I suppose this could be said about many, if not most, lay movements in the Church.
Can you point me to the documents of the Renewal that state this? I am unable to find any support for this position in any of the papal addresses, or teachings that were approved by the Vatican.

Do we not agree that this attitude was never part of the Teaching of Vatican 2?

Blaming misunderstanding on the Council is inappropriate. People that went hog wild and got off track do not invalidate the proper instruction that came from the council

I don’t doubt that this is the reason the gifts have been marginalized.

The Church is infallible. She cannot teach error. Those who remain within her bosom can be confident they are safe from the wiles of the evil one.

Quite correct and that is the reason why throughout history lay movements have been somewhat problematic overall.

As to documents prepared by the renewal,no (I cannot point you to any. The simple fact that the initial events leading to the formation of the movement came from close association with and participating in charismatic services with protestants proves that ecumenism was indeed a big part of the early days of the movement especially when you recall that a huge number of pentecostal types came over to “assist” Catholics with attaining true charismatic spirituality in those days.

Blaming misunderstanding no. Blaming the Church leaders for allowing the experimentation and marginalization of many traditional beliefs and and permitting alternative forms of worship to infiltrate the Church?. Yes.

I wouldn’t say marginalized as they have never totally gone away. There was just never a movement that claimed to be experiencing them on a grand and apparently pridictable scale before.

While the Church is infallible in her teaching those inside the Church are not so protected and are indeed subject to temptations and the wiles of the evil one.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Many of the points brought up by those opposed to the CCR are contrary to Church teaching, and do lead to a rejection and an ignorance of an essential role the Holy Spirit plays in the Church. Nobody in this thread has claimed that those in the movement are necessarily more spiritually advanced than those who are not. This thread may have become very repetitive, and it’s original title may be simply provocative on an argument, but I would not call the majority of the posts “non-sensical”. It brings up very important discussion, on an issue there is immense confusion on.

I believe this thread is doing good, and I’m sure other participants will agree from both sides of the divide.

Vardaquin I like your style and I wouldnt call myself “charismatic per se” but I have attended gatherings and prayer and praise evenings and to hear guest speakers like Fr Raniero Cantalamessa and other notables…and I loved it. Always I come away from one of these events completely renewed and “washed” perhaps.
this thread is very good.

 

[vardaquinn]

Vardaquin I like your style and I wouldnt call myself “charismatic per se” but I have attended gatherings and prayer and praise evenings and to hear guest speakers like Fr Raniero Cantalamessa and other notables…and I loved it. Always I come away from one of these events completely renewed and “washed” perhaps.
this thread is very good.

Thanks! I wouldn’t call myself that either, in that I don’t associate with it all that frequently. I enjoy Fr. Cantalamessa, as well as many other popular speakers out there associated with the Charismatic Renewal.

 

[At_Trent]

This Charismatic “laying of the hands” is a mockery of the sacrament of Confirmation, imo and many others.

 

[guanophore]

Quite correct and that is the reason why throughout history lay movements have been somewhat problematic overall.

How so? Was the Catholic Workers Movement “problematic”? Kinghts of Columbus? Opus Dei?

As to documents prepared by the renewal,no (I cannot point you to any.

Then perhaps it might be prudent to refrain from stating that they assert things they don’t?

The simple fact that the initial events leading to the formation of the movement came from close association with and participating in charismatic services with protestants proves that ecumenism was indeed a big part of the early days of the movement especially when you recall that a huge number of pentecostal types came over to "assist" Catholics with attaining true charismatic spirituality in those days.

Yes, but that does not mean that ecumenism is any thrust or focus the movement. The documents and the pastoral instruction are clear that it is not. The faithful are encouraged to keep close to their authorities in the parish, and in unity with their bishops. They are admonished toward evangelizing, so that all may be brought into the fulness of the sacramental life.

Blaming misunderstanding no. Blaming the Church leaders for allowing the experimentation and marginalization of many traditional beliefs and and permitting alternative forms of worship to infiltrate the Church?. Yes.

There is only one form of perfect worship for Catholics, and that is the Eucharist. All other forms of prayer and praise, scripture reading, and intercession are always encouraged in the faithful because they are consistent with Apostolic instruction. There is no “marginalizing of traditional beliefs” being encouraged by the Church leadership.

I wouldn't say marginalized as they have never totally gone away.  There was just never a movement that claimed to be experiencing them on a grand and apparently pridictable scale before.

The charismatic gifts were not encouraged after the third century largely because of the heresy of Montanism. I agree, though, since the early Church there has not been a movement that experienced them on such a wide scale. No movement of the Holy Spirit is “predictable”.

While the Church is infallible in her teaching those inside the Church are not so protected and are indeed subject to temptations and the wiles of the evil one.

We are protected to the extent that we remain within, and under the protection of the promise. When we are in unity with her, then we can enjoy the gift if infallibility. This is why it is so important for charismatics to stay close to the Magesterium, so that we can be protected from error.

 

[At_Trent]

Quite correct and that is the reason why throughout history lay movements have been somewhat problematic overall.

As to documents prepared by the renewal,no (I cannot point you to any. The simple fact that the initial events leading to the formation of the movement came from close association with and participating in charismatic services with protestants proves that ecumenism was indeed a big part of the early days of the movement especially when you recall that a huge number of pentecostal types came over to “assist” Catholics with attaining true charismatic spirituality in those days.

Blaming misunderstanding no. Blaming the Church leaders for allowing the experimentation and marginalization of many traditional beliefs and and permitting alternative forms of worship to infiltrate the Church?. Yes.

I wouldn’t say marginalized as they have never totally gone away. There was just never a movement that claimed to be experiencing them on a grand and apparently pridictable scale before.

While the Church is infallible in her teaching those inside the Church are not so protected and are indeed subject to temptations and the wiles of the evil one.

Well said.

 

[Mike30]

How so? Was the Catholic Workers Movement “problematic”? Kinghts of Columbus? Opus Dei?

Yes, but that does not mean that ecumenism is any thrust or focus the movement. The documents and the pastoral instruction are clear that it is not. The faithful are encouraged to keep close to their authorities in the parish, and in unity with their bishops. They are admonished toward evangelizing, so that all may be brought into the fulness of the sacramental life.

The charismatic gifts were not encouraged after the third century largely because of the heresy of Montanism. I agree, though, since the early Church there has not been a movement that experienced them on such a wide scale. No movement of the Holy Spirit is “predictable”.
.

Funny. Every charismatic event I have ever been to was full of ecstatic uttrences, speaking in tongues, attempts at prophesy, which were generally fairly humorous and attempted healings. If and if these things didnt occur there was definite disappointment among the members and a renewed sense of purpose to correct this at the first available opportunity. After all, how could they be ignored?

Opus Dei has certainly been problematic in many ways over the years in many ways, as has the Catholic Workers Movement. Knights of Columbus are a different kettle of fish entirely being primarily a fraternal society.

I suppose that you are saying then that the CCR does not encourage or permit participation in non Catholic charismatic events. Is that correct?

 

[SanAgustin]

Well, a lot of our terminology in Catholic philosophy and theology comes from the language of the Greeks, and their own philosophical traditions. Are any of the realities described using the Greek philosophical tradition any less true simply because the words come from non-Christian Greeks? No.

True, but you would have to admit that this is more of a direct link, these terms existed before the Renewal in Charismatic Churches … mostly in the US. The movement seems to have started under heavy influence of it. And unlike Greek language and philosophy, the theology and terminology is deriving from a source that is much more compatible. Pentecostals don’t claim to worship something as alien as a pantheon of Gods, and they do share our same book and baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity. Again, the relationship is much more direct.

Some descriptions of the CCR also claim that the people who started the movement did so under cooperation with Pentecostals. BTW, I don’t think this is bad per se, I grew closer to my Catholic faith after meeting with a group of “non-denominational” in my teenage years. However, when we look at the timeline, and if this story of the origin are true, we can’t deny there’s a link between Pentecostalism and the movement.

Also, the fact that Pentecostalism precedes and originated terms and customs from the CCR, does that mean that the gifts claimed by the Pentecostals are equal to those claimed by the people in CCR? For example, the laying of hands, baptism in the spirit, gifts of tongues, slaying in the spirit … all valid?

If I see a TV evangelist, waving his hand, slaying people in the Spirit, is that also all equal to what is going on in the CCR? Because I think it’s more an effect of peer pressure, emotional responses to the music, modality and expectations of the crowd. But if I say that for one group, why would I say it is more likely to be valid for another group.

Holy laughter I’m dubious about, seeing as I myself can almost never control my laughter, so I’d be willing to bet many of the cases aren’t genuine. Or rather, I doubt that they’re coming directly from God, but from the person. Jesus makes me laugh all the time, without him having to give me a special grace of “holy laughter”.

I get the giggles a lot, I don’t think it’s a supernatural gift at all.

Being “slain in the Spirit” definitely has roots in Apostolic tradition, though the term does not. Many many times through out Scripture we see individuals “falling prostrate”, “falling on their faces”, being overcome by the “glory of God” and falling prostrate. And we see it also in the lives of many saints. St. Catherine of Siena was slain in the Spirit almost every time she received communion, even to the point where people thought she was dead.

So Charismatics think St. Paul falling was being “slain in the Spirit”? I would call it astonishment, why do we need a strange term like “slaying in the spirit”.

I saw a YouTube video about the “gift of drunkenness”, with a bunch of folks walking around looking drunk. Please tell me this doesn’t happen in the CCR!

 

[Irish_Polock]

I find it troubling that the defenders of the CCR do not except the fact that gifts such as “speaking in tongues” had ceased. Again, I will present to them CLEAR teaching that this is indeed true.

Those who were confirmed by the Apostles usually gave evidence of the grace which they received by prophecy, the gift of tongues and the manifestation of other miraculous powers. It may be asked; Why do not these gifts accompany now the imposition of hands? I answer: Because they are no longer needed. The grace which the Apostolic disciples received was for their personal sanctification. The gift of tongues which they exercised was intended by Almighty God to edify and enlighten the spectators, and to give Divine sanction to the Apostolic ministry. But now that the Church is firmly established, and the Divine authority of her ministry is clearly recognized, these miracles are no longer necessary. St. Gregory illustrates this point by a happy comparison: As the sapling, he says, when it is first planted is regularly watered by the gardener, who softens the earth around it, that the sun and the moisture may nourish its roots until it takes deep root and it no longer requires any special care, so the Church in her infancy had to be nourished by the miraculous power of God. But after it had taken root in the hearts of the people and spread its branches over the earth it was left to the ordinary agencies of Providence.

St. Augustine writes also on the same subject: **“In the first days (of the Church) the Holy Ghost came down on believers, and they spoke in tongues which they had not learned. … These were miracles suited to the times. … Is it now expected that they upon whom hands are laid should speak with tongues? Or, when we imposed hands on these children, did each of you wait to see whether they would speak with tongues? … If, then, there be not now a testimony to the presence of the Holy Spirit by means of these miracles, whence is it proved that he has received the Holy Spirit? Let him ask his own heart; if he loves his brother, the Spirit of God abides in him.” **[Tract VI. in Ep. Joan.]( James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, The Faith of our Fathers ~ XX)

These gifts had served their purpose in the apostolic age and the first centuries of the Church. The fact that the majority of these CCR prayer meetings and Masses have untested, and unauthentic charisms - that have ceased in the early Church - speaks for itself.