Differences between the Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics

[passer_by]

Quick question: Do you believe it’s all right for someone to use emotion to find a religion, then use reason to say why it’s true?

Well the question is a bit ambiguous.

Because two things can happen.

A person could have an emotional experience, know there is something greater than themselves (which is a reasonable conclusion from such an experience), and then seek religion through reason. That would of course be acceptable and even correct.

On the other hand, one might get an emotional experience while using the Koran. Then decide it is true and justify it using reason of the form

1. I was reading the Koran when I got this profound experience
2. Therefore the Koran must be the word of God

Such a form of reason would be incorrect and I would think unacceptable.

Because one can get such a profound experience even while watching the Lord of the Rings, I fear it does not say much other than there is something transcendent that exists. After such an experience, one has to try and discover the true religion through reason. After discovering it, one can surrender completely of course.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Well the question is a bit ambiguous.

Because two things can happen.

A person could have an emotional experience, know there is something greater than themselves (which is a reasonable conclusion from such an experience), and then seek religion through reason. That would of course be acceptable and even correct.

On the other hand, one might get an emotional experience while using the Koran. Then decide it is true and justify it using reason of the form

1. I was reading the Koran when I got this profound experience
2. Therefore the Koran must be the word of God

Such a form of reason would be incorrect and I would think unacceptable.

Because one can get such a profound experience even while watching the Lord of the Rings, I fear it does not say much other than there is something transcendent that exists. After such an experience, one has to try and discover the true religion through reason. After discovering it, one can surrender completely of course.

I think that’s what happens in the CCR and that’s what happened to me. I got an emotional high in an Edge Retreat, then I used reason to follow through and truck through Catholicism. That has shaped me into what I have become today.

 

[passer_by]

I think that’s what happens in the CCR and that’s what happened to me. I got an emotional high in an Edge Retreat, then I used reason to follow through and truck through Catholicism. That has shaped me into what I have become today.

Certainly. I am not denying this can happen.

I am just pointing out that there is a big danger in reducing religion to a matter of what gives profound experience. I think this is why some CCR movements have ended up with most of its members turning Pentecostal at times. Because for these members, it would have seem ok to even change to Pentecostalism because that is where their emotional experiences led them.

This is why I am not sure that CCR as it is, would be very good in ***general ***(there are exceptions of course like you and the other poster I was talking with before) without major reforms.

 

[TrueLight]

Because one can get such a profound experience even while watching the Lord of the Rings,

I did!

 

[guanophore]

Ok I think it safe to say that you are convinced that CCR is good. So we can go at this for weeks and I fear we will be at the same spot.

Just to conclude, I am stating the following

The claim:** one may arrive at a true religion from something other than reason**

Reasons why it is objectionable:
1) Unreasonable (simply follows from the position of the statement)
2) Dangerous

Since (1) is just concluding what is claimed i.e. one can arrive at a true religion by unreasonable means.

I don’t think that human reason is intended to, nor is it advantageous, function in a vacuum. Human beings are made to apprehend information in many ways. We get information from our senses, such as Peter, James and John seeing Jesus transfigured on the mountain. We get information through dreams, which by defninition, does not come through the rational waking mind, and through emotion. There aspects of human perception are not separated from one another, neither should they be. The “reason” functions in collaboration with these senses to process and give meaning to events.

Your position of using 'reason" in exclusion of all these other ways of knowing leaves you unable to account for certain facts. I think this is why you can’t answer my questions. How did Moses “reason” that God was speaking to him when the bush was burning? How did Peter know that the HS had fallen upon the house of Cornelius? How did Joseph know that the message to flee into Egypt came from God, rather than a bit of undigested mutton?

Let me add a line or two to explain (2)

It is dangerous because such emotional experiences exist in every single religion, Christian and non-Christian. So there is nothing stopping a Catholic who has a profound experience through a Hindu ritual from leaving the church for Hinduism if the claimed statement is true. It might be the most unreasonable thing to do but it doesn’t matter since there are ways to the truth that are not reasonable.

YOu seem to want to believe that profound emotional experiences should not be examined by reason. This is untrue. While it is true that a person can choose to be led around by their emotions, it is imprudent. Your assertion that people in the CCR who have profound emotional experiences do not apply reason is false. Therefore, your conclusion, which is based upon a false premise, is also false.

So in my knowledge and ability, I think that CCR events held in hope of bringing lapsed Catholics or non-Catholics back to the faith are a big mistake.

Because they are too “emotional”?

In the same token, I cannot see how anyone who has grown in their Catholic faith would prefer such a form of worship over traditional means. Maybe for a change, yes. But to me, when I walk in to a church that is having a charismatic mass, I can’t even get my self to think silently and reflect on anything.

Different strokes for different folks. There is nothing irrational about loud praise. It is also erroneous to assume that CCR folks do not cherish silent meditation. There is always a Blessed Sacrament Chapel at every conference, which is maintained in silent reverence by a sacristan.

When did you walk into a Church that was having a Charismatic Mass?

Now some good might come through it like your conversion or growth in faith. But it does not mean CCR is good. As someone stated in some other thread, God can bring about good from the imperfect or bad. Therefore, to conclude that something is good because good came out of it would be erroneous reasoning.

Yes.

So just to be clear, I am not stating that CCR is immoral. It’s just an inefficient enterprise in my opinion.

There are certainly needs among the faithful that are not met by it.

Then again, your main premise is that reason is not always necessary. So I am not sure if it matters.

No, passer, I never said this, and I don’t hold this as a “main premise” in any way. It is your strawman.

Reason does not function without the rest of the human organism.

 

[guanophore]

Well the question is a bit ambiguous.

Because two things can happen.

A person could have an emotional experience, know there is something greater than themselves (which is a reasonable conclusion from such an experience), and then seek religion through reason. That would of course be acceptable and even correct.

Because one can get such a profound experience even while watching the Lord of the Rings, I fear it does not say much other than there is something transcendent that exists. After such an experience, one has to try and discover the true religion through reason. After discovering it, one can surrender completely of course.

I guess you think this doesn’t happen in the CCR because we come up with the opposite conclusion than you do. Since we have searched out the religious foundations for our experience, and found them validated by the Church, and we have come closer to God, we conclude through reason that God has wrought this work.

Since you start out from the opposite side, there is no amount of transcendence expereince that could pursuade you that it comes from God. Ostensibly you could be on the Holy Mountain with Peter, James and John, and still conclude, using your reason, that what you saw of Jesus transfigured was still not from God.

 

[guanophore]

:bowdown:

I believe, and I think this is what the Church believes, is that the CCR is to renew people by getting the Holy Spirit within them.

No, Inquiring, I don’t think this is accurate. The Church teaches that the HS is infused into a person at Baptism. If they have become separated from the life of the Spirit in them, it is because they have committed a mortal sin. The cure for that is not found it the CCR, but un the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

In order the get the Holy Spirit within them, the Holy Spirit, obviously, must talk to the person coming to Christ. However, the Holy Spirit does not use regular words most of the times.

MOst Catholics are baptised as infants, but I think what you are saying is that Catholics also need conversion, and this is true. Conversion comes from apprehending the Truth, and turning toward God in repentance. This coversion is built into our liturgical year, and the faithful are regularly called to conversion and pennance. The HS works through the Liturgy, the prayers of the Church, and the Sacraments to reach those who have wandered from the faith.

Usually, it communicates with us in a different yet effective way.

By what standard to you assert that this is “usual”? Why do you refer to the HS as “it”?

One of the way is to talk through emotions. Some people in the CCR get a spiritual high because that’s the best way the Holy Spirit can talk to them. When they start to mature, the Holy Spirit starts talking to them in a more efficient and better way and the spiritual high that they loved was gone and hopefully they were content. However, those that aren’t content and want that Spiritual High may feel abandoned and they may leave the Church.

First you say that speaking through emotions is “effective”, then you say that there are “more efficient” ways.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[passer_by]

I guess you think this doesn’t happen in the CCR because we come up with the opposite conclusion than you do. Since we have searched out the religious foundations for our experience, and found them validated by the Church, and we have come closer to God, we conclude through reason that God has wrought this work.

Since you start out from the opposite side, there is no amount of transcendence expereince that could pursuade you that it comes from God. Ostensibly you could be on the Holy Mountain with Peter, James and John, and still conclude, using your reason, that what you saw of Jesus transfigured was still not from God.

Um, I don’t know where you got that from.

I am merely pointing out that things need to be rational. It was the protestants who ended up throwing out reason at the guidance of Luther and look where it took them.

Seeing the transfiguration is not the same as getting an emotional high when praying to the Holy Spirit or starting to speak in different tongues. The things such as speaking from tongues are not something possible only for the Holy Spirit. The church and the saints have taught this clearly. This why the Catholic faith never went on the path of picking what makes someone have emotional experiences that are profound or start doing things like talking in different tongues. It was always the Protestants that pursued such means of conversion.

In any case, I can’t just take a profound emotional experience to say it is from the Holy Spirit, or anything else. People get such experiences all the time. As I said, and I think you agreed, people get it when watching Lord of the Rings.

So to me, CCR puts the emphasis on something that is really inconclusive. It is therefore inefficient. It’s not immoral. But it is inefficient.

 

[guanophore]

Joseph was ALREADY A JEW

So are the Catholics involved in the CCR ALREADY CATHOLIC.

 You are not understanding what I am saying I think. After you choose a faith through reason, you believe in the Divinely Revealed truths even if you can't explain them. But you can only do so if you have already arrived at your faith through REASON.

I am understanding what you are saying, and I agree, one arrives at faith through reason. But reason doesn not function in a vacuum. The vast majority of Catholics are baptized as infants. The Church teaches that they enter the Church by grace, through faith, when they are sealed by the promised HS in baptism.

You do realize that you are quoting Scripture out of context here?

It is probably outside of your context, since you seem intent upon separating reason from Divine Revelation.

Ok let me try one last time at clarifying, and honestly I give up if you still don't.

These profound experience are not UNIQUE to Catholicism.

I never claimed they were. But when Catholics experience them, they reason through them in the light of Catholic faith, into which they have already been baptized.

So my question is, how does one pick Catholicism just because he got an experience in it? That would be IRRATIONAL.

Therefore CCR is actually not what brings Catholics back. It must be REASON.

Your premise is flawed, passer. The lapsed do not cease to be Catholic because their faith has become lukewarm, or they wander from it. We are born again through water and Spirit. We do not become “unborn” by backsliding. We do not get “unadopted” by straying away. You keep insisting we must “choose Catholicism”, which is erroneous. This choice was made for us by our parents when we were baptized, just like Joseph was circumcised by his parents.

 

[guanophore]

Certainly. I am not denying this can happen.

I am just pointing out that there is a big danger in reducing religion to a matter of what gives profound experience.

Yes, a very great danger. The Saints and Doctors of the Church have consistently warned about this.

I think this is why some CCR movements have ended up with most of its members turning Pentecostal at times.

Can you name one?

Because for these members, it would have seem ok to even change to Pentecostalism because that is where their emotional experiences led them.

Yes. It is improper to be led about by one’s emotions, whether one is in a CCR, or not.

This is why I am not sure that CCR as it is, would be very good in ***general ***(there are exceptions of course like you and the other poster I was talking with before) without major reforms.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the CCR, that it is based upon emotionalism and sensation. This is not accurate.

 

[guanophore]

I did!

Me too!

Come. let us reason together, shall we? What is it about this movie that touches the human soul? Could it be that it was written by a Catholic, based upon a Catholic world view? Could it be the symbolism of the Christian message contained in it?

 

[guanophore]

Um, I don't know where you got that from.

Your apparent reliance on reason to the exclusion of all other ways of knowing, including Divine Revelation. God is not constrained by the boundaries of human reason, nor is His revelation of Himself confined to the ability of the human to rationalize it.

I am merely pointing out that things need to be rational. It was the protestants who ended up throwing out reason at the guidance of Luther and look where it took them.

I think this is a baseless assertion about Luther, but since it is so far from the scope of the thread, I am not going to ask you to substantiate it.

Seeing the transfiguration is not the same as getting an emotional high when praying to the Holy Spirit or starting to speak in different tongues.

How is it different? Have you got categories for expereinces with transcendence?

The things such as speaking from tongues are not something possible only for the Holy Spirit. The church and the saints have taught this clearly. This why the Catholic faith never went on the path of picking what makes someone have emotional experiences that are profound or start doing things like talking in different tongues. It was always the Protestants that pursued such means of conversion.

So, are you saying there is no authentic spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, because the gift has been perverted by the ignorant? Does bad theology abrogate the gifts of God?

In any case, I can't just take a profound emotional experience to say it is from the Holy Spirit, or anything else.

Why would anyone even consider such a thing?

Did you think someone was asking this of you?

Is this what you think people in CCR do?

People get such experiences all the time. As I said, and I think you agreed, people get it when watching Lord of the Rings.

I think maybe you have confused human experiences. Having an emotional high may accompany a transendent encounter with the divine, but they are two different things. One can have a transcendent experience with the divine without any emotional high, and a high without an encounter with God. You seem to be conflating the two.

So to me, CCR puts the emphasis on something that is really inconclusive. It is therefore inefficient. It's not immoral. But it is inefficient.

People say such things that dont understand the CCR. There is no “emphasis” on emotional highs. This is a myth, and a misperception.

 

[passer_by]

Your apparent reliance on reason to the exclusion of all other ways of knowing, including Divine Revelation. God is not constrained by the boundaries of human reason, nor is His revelation of Himself confined to the ability of the human to rationalize it.

I think this is a baseless assertion about Luther, but since it is so far from the scope of the thread, I am not going to ask you to substantiate it.

How is it different? Have you got categories for expereinces with transcendence?

So, are you saying there is no authentic spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, because the gift has been perverted by the ignorant? Does bad theology abrogate the gifts of God?

Why would anyone even consider such a thing?

Did you think someone was asking this of you?

Is this what you think people in CCR do?

I think maybe you have confused human experiences. Having an emotional high may accompany a transendent encounter with the divine, but they are two different things. One can have a transcendent experience with the divine without any emotional high, and a high without an encounter with God. You seem to be conflating the two.

People say such things that dont understand the CCR. There is no “emphasis” on emotional highs. This is a myth, and a misperception.

I think its safe to say that you have constructed something vaguely defined called the CCR. Now no matter what I say, you would keep saying that CCR is not like that.

Call me old fashioned but I prefer it when Catholics first come to the faith through reason. To me, the whole reason why Atheism to Protestantism is on the rise is because people don’t consider REASON when it comes to religion. They follow their ‘gut feelings’, there private ‘experiences’ (which they say are transcendent) etc.

You asked what the difference was between the transfiguration and a “experience” in CCR. The difference is that you know for sure its Christ in the transfiguration but in the experiences you mention, there is nothing in the experience it-self that tells you that. So while the first is CONCLUSIVE, the 2nd is INCONCLUSIVE.

But I understand that CCR must be something you feel strongly about so I will just respect that and agree to disagree with you.

 

[guanophore]

I think its safe to say that you have constructed something vaguely defined called the CCR. Now no matter what I say, you would keep saying that CCR is not like that.

Could it be that you dont’ understand the CCR?

I did not construct anything. I found out about it after the fact.

God constructed an outpouring of His Spirit. Sometimes the manner in which He does this defies reason. That is why it was said of the Apostles on Pentecost that they were “drunk”.

But now, as then, “it is not what you suppose”.

Call me old fashioned but I prefer it when Catholics first come to the faith through reason.

Each to His own. God is big enough to reach each one of His creations in the way that works best for them.

To me, the whole reason why Atheism to Protestantism is on the rise is because people don't consider REASON when it comes to religion. They follow their 'gut feelings', there private 'experiences' (which they say are transcendent) etc.

Can’t argue with that.

You asked what the difference was between the transfiguration and a “experience” in CCR. The difference is that you know for sure its Christ in the transfiguration but in the experiences you mention, there is nothing in the experience it-self that tells you that. So while the first is CONCLUSIVE, the 2nd is INCONCLUSIVE.

And you are proposing that I would kmow it is from God by use of my reason? Is that how Peter knew the house of Cornelius was given the HS?

Is that how Moses knew it was God speaking to him?

If you look at Heb. chap. 11, I think you will find there are other factors at work in addition to reason in finding and living the true faith.

But I understand that CCR must be something you feel strongly about so I will just respect that and agree to disagree with you.

Actually, the “movement” could come and go as far as I am concerned. It is the action of the HS in the here and now about which I believe strongly.

What did God say would happen when the Spirit was poured out? Did He say “they will have an eruption of reason”?

Joel 2:28-29
nd it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants
in those days, I will pour out my spirit.

These signs come from the non-rational part of the soul.

 

[passer_by]

Could it be that you dont’ understand the CCR?

I did not construct anything. I found out about it after the fact.

God constructed an outpouring of His Spirit. Sometimes the manner in which He does this defies reason. That is why it was said of the Apostles on Pentecost that they were “drunk”.

But now, as then, “it is not what you suppose”.

Each to His own. God is big enough to reach each one of His creations in the way that works best for them.

Can’t argue with that.

And you are proposing that I would kmow it is from God by use of my reason? Is that how Peter knew the house of Cornelius was given the HS?

Is that how Moses knew it was God speaking to him?

If you look at Heb. chap. 11, I think you will find there are other factors at work in addition to reason in finding and living the true faith.

Actually, the “movement” could come and go as far as I am concerned. It is the action of the HS in the here and now about which I believe strongly.

What did God say would happen when the Spirit was poured out? Did He say “they will have an eruption of reason”?

Joel 2:28-29
nd it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even upon the menservants and maidservants
in those days, I will pour out my spirit.

These signs come from the non-rational part of the soul.

You are walking down a dangerous path my friend. Once you abandon reason in the sense you are advocating, it won’t be beneficial for the Catholic faith at all. You will realize it soon enough.

 

[guanophore]

You are walking down a dangerous path my friend. Once you abandon reason in the sense you are advocating, it won’t be beneficial for the Catholic faith at all. You will realize it soon enough.

Thank you, passer_by, but your fears are unwarranted. The only abandonment of reason here is your own, which anyone can see who is reading the posts. The fact that truth comes from other sources besides human rational ability is not, in any way, an abandoment of reason.

On the contrary,during my last 30+ years of involvement with the CCR, I have experienced fatih, seeking understanding, which was bolstered by three years in Seminary, and has now led me to taking vows with the Benedictine order.

 

[passer_by]

Thank you, passer_by, but your fears are unwarranted. The only abandonment of reason here is your own, which anyone can see who is reading the posts. The fact that truth comes from other sources besides human rational ability is not, in any way, an abandoment of reason.

On the contrary,during my last 30+ years of involvement with the CCR, I have experienced fatih, seeking understanding, which was bolstered by three years in Seminary, and has now led me to taking vows with the Benedictine order.

By very definition, if the truth comes from anything other than reason, it is unreasonable. So not sure what you are trying to say there. Are you trying to claim that the Holy Spirit gives personal profound experience is a self evident truth? Because that too would be a position shown to be false by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I am not advocating rationalism. Just pointing out that first analysis must be through reason. THEN one can abandon to divine revelation.

I fear that you are reading too much in to the good of CCR by your conversion. As I said before, God brings about good from things which are not necessarily good and at times evil.

While you went on to take Benedictine vows, many young were lost to Pentecostalism and other forms of “feel good” Christianity. At one point you said that the ones lost were greater than the ones gained but when pushed for statistics, you avoided it and said its better to have smaller number of people in the church.

Whether you like it or not, CCR is inefficient way of conveying and winning people to the faith. It worked for you and it might have worked for 100 other people. But that does not disprove what I said above.

 

[guanophore]

By very definition, if the truth comes from anything other than reason, it is unreasonable.

No, passer, it is not. Non-reason does not equate to “unreassonable”. God is not subject to human reason, and He sometimes does things that defy humjan reason. This is demonstrated by miracles in the Scriptures, through which people are pursuaded about the Truth. It is also one reason you are unable to answer some of my questions, such as, how did Peter know that the HS had fallen on the Gentiles? Peter did not “reason” his way to this Truth. God had to show him through experience from the supernatural realm.

How did St. Paul come to recognize Jesus? Did he “reason” that out?.

So not sure what you are trying to say there. Are you trying to claim that the Holy Spirit gives personal profound experience is a self evident truth? Because that too would be a position shown to be false by St. Thomas Aquinas.

No. I am saying that human reason is not the only avenue by which we can know Truth. Science has shown that the rational mind is asleep when dreaming takes place. And yet, Joseph did not question the direction he received from God in his dreams. Dreaming is one of the non-rational avenues by which we can apprehend the Truth.

I am not advocating rationalism.

You could have fooled me!

Just pointing out that first analysis must be through reason. THEN one can abandon to divine revelation.

I submit to you that reason never need be “abandoned” to embrace divine revelation.

I fear that you are reading too much in to the good of CCR by your conversion. As I said before, God brings about good from things which are not necessarily good and at times evil.

Your fear is understandible. Many people are afraid of the supernatural action of God upon the human being. It inspired fear and awe.

Acts 2:43-44
And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

While you went on to take Benedictine vows, many young were lost to Pentecostalism and other forms of “feel good” Christianity. At one point you said that the ones lost were greater than the ones gained but when pushed for statistics, you avoided it and said its better to have smaller number of people in the church.

That is because a number of us were already lost when the CCR became active. Some of us made it back, some didn’t. I think it is obvious by looking at our culture, and voting practices here in America, that the vast majority of persons claiming to be Catholic do not practice Catholic values, or embrace the doctrines of the Church. What good is it to identify yourself as Catholic, when you choose to live in a state of mortal sin? Better to admit that you are disobedient and realize you are Protesting.

Whether you like it or not, CCR is inefficient way of conveying and winning people to the faith. It worked for you and it might have worked for 100 other people. But that does not disprove what I said above.

I will ask you again, as I have several other times. What do you think will work better? Can you share your own efforts of evangelism, and why they are more effective?

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/nun_slapping_ruler_hg_clr-1.gif
Due to failing charity this thread is now closed.