Differences between the Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics

[Inquiringperson]

Quick question: How did the CCR get its name?

 

[Denise1957]

That would be liberal Catholics that would say that. Charismatics interpret scripture, but they have to be in line with the Church’s teaching. For example: Jesus says that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. A liberal Catholic might think: This is too hard a teaching. I’m going to say this is symbolic. A Charismatic Catholic would have to follow that teaching, even if it’s too hard for them.

Side note: Looks like this thread has helped many Traditionalists understand Charismatics. That includes me.

Church history shows that private interpretation of scripture isn’t something that ONLY liberals are prone to; not at all.

The example that you gave regarding Jesus saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood doesn’t interfere with Charismatic activities and experiences such as speaking in tongues and prophesying, so of course they can accept that. What they cannot accept is that the Church does not teach that the faithful should seek out or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Church history shows that private interpretation of scripture isn’t something that ONLY liberals are prone to; not at all.

The example that you gave regarding Jesus saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood doesn’t interfere with Charismatic activities and experiences such as speaking in tongues and prophesying, so of course they can accept that. What they cannot accept is that the Church does not teach that the faithful should seek out or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

My point is, you can privately interpret scripture, just as long as it’s in Church Teaching. If you can give me sources that that isn’t true, please do so.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Quick question: How did the CCR get its name?

It was called Catholic Pentecostalism at the beginning, of course this original title was kind of confusing for the catholic norm. They then changed it to CCR in order to distance themselves for the non-Catholic Pentecostals. I think Fr. Walter Abbot, S.J. coined the term Charismatic.

 

[Inquiringperson]

It was called Catholic Pentecostalism at the beginning, of course this original title was kind of confusing for the catholic norm. They then changed it to CCR in order to distance themselves for the non-Catholic Pentecostals. I think Fr. Walter Abbot, S.J. coined the term Charismatic.

How does the CCR work? Do they try to get the prodigal sons?

 

[Denise1957]

My point is, you can privately interpret scripture, just as long as it’s in Church Teaching. If you can give me sources that that isn’t true, please do so.

It’s not private interpretation of scripture if it’s how the Church interprets scripture.

Private interpretation is just as it sounds - one’s own private interpretation.

 

[vardaquinn]

What happens in the CCR is far removed form what happened on Pentecost, the Apostles spoke in a foreign language as did the Ephesians, what was going on at Corinth is uncertain, St. Paul was far from clear when he wrote the Corinthians. One thing is clear though, the proliferation of tongues in Corinth was a “sign” of there “unbelief” not of their “belief”.

Do you encourage women to speak in tongues? I would hope not, that teaching is also very clear.

What? I don’t follow you. How is speaking in tongues a sign that the Corinthians do not believe? Like, “Yeah, St. Paul, we don’t actually believe in all this Holy Spirit and Jesus stuff, but we do because we’ve received the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus, and speak in tongues as a result…”. Right then, Apostles and Mary all speaking in tongues on Pentecost - didn’t believe. Paul is referring there, I think, to the fact that when you preach the Gospel in a language you have never studied: it’s a sign for unbelievers. See Acts 2 and the lives of a whole bunch of saints for examples.

St. Paul is teaching that women shouldn’t speak in church, period. As in, they shouldn’t be the ones getting up an instructing in a tongue. This is a matter of liturgical discipline, the Church can change this. It allows women to, for instance, read the readings for Mass. It is not a matter of faith or morals. I really don’t think St. Paul would get angry with women for praying in tongues. Especially seeing as it’s clearly implied Mary and the women in the Upper Room were doing it on the day of Pentecost…

As with interpreting Scripture. I fully acknowledge my interpretation of Scripture could be wrong. I fully acknowledge that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong. It’s not like the Church has an official version of the Bible which is annotated with infallible teachings for every single line. You can’t do that. Most lines have many meanings, not just for the deposit of faith.

You guys are making a bare assertion. Show me Church teaching that contradicts our interpretation. You can’t. Official Church teaching clearly backs us up. Ok then. Read what the Church says, read how the Popes and bishops explain what the Church says, do it, end of argument. I mean… otherwise, don’t you dare criticize us for sounding Protestant.

 

[guanophore]

Hopefully you will be able to shed light on the verses I posted, so that we can better understand why we see them differently?

No, guanophore, the burden falls on you to show how your interpretion lines up with de fide Catholic teaching.

I think you are misunderstanding my request, Denise. I am not offering any interpretation. I am asking you to shed light on how you understand the verses according to de fide Catholic Teaching.

I think you and I will agree that there are two strands of infallible teaching in the Church, one being the Holy Scripture, the other Sacred Tradition. Since we believe that both of them come from the same Source, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. That means the Church has provided a means to reconcile anything that seems contradictory. I am asking you how, from a Traditional point of view, you would reconcile

1 Cor 14:1
Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

1 Cor 14:39
39 So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;

1 Cor 14:5
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.

with statements of the Saints and Doctors of the Church which appear to advise the opposite.

Even if we were to accept the dispensationalist view that tongues have ceased, we still have this encouragement about prophesy to consider.

Regarding what you wrote…“so that we can better understand why we see them differently,” doesn’t line up with how traditionalists would view it. You seem to insinuate that we can form our own absolute definition and conclusions as to how scripture is to be interpreted. That’s how Protestanism works, but that’s not how the Catholic Church works.

Actually, the Catholic method of hermeneutics leaves a broad range of interpretation. There are only a handful of verses that have been infallibly interpreted. All the rest can be understood with a measure of flexibility, so long as the interpretation does not depart from the Teaching of the Church.

So, given that these verses are not among those that have been infallibly interpreted, how do you understand them in the light of the Traditional position?

The Traditionalist would ask: How has the Church interpreted these passages?

Yes, and Charismatics ask the same. And since the interpretation that has been made of them by Charismatics does not contradict the Sacred Tradition, the Holy See has authorized apostolic and religious communities that espouse this view, and has appointed authorities over the laity espousing these views to shepherd and guide them.

The Charismatic would ask: Why doesn’t everyone accept what I have to say about what scripture is supposed to mean?

Only a Protestant Fundamentalist Pentecostal.

I won’t deny there may be very poorly catechized Catholics who have this view, because you are right, it is a protestant misunderstanding.

This charismatic is asking; “how does a Traditionalist Catholic understand these verses in the light of the Sacred Tradition of the Church”?

For a Catholic that values, reads, and studies the Scripture daily, it may be impossible to ignore these verses, pretend they are not there, or convince oneself they “don’t apply”. That is also a Protestant misunderstanding.

 

[Denise1957]

I think you are misunderstanding my request, Denise. I am not offering any interpretation. I am asking you to shed light on how you understand the verses according to de fide Catholic Teaching.

I think you and I will agree that there are two strands of infallible teaching in the Church, one being the Holy Scripture, the other Sacred Tradition. Since we believe that both of them come from the same Source, there cannot be any contradiction between the two. That means the Church has provided a means to reconcile anything that seems contradictory. I am asking you how, from a Traditional point of view, you would reconcile

1 Cor 14:1
Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

1 Cor 14:39
39 So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues;

1 Cor 14:5
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.

with statements of the Saints and Doctors of the Church which appear to advise the opposite.

Even if we were to accept the dispensationalist view that tongues have ceased, we still have this encouragement about prophesy to consider.

Actually, the Catholic method of hermeneutics leaves a broad range of interpretation. There are only a handful of verses that have been infallibly interpreted. All the rest can be understood with a measure of flexibility, so long as the interpretation does not depart from the Teaching of the Church.

So, given that these verses are not among those that have been infallibly interpreted, how do you understand them in the light of the Traditional position?

Yes, and Charismatics ask the same. And since the interpretation that has been made of them by Charismatics does not contradict the Sacred Tradition, the Holy See has authorized apostolic and religious communities that espouse this view, and has appointed authorities over the laity espousing these views to shepherd and guide them.

Only a Protestant Fundamentalist Pentecostal.

I won’t deny there may be very poorly catechized Catholics who have this view, because you are right, it is a protestant misunderstanding.

This charismatic is asking; “how does a Traditionalist Catholic understand these verses in the light of the Sacred Tradition of the Church”?

For a Catholic that values, reads, and studies the Scripture daily, it may be impossible to ignore these verses, pretend they are not there, or convince oneself they “don’t apply”. That is also a Protestant misunderstanding.

There’s only one thing to say to this: the Church does not teach that the faithful are to seek out or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

 

[guanophore]

Healing Masses, and prayer groups that presumably invoke the Holy Ghost to move people to speak in tongues and prophesy are not traditional.

I understand that they do not fit your, and others’ definition of Traditional in the modern age, but from the point of view of the Early Church, they were the norm.

You seem to have a misunderstanding, though, about the nature and purpose of a prayer meeting. People don’t come for gifts, or seek these particular gifts. People come to fellowship and be with each other in the presence of God, to pray together, and to learn about the faith.

You seem to have a preoccupation with these two gifts that we don’t have.

Gathering together and opening ourselves to the presence and work of the HS is not “uncatholic”.

There is no difference between a healing Mass and any other Mass, except that more time is allowed for prayer and meditation, and sometimes the anointing of the sick after the dismissal. All Masses are “healing” Masses because Jesus is present. Sometimes people don’t come to Mass expecting to encounter His Healing presence, so they don’t. Jesus healed people wherever He went (except in Nazareth where people lacked faith).

They are novelties. The Church allows them, with precautions, but they are still novelties. They are not traditional. And no, you can't call something that only may have existed in the early Church as being "traditional." That doesn't cut it.

I understand that it does not cut it for you, and that is ok.

For us, Sacred Tradition starts in the NT, and we are not separated from it.

Although I would not consider anything that existed in the Early Church a “novelty”, I do agree that these events did not occur in modern times until after John XXIII prayed for a New Pentecost in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Church history shows that private interpretation of scripture isn’t something that ONLY liberals are prone to; not at all.

I agree, but history also shows that a wide variety of understandings are permitted, so long as they don’t contradict the Teaching of the Church.

The example that you gave regarding Jesus saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood doesn't interfere with Charismatic activities and experiences such as speaking in tongues and prophesying, so of course they can accept that. What they cannot accept is that the Church does not teach that the faithful should seek out or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

This is easy to accept, Denise. We just understand it differently. From our point of view, we are seeking the Giver, not the gifts. We are open to whatever He brings to us, and are willing to yield to His work in our hearts, in our lives. This is not the same as chasing after gifts, as you seem to believe.

Can you suggest a way to reconcile the Scriptures that appear to say we should “seek” with what the Church teaches?

 

[guanophore]

It’s not private interpretation of scripture if it’s how the Church interprets scripture.

Private interpretation is just as it sounds - one’s own private interpretation.

It is using hermeneutics to understand the meaning of the text. The Catholic Church has strict hermeneutical principles that must be followed. Any exegesis that results is permissible, so long as it does not contradict the teaching of the Church.

There’s only one thing to say to this: the Church does not teach that the faithful are to seek out or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Ok, I will let this go, because it seems that you are unable to answer the question, so I will accept that.

The problem remains, however. This Church teaching must be reconcilable with the Scriptures, because the two cannot have any contradiction. Continuing to repeat your statement does not resolve the apparent contradiction. I will accept that you don’t know how to reconcile them, and have chosen not to try.

Using hermeneutics and exegesis is not required of Catholics. Some of us enjoy it, and many of us also happen to be Charismatic. One of the fruits of being on fire with the Holy Spirit is a fervent love of Scripture.

 

[Denise1957]

It is using hermeneutics to understand the meaning of the text. The Catholic Church has strict hermeneutical principles that must be followed. Any exegesis that results is permissible, so long as it does not contradict the teaching of the Church.

Ok, I will let this go, because it seems that you are unable to answer the question, so I will accept that.

The problem remains, however. This Church teaching must be reconcilable with the Scriptures, because the two cannot have any contradiction. Continuing to repeat your statement does not resolve the apparent contradiction. I will accept that you don’t know how to reconcile them, and have chosen not to try.

Using hermeneutics and exegesis is not required of Catholics. Some of us enjoy it, and many of us also happen to be Charismatic. One of the fruits of being on fire with the Holy Spirit is a fervent love of Scripture.

See post #207

 

[gtrenewed]

There’s only one thing to say to this: the Church does not teach that the faithful are to seek out or pray for the extraordinary gifts such as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

St.Paul who taught the same as St.Peter taught this way:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware;

But earnestly desire the greater gifts;

Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy;

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues;

This is Catholic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

St.Paul who taught the same as St.Peter taught this way:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware;

But earnestly desire the greater gifts;

Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy;

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues;

This is Catholic teaching.

Denise is unable to reconcile these passages with the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, therefore, they have to be disregarded.

 

[Inquiringperson]

No offense, Denise, but I fear that you are walking into the path of sedevacantism and you’re misreading guanaphore’s posts. He’s saying that we seek the giver of the gifts, and as a healthy side effect, we get the gifts.

It seems like Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics both seek God but through different paths. Am I correct?

 

[Irish_Polock]

Denise is unable to reconcile these passages with the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, therefore, they have to be disregarded.

Please expound on this guanophore. What is the consensus of the Doctors of the the Church regarding the extraordinary gifts such as tongues and prophecy? Both East and West. Since you are of the eastern rite, I would think that you would be able do this easily and in detail.

 

[guanophore]

Please expound on this guanophore. What is the consensus of the Doctors of the the Church regarding the extraordinary gifts such as tongues and prophecy? Both East and West. Since you are of the eastern rite, I would think that you would be able do this easily and in detail.

This has already been done in the thread, Irish. I recommend you take the time to read through it. The scholarship included in it is quite extensive.

 

[Irish_Polock]

This has already been done in the thread, Irish. I recommend you take the time to read through it. The scholarship included in it is quite extensive.

 

[Denise1957]

Denise is unable to reconcile these passages with the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, therefore, they have to be disregarded.

You seem to be under the impression that Catholic teaching is based on the writings of the saints and Doctors of the Church. Maybe in the East, this what is believed, but that’s not how the Catholic Church works.