Differences between the Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics

[Denise1957]

I think we can both agree that every movement and every group has a few bad people, and we shouldn’t judge the whole group based on that. And of course Rome is concerned about elements of the CCR, just like they’re concerned about traditionalist elements as well.

We’ve seen how difficult it can be to stop something that’s going off the rails in several circles within the Church. In the case of Father Fernando, if I recall correctly the Companions gave him some room to do the work he was doing before he joined them (he ran a healing ministry before joining them). After some incidents happened (like the one you mentioned), they reined him in a bit. That, among other reasons, is why I’m pretty sure he left the Society, and why I’ve lost respect for him (I was neutral to begin with). They gave him freedom, he abused that freedom. And when they decided like a parent to put in some restrictions, he decided to leave.

But people who take things to the extreme do tend to help the more moderate people. The FSSP are very reasonable chaps, and I’m sure they learned from the mistakes of the more…misguided traditionalists, like the SSPV.

I understand what you mean regarding the FSSP; however, the FSSP has never had anything to do with the SSPV, of course. But yes, those who are aware of extreme elements are more likely to avoid them.

Though this may not seem relevant to this topic, the FSSP teach solid Catholic teaching in conformity with what the Church teaches. Perhaps the Companions do, too. Unless, of course, they teach that Catholics should seek after the extraordinary charisms such as speaking in tongues and prophesying; hopefully they don’t teach that, because that’s not what the Church teaches.

 

[Melchior_1]

I understand what you mean regarding the FSSP; however, the FSSP has never had anything to do with the SSPV, of course. But yes, those who are aware of extreme elements are more likely to avoid them.

Though this may not seem relevant to this topic, the FSSP teach solid Catholic teaching in conformity with what the Church teaches. Perhaps the Companions do, too. Unless, of course, they teach that Catholics should seek after the extraordinary charisms such as speaking in tongues and prophesying; hopefully they don’t teach that, because that’s not what the Church teaches.

I was comparing traditionalists who stayed with Rome and are reasonable with traditionalists who jumped off the deep end.

You should read some of the Companion’s writings. Father Terry Donahue and Father Scott McCaig are both razor sharp

That’s the crux of the thread, isn’t it? You say that the Church doesn’t teach that we should seek out extraordinary gifts, others do. If the Companions say they are charismatic, and if they went through the LENGTHY approval process to reach their current status, shouldn’t that reflect what Rome thinks of the CCR as a whole?

Maybe we should see whose desks these requests to become Societies of Apostolic Life crosses.

 

[Denise1957]

I was comparing traditionalists who stayed with Rome and are reasonable with traditionalists who jumped off the deep end.

You should read some of the Companion’s writings. Father Terry Donahue and Father Scott McCaig are both razor sharp

That’s the crux of the thread, isn’t it? You say that the Church doesn’t teach that we should seek out extraordinary gifts, others do. If the Companions say they are charismatic, and if they went through the LENGTHY approval process to reach their current status, shouldn’t that reflect what Rome thinks of the CCR as a whole?

Maybe we should see whose desks these requests to become Societies of Apostolic Life crosses.

No, I don’t think it reflects what Rome thinks, because Rome, in definitive magesterial teaching, has not approved CCR, even though it allows groups like the Companions to form. That the Companions exist does not equate with magesterial teaching regarding its approval of CCR. Also, for some reason, Charismatic groups are allowed a wide lattitude as to what they preach and practice. Certainly the traditional groups do not have this benefit. But no matter; the traditional groups, in communion with Rome, only want to teach solid Catholic teachings, unembellished by drama of speaking in tongues and prophesying. I’m not saying that the Companions are doing anything wrong. I have no idea about what they teach.

Bottom line, which bears repeating: the Church does not teach that we are to seek after the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

 

[Melchior_1]

No, I don’t think it reflects what Rome thinks, because Rome, in definitive magesterial teaching, has not approved CCR, even though it allows groups like the Companions to form. That the Companions exist does not equate with magesterial teaching regarding its approval of CCR. Also, for some reason, Charismatic groups are allowed a wide lattitude as to what they preach and practice. Certainly the traditional groups do not have this benefit. But no matter; the traditional groups, in communion with Rome, only want to teach solid Catholic teachings, unembellished by drama of speaking in tongues and prophesying. I’m not saying that the Companions are doing anything wrong. I have no idea about what they teach.

Bottom line, which bears repeating: the Church does not teach that we are to seek after the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

I think people severely undervalue what it means when a group becomes a Society of Apostolic Life, and the ramifications when a group becomes one. It’s like you (and others) brush it off like it happens once a week.

It’s a rare thing, it’s something that Rome takes very seriously. They investigate endlessly, and they make sure the teachings (and the people) are solid. You cannot underestimate this and what this means for the Church. If there was anything heretical or not Traditonal about the Companions, they would have been shut down.

But they weren’t. And now their founder is having his funeral at the Cathedral, the parish of our Archbishop. If what the man stood for was outside of the Church, I doubt he would have his funeral there.

Case and point; the FSSP and Companions are on equal footing in the eyes of the Church. In the eyes of some laymen, maybe not. But in the eyes of Rome, they are equals.

 

[Denise1957]

I think people severely undervalue what it means when a group becomes a Society of Apostolic Life, and the ramifications when a group becomes one. It’s like you (and others) brush it off like it happens once a week.

It’s a rare thing, it’s something that Rome takes very seriously. They investigate endlessly, and they make sure the teachings (and the people) are solid. You cannot underestimate this and what this means for the Church. If there was anything heretical or not Traditonal about the Companions, they would have been shut down.

But they weren’t. And now their founder is having his funeral at the Cathedral, the parish of our Archbishop. If what the man stood for was outside of the Church, I doubt he would have his funeral there.

Case and point; the FSSP and Companions are on equal footing in the eyes of the Church. In the eyes of some laymen, maybe not. But in the eyes of Rome, they are equals.

I’m not undervaluing anything. Obviously this group means a great deal to you. This doesn’t mean that CCR as a movement has magisterial (teaching authority) approval.

The celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 missal does have full magisterial approval, though. This is what the Ecclesia Dei groups are oriented toward. That, and the providing of the traditional sacraments and solid Catholic teaching - what the Church has always taught. No novelties.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m not undervaluing anything. Obviously this group means a great deal to you. This doesn’t mean that CCR as a movement has magisterial (teaching authority) approval.

That’s the thing; the Companions do have that teaching authority approval. They wouldn’t have received the recognition if they didn’t. My question is less what it has to do with the CCR, and more to do with charismaticism itself; we have a group of Priests (and Lay Associates) who practice and preach about charisms. The highest authority that the Church has on religious bodies signed off on this, no doubt vetted by the CDF beforehand.

If charismaticism has as bad as people say, as damaging people say, there is no chance this group should have gotten this far. One person in this thread out and out called it “outside of the Church”. Others called it heresy. That means that within the Church that Christ built we have a Society approved by the highest ranking people within the Church based off of lies and heresies. We have a Society that was vetted by our current Pope when his job was to STOP heresies.

What does this speak of the leadership of the Church? The state of the Church itself? Either charismaticism should be accepted or we have fundamental failings within the Church…which goes directly against Matthew 16:18

And yes, I am biased. I was present at the Cathedral when they became a Society of Apostolic Life. Their founder helped me out in a tight spot and provided some spiritual direction. They just took over my parish when the diocese did their semi-annual roster shuffle.

They’re good people. They’re charismatic people. They’re not heretics, and they’re 100% faithful to Rome. Everything they do was (and is) sent to Rome for approval. The Vatican is well aware of their activities.

 

[guanophore]

So we have all the gifts after baptism and activation can occur if we yield to the Holy Spirit?

Does this sound “uncatholic” to you?

And we know that their activation is by the Holy Spirit if we prophesy truly: foretell the future correctly? Does this happen in anyone’s local group?

Very little of prophesy is about telling the future. The prophetic gift is for speaking God’s perspective into the present. Yes, a prophesy about the future can be authenticated in its validation, but since most prophetic words are not futuristic, it is better to use other methods.

Yes, it generally happens during every gathering.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your explanation here, but the Church does not teach that we are to yield to speaking in tongues and prophesying. If a Catholic recieves these things, unasked for in any manner, then it can be accepted. We are not to seek them out or pray for them.

That is all it means, Denise. “yield” means “if you receive these things, it can be accepted”. A person can be given a gift and resist it. When the Spirit fell upon the Catholics during adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at Duquesne, they were not seeking out or asking for Gifts. They were asking for the power of the HS in their lives to transform them as the HS did for the disciples in the book of Acts.

 You see, the CCR folks are focusing great attention on the extraordinary graces such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Actually, I am not sure that comes from us. You see that the OP did not mention it, and it was not Charismatics that brought this up. For us, tongues is the least of all the gifts, and the prophetic gift is a great responsibility that charismatics are not eager to shoulder. It is one of the most difficult gifts to which one can “yield”, because one then becomes responsible for what God has told them.

But these things do not impart sanctifying grace into our soul, such as does the ordinary graces given by the Holy Ghost does as a means to our salvation.

They can function to lead people into those graces. They are intended to COME OUT of the grace that has already been infused. They are for ministry and evangelization, which is about giving away what one has already received.

The Church is not very specific in her language regarding the extraordinay gifts. If speaking in tongues and prophesying were direct means of having sanctifying grace put into our souls, then the Church would provide specific terminology for this, and you wouldn't have to look up the meaning of terms.

I am not sure that I agree with your conclusion, but certainly the gifts are never taught to be a means of sanctifying grace as are the sacraments. God’s grace can certainly work through them, and they are intended to lead us to spiritual maturity, but since they are given to complete novices in the faith, they have a different function than the character gifts that are given to those whose spirituality is mature.

For Charismatics, the biblical language as sufficient. Traditionalists on this thread do not accept the scriptural statements, so we do look for other terminology.

How the does Holy Ghost impart sanctifying grace into our souls, which is necessary for salvation? Firstly, we must work on our chief faults, strive to stay in a state of grace through confession and worthy reception of the Eucharist. Prayer helps with this. When we are baptized, all sin is taken away. If we were to die right after baptism, and not having committed any grave sin, we'd go straight to Heaven. After baptism, we must try to stay in a state of grace, but also to work on our chief faults. If we commit a grave sin, this decreases grace in our soul, and leaves us less open or even unable to receiving graces so needed for salvation. Speaking in tongues and prophesying is not a part of the sanctifying graces at work here. It's a different category.

What you describe here is what the students at Duquesne were seeking. They read in the Scriptures that one who is filled by the Spirit would not walk according to the flesh, and they wanted that. They wanted a life of victory over their sins and faults.

Personally, I find it's enough work just working on my chief faults and not committing a grave sin, and not committing even venial sins if I can help it.

But God did not intend that we have to do all the work. He provided the grace and empowerment of the Holy Spirit so that we could work out what has already been working in us.
Salvation is not something we work “on” but work “out”.

Phil 2:12-13

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Sanctifying grace has been infused in us through the sacraments. In our mission and service we “work out” that which is already “at work in”.

There is no dichotomy. We are to pray at all times without ceasing, which means to remain in a state of prayer at all times. It is from this state of prayerfulness that our vocation in life flows. This is what The Little Flower of Jesus describes, seeking HIm in all the little things. The beauty of a “gift” is that it does not emanate from human focus, time, or energy. It comes from a supernatural source, like a spring of water, from which we can drink, but the Source is in God, not in us.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps I used the wrong person. I meant for people like Veronica Lueken and the Bayside Apparitions. She was Catholic, albeit heretical. In order to prove her wrong, you needed to find either heresy or a false prophecy, and they were discovered.

Ok. I see your point. But God has not appointed me as the Fruit Inspector of His Vine. I am not called to “prove wrong” others in the flock, or to root up the tares from among the wheat.

I am called to bear fruit, to walk in His grace, and to have truth in myself. I have my hands full with that.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps the Companions do, too. Unless, of course, they teach that Catholics should seek after the extraordinary charisms such as speaking in tongues and prophesying; hopefully they don’t teach that, because that’s not what the Church teaches.

I think it is more accurate to say that we are taught to yield to the gifts that have been ordained for us, and to use them in accordance with God’s plan for our lives.

I like the way Jesus describes receiving the gift of celibacy:

Matt 19:10-12

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

To the one that is given the gift, “let him receive it”.

One does not seek the “gift” of celibacy. One is either given it, or not. It is for one to determine if they have been called to this, then embrace it.

 

[Holly3278]

Can’t a person be both a traditional Catholic and a charismatic Catholic? I consider myself to be both although I am only slightly charismatic.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Can’t a person be both a traditional Catholic and a charismatic Catholic? I consider myself to be both although I am only slightly charismatic.

No.

 

[guanophore]

Can’t a person be both a traditional Catholic and a charismatic Catholic? I consider myself to be both although I am only slightly charismatic.

It depends upon how you define the terms. It seems like the Traditionalists on this forum reject most of what came after Vat.2, including Pope John XXIII’s prayer to open that council, so none of what has happened in the Church since then is seen as a move of the HS.

Some also do not seem to accept the New Testament as part of Sacred Tradition, so when Charismatics embrace what is written there about the HS, we are considered “protestant” in our thinking.

I am a very Traditional Catholic that happens to be charismatic.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Some also do not seem to accept the New Testament as part of Sacred Tradition, so when Charismatics embrace what is written there about the HS, we are considered “protestant” in our thinking. .

This is absurd guanophore, we - at least “I” - don’t reject “the New Testament as part of Sacred Tradition”, we only reject your interpretation of it.

 

[guanophore]

This is absurd guanophore, we - at least “I” - don’t reject “the New Testament as part of Sacred Tradition”, we only reject your interpretation of it.

I said “some”, Irish. I have been repeatedly advised that there is “no evidence in Sacred Tradition” for the gifts of Pentecost. This statement rules out the NT as part of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

I have not “interpreted” any verses from the NT here, so no one would have a chance to reject something I offered.

The discussion has been around the cessationinst view. Charismatics maintain that what is written in the NT about the charisms will be in effect “until the end of the Age” as Jesus said, where cessationists believe the need for the gifts ran out when the Church became “mature”.

 

[Denise1957]

Can’t a person be both a traditional Catholic and a charismatic Catholic? I consider myself to be both although I am only slightly charismatic.

I agree with Irish Polock; the answer is “No.”

 

[waterbrook]

The answer is most definitely YES!! All catholics have been baptised and therefore all have received the Holy Spirit.

 

[Denise1957]

The answer is most definitely YES!! All catholics have been baptised and therefore all have received the Holy Spirit.

True, but that’s not what the question was. “Charismatic” refers here to those Catholics who seek after or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesy. The Church does not teach that these things are to be sought after with baptism or even confirmation. Perhaps in Anglicanism they are - but it seems unlikely.

 

[waterbrook]

True, but that’s not what the question was. “Charismatic” refers here to those Catholics who seek after or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesy. The Church does not teach that these things are to be sought after with baptism or even confirmation. Perhaps in Anglicanism they are - but it seems unlikely.

The term Charismatic is not being used correctly here: it simply means spirit filled. the rest of what people often consider to be ‘charismatic’ phenomena is a …particular expresssion of spirit filled life as indeed is traditional life and worship.

 

[Denise1957]

The term Charismatic is not being used correctly here: it simply means spirit filled. the rest of what people often consider to be ‘charismatic’ phenomena is a …particular expresssion of spirit filled life as indeed is traditional life and worship.

Is this an Anglican description? You are Anglican, right?