Differences between the Traditional Catholics and Charismatic Catholics

[Denise1957]

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?

Sedevacantism means that a person takes the view that the chair of Peter is empty. It’s rather humorous that you would think that I’m walking into this path.

Traditionalists and Charismatics both seek God through different paths? I wouldn’t know about that - it’s an odd question. I know that the Catholic Church does not teach we should seek after speaking in tongues or prophesying. I know that the Protestant Pentacostal denominations DO teach that speaking in tongues and prophesying should be sought after.

 

[ClayPots47]

Thanks for your explanation here, but the Church does not teach that we are to yield to speaking in tongues and prophesying.

:banghead: Yes it does! If the Holy Spirit wishes us to have a particular charism, whether it be teaching or prophecy, we must respond in some way. I am not sure why this isn’t clear to you. I quoted from three sources ( CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Lumen Gentium, CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ) in my posts HERE and HERE where the Church teaches that we are to yield, accept, receive, recognize them. Prior to the paragraph I quote to you from CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, is the following;

1. The Holy Spirit, while bestowing diverse ministries in Church communion, enriches it still further with particular gifts or promptings of grace, called charisms. These can take a great variety of forms, both as a manifestation of the absolute freedom of the Spirit who abundantly supplies them, and as a response to the varied needs of the Church in history. The description and the classification given to these gifts in the New Testament are an indication of their rich variety. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor 12:7-10; cf. 1 Cor 12:4-6, 28-31; Rom 12:6-8; 1 Pt 4:10-11).

Whether they be exceptional and great or simple and ordinary, the charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit that have, directly or indirectly, a usefulness for the ecclesial community, ordered as they are to the building up of the Church, to the well-being of humanity and to the needs of the world.

These quotes from CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Lumen Gentium, and the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH clearly state that in order for us to receive a charism, we must yield, accept, receive, recognize them. This is all charisms, whether ordinary ones like teaching, serving, or extraordinary ones such as tongues and prophecies. The Church does not distinguish between them, ordinary and extraordinary all have the same required action on our part; yield, accept, receive, recognize them. CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI says, “Whether they be exceptional and great or simple and ordinary, the charisms are graces”; while Lumen Gentium says, “Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused.” There is no differentiation between the ordinary and extraordinary.

If a Catholic recieves these things, unasked for in any manner, then it can be accepted.

Exactly! And that is what yield" means, accept, receive, recognize them. These words are synonymous with one another, they all convey the same meaning, as I showed you by posting from their thesaurus definitions.

We are not to seek them out or pray for them.

Correct, and I already agreed with you on this. The HS knows which charisms to equip us with for our apostolate, and will give them accordingly.

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

Have you encountered CCR folks in real life who focus great attention on the extraordinary graces such as speaking in tongues and prophesying? Or are you basing this on posters claiming to be part of the CCR on this forum? Because it has never been my experience among those I personally knew in the CCR (including seminarians from St Charles Borromeo and Mt St Mary’s, two of the most orthodox seminaries in the US), to focus undo attention on the extraordinary charisms. We study them, as part of the Life in the Spirit Seminar, and take part in continuing catechesis regarding them; but we focus just as much on the ordinary charisms, as they are the ones rooted in charity and impart grace.There are bad apples in just about any spiritual movement, and there are unstable folks in the CCR that unduly focus on the extraordinary charisms. This is where pastoral guidance is needed. I’ve met a few of those over-eager folks, unfortunately. Often the charism is false, typically from the human spirit. And we are going around in circles, because I already stated this in my reply to you (extraordinary gifts do not impart sanctifying grace). The only terminology I looked up was the synonyms for the word “yield” to show that the language used by the Church (accept, receive, recognize them) means the same thing, At no point did I ever mention them imparting grace, in my first reply I had stated, “the extraordinary charisms… are not essential to our salvation, and do not increase charity in the individual with the charism.”

Speaking in tongues and prophesying is not a part of the sanctifying graces at work here. It’s a different category.

Already agreed with you here, in my previous posts.

(Continued in next post)

 

[ClayPots47]

(Continued from previous post)

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. Assuming that CCR folks are also continually working on thier chief faults, going to confession, staying in a state of grace, and partaking in worthy reception of the Eucharist, how can you do these things, and also focus so much time and energy on the Extraordinary stuff as well??

What makes you think the CCR folks are dispensing much time and energy on extraordinary charisms? Other than prayer tongues, they aren’t used often; at weekly prayer meetings (for those who participate), the occasional OF Mass for them, or healing service sponsored by them, personal prayer with/for others when the need arrives and/or when requested. During my active years in the CCR, I probably spent far more time attending daily Mass, praying the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, spiritual reading, meditation, etc, etc, etc.

Bottom line: We should not seek specific charisms, whether it be preaching or prophecy. But if the Holy spirit desires to gift us with a specific charism, we have to yield/accept it for the charism to manifest itself. That is what the Church teaches. Traditional Catholics do not have to accept the extraordinary charisms, since they do not impart sanctifying grace, it isn’t wrong to not yield to or accept them. It is prudent to not yield to extraordinary charisms if one cannot discern the source, this is where Church teaching on the discernment of spirits comes into play. A good Life in the Spirit Seminar (Like Msgr Walsh’s) covers this thoroughly.

 

[Denise1957]

:banghead: Yes it does! If the Holy Spirit wishes us to have a particular charism, whether it be teaching or prophecy, we must respond in some way. I am not sure why this isn’t clear to you. I quoted from three sources ( CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Lumen Gentium, CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ) in my posts HERE and HERE where the Church teaches that we are to yield, accept, receive, recognize them. Prior to the paragraph I quote to you from CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, is the following;

These quotes from CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Lumen Gentium, and the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH clearly state that in order for us to receive a charism, we must yield, accept, receive, recognize them. This is all charisms, whether ordinary ones like teaching, serving, or extraordinary ones such as tongues and prophecies. The Church does not distinguish between them, ordinary and extraordinary all have the same required action on our part; yield, accept, receive, recognize them. CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI says, “Whether they be exceptional and great or simple and ordinary, the charisms are graces”; while Lumen Gentium says, “Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused.” There is no differentiation between the ordinary and extraordinary.

Exactly! And that is what yield" means, accept, receive, recognize them. These words are synonymous with one another, they all convey the same meaning, as I showed you by posting from their thesaurus definitions.

Correct, and I already agreed with you on this. The HS knows which charisms to equip us with for our apostolate, and will give them accordingly.

Have you encountered CCR folks in real life who focus great attention on the extraordinary graces such as speaking in tongues and prophesying? Or are you basing this on posters claiming to be part of the CCR on this forum? Because it has never been my experience among those I personally knew in the CCR (including seminarians from St Charles Borromeo and Mt St Mary’s, two of the most orthodox seminaries in the US), to focus undo attention on the extraordinary charisms. We study them, as part of the Life in the Spirit Seminar, and take part in continuing catechesis regarding them; but we focus just as much on the ordinary charisms, as they are the ones rooted in charity and impart grace.There are bad apples in just about any spiritual movement, and there are unstable folks in the CCR that unduly focus on the extraordinary charisms. This is where pastoral guidance is needed. I’ve met a few of those over-eager folks, unfortunately. Often the charism is false, typically from the human spirit. And we are going around in circles, because I already stated this in my reply to you (extraordinary gifts do not impart sanctifying grace). The only terminology I looked up was the synonyms for the word “yield” to show that the language used by the Church (accept, receive, recognize them) means the same thing, At no point did I ever mention them imparting grace, in my first reply I had stated, “the extraordinary charisms… are not essential to our salvation, and do not increase charity in the individual with the charism.”

Already agreed with you here, in my previous posts.

(Continued in next post)

Okay, ClayPots, so how many CCR folks do you personally know - who supposedly speak in tongues and prophesy - who did not intentionally seek these supposed gifts out?

 

[guanophore]

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.

What is the “basis” of Catholic Teaching, in your view?

Do you not agree that the Saints and Doctors of the Church stand within the Teaching? Is that not why their writings are encouraged to the faithful?

Is the Baltimore Catechism more authorative as a source of Church Teaching than the writings of the Saints and Doctors?

 

[Denise1957]

What is the “basis” of Catholic Teaching, in your view?

Do you not agree that the Saints and Doctors of the Church stand within the Teaching? Is that not why their writings are encouraged to the faithful?

Is the Baltimore Catechism more authorative as a source of Church Teaching than the writings of the Saints and Doctors?

For the most part, the writings of the Saints and Doctors follow and line up with Catholic teaching. But it is not they who make the teaching. Do you understand the difference?

 

[guanophore]

Sedevacantism means that a person takes the view that the chair of Peter is empty. It’s rather humorous that you would think that I’m walking into this path.

I think people get this impression when Traditionalists disregard things the Popes have said, or state that such expressions are not authoritive.

Traditionalists and Charismatics both seek God through different paths? I wouldn’t know about that - it’s an odd question. I know that the Catholic Church does not teach we should seek after speaking in tongues or prophesying.

I think you are suffering from a warped persepctive of what the CCR teaches, Denise. The participants seek after an empowered walk with God in the HS through consecration and devotion to the HS. This is not about chasing after gifts.

I know that the Protestant Pentacostal denominations DO teach that speaking in tongues and prophesying should be sought after.

Yes, they do, but the CCR teaches that this is inappropriate and problematic.

 

[Denise1957]

I think people get this impression when Traditionalists disregard things the Popes have said, or state that such expressions are not authoritive.

I think you are suffering from a warped persepctive of what the CCR teaches, Denise. The participants seek after an empowered walk with God in the HS through consecration and devotion to the HS. This is not about chasing after gifts.

Yes, they do, but the CCR teaches that this is inappropriate and problematic.

I’m not going to address these things with you, guanophore; I was commenting here on what someone else wrote.

 

[guanophore]

:banghead: Yes it does!

I think you and Denise are having a semantics problem, among other problems. You can see from her post just above that makes reference to “Protestant Pentecostals” that she is referrng to chasing after gifts for their own sake. You will both agree that this is wrong.

Furthermore, Traditionalists prefer the Baltimore Catechism over the new Catechism, so if it appears there is a contradiction between the two, they will embrace the Baltimore. Since the Baltimore precedes the manifestation of the answer to the Holy Father’s prayer for the New Pentecost, it does not reflect any of the instruction to the faithful that occured since then.

One of the things I have learned on this thread is that Traditionlists seem to ascribe little, if any creedence to any writing or teaching of the Bishops or the Holy Fathers that does not come in the form of an encyclical. For that reason, it seems that the Apostolic Exhortation you are citing has no value in supporting your premise.

As you can see in the posts to which you linked, Denise is saying that, because the language used to speak about the New Pentecost is modern, it is there fore obviously not part of the traditional faith of the Church. There is no effort made to reconcile this position with the writings of the NT or the Early Church.

If the Holy Spirit wishes us to have a particular charism, whether it be teaching or prophecy, we must respond in some way. I am not sure why this isn’t clear to you.

I don’t think this is the case, ClayPots. No one “must” respond to the gifts and graces of God. God calls all persons to be saved, and to become Holy, and most do not respond. God has given each person charism for the common good, and yet most people don’t use theirs. One can refuse the gifts of God. One can bury what God has given them in the ground, so that it produces no increase.

These quotes from CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, Lumen Gentium, and the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH clearly state that in order for us to receive a charism, we must yield, accept, receive, recognize them.

But can’t you see that yielding, accepting, receiving and recognizing is different from “seekng, chasing, and obsessing” after “tongues and prophesy”? If one takes an overview of this thread, one can clearly see that most traditionalists have an obsession with “tongues and prophesy” and the seeking of them. They imagine that this obsession belongs to Charismatics, rather than themselves. Some even seem to believe that we go to prayer meetings “chasing” after these phenomena, rather than for fellowship and to join ourselves in prayer to yield to the wishes of the Holy Spirit.

This is all charisms, whether ordinary ones like teaching, serving, or extraordinary ones such as tongues and prophecies. The Church does not distinguish between them, ordinary and extraordinary all have the same required action on our part; yield, accept, receive, recognize them. CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI says, “Whether they be exceptional and great or simple and ordinary, the charisms are graces”; while Lumen Gentium says, “Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused.” There is no differentiation between the ordinary and extraordinary.

I think what you are trying to say here is that there is no difference in the attitude that we are to adopt with regard to the charisms. We are to present ourselves to God in an attitude of humble service, receive all that He has ordained for us, and act in accordance with what we have received. There are differences in the gifts, but not a difference in how we are to yield to them.

Exactly! And that is what yield" means, accept, receive, recognize them. These words are synonymous with one another, they all convey the same meaning, as I showed you by posting from their thesaurus definitions.

Yes, but it is important to distinguish between this state of receptive, willng, cooperation and chasing after supernatural phenomena.

, (extraordinary gifts do not impart sanctifying grace)

This being said, I think it is important to recognize that walking in the obedience of faith does impart sanctifying grace. When we “yield, accept, cooperate, recieve” God’s intention for us, and strive to walk in the good deeds that he has prepared for us, then our faith is perfected, and we are further justified before God. It is the obedience to God that enables sanctifying grace to flow.

 

[guanophore]

Traditional Catholics do not have to accept the extraordinary charisms, since they do not impart sanctifying grace, it isn’t wrong to not yield to or accept them. It is prudent to not yield to extraordinary charisms if one cannot discern the source, this is where Church teaching on the discernment of spirits comes into play. A good Life in the Spirit Seminar (Like Msgr Walsh’s) covers this thoroughly.

There are Charismatics on this thread brow beating the Traditionalists to “accept the ordinary charisms”, if not for personal use, then at least that they are valid manifestations of the HS.

Since the Traditionalists (by and large) consider the modern CCR and claims to charisms of the HS invalid (not from God) then it would make no sense for them to “yield” to something they have already determined is not of God.

 

[Denise1957]

What is the “basis” of Catholic Teaching, in your view?

Do you not agree that the Saints and Doctors of the Church stand within the Teaching? Is that not why their writings are encouraged to the faithful?

Is the Baltimore Catechism more authorative as a source of Church Teaching than the writings of the Saints and Doctors?

Here’s the “basis” of Catholic teaching. It isn’t based on a view that I personally hold; it’s based on what the Catholic Church says. I found a thread here on CAF which explains it simply:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122245

If you scroll down to post #5, you’ll find this description of the basis of Church teaching. Notice that it does not say that Church teaching is not derived from the writings of the saints:

1. Deposit of Faith: Holy Scripture and tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. Infallible. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. Dogma: infallible teaching of faith and morals, derived from deposit of faith. Propogated by ex cathedra pronouncements of reigning Pontiff or by ecumenical council of Church’s bishops.
3. Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of faith and morals. Binding on all Catholics while propogated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned or even condemned. Doctrine rarely becomes dogma.
4. Discipline: NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propogated, designed to keep believers “on the straight and narrow.”

Here’s another good explanation of the teaching authority of the Church from EWTN:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm

 

[Melchior_1]

Here’s the “basis” of Catholic teaching. It isn’t based on a view that I personally hold; it’s based on what the Catholic Church says. I found a thread here on CAF which explains it simply:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122245

If you scroll down to post #5, you’ll find this description of the basis of Church teaching. Notice that it does not say that Church teaching is not derived from the writings of the saints:

1. Deposit of Faith: Holy Scripture and tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. Infallible. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. Dogma: infallible teaching of faith and morals, derived from deposit of faith. Propogated by ex cathedra pronouncements of reigning Pontiff or by ecumenical council of Church’s bishops.
3. Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of faith and morals. Binding on all Catholics while propogated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned or even condemned. Doctrine rarely becomes dogma.
4. Discipline: NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propogated, designed to keep believers “on the straight and narrow.”

Here’s another good explanation of the teaching authority of the Church from EWTN:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm

Question; why should we take that EWTN link and accept it when people seem not to accept ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm ?

 

[Denise1957]

Question; why should we take that EWTN link and accept it when people seem not to accept ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm ?

Then don’t accept it if you don’t want to, Melchoir. I’m okay with that.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s the “basis” of Catholic teaching. It isn’t based on a view that I personally hold; it’s based on what the Catholic Church says. I found a thread here on CAF which explains it simply:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122245

If you scroll down to post #5, you’ll find this description of the basis of Church teaching. Notice that it does not say that Church teaching is not derived from the writings of the saints:

1. Deposit of Faith: Holy Scripture and tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. Infallible. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. Dogma: infallible teaching of faith and morals, derived from deposit of faith. Propogated by ex cathedra pronouncements of reigning Pontiff or by ecumenical council of Church’s bishops.
3. Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of faith and morals. Binding on all Catholics while propogated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned or even condemned. Doctrine rarely becomes dogma.
4. Discipline: NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propogated, designed to keep believers “on the straight and narrow.”

Here’s another good explanation of the teaching authority of the Church from EWTN:

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm

Thank you Denise!

I see now that we are in agreement on the basis of the Teaching of the Church.

I find it curious that the writings of the Saints and the Doctors of the Church have been presented on this thread as if they are on the level of any of these Sources you cite here.

 

[Denise1957]

Thank you Denise!

I see now that we are in agreement on the basis of the Teaching of the Church.

I find it curious that the writings of the Saints and the Doctors of the Church have been presented on this thread as if they are on the level of any of these Sources you cite here.

Ummm…You’re the one who brought up the issue of the saints and doctors. It wasn’t me.

 

[guanophore]

Ummm…You’re the one who brought up the issue of the saints and doctors. It wasn’t me.

Actually, I was writing to another member at the time, but I appreciate your contribution.

In what Category do you consider an Apostolic Exhortation?

 

[Denise1957]

Actually, I was writing to another member at the time, but I appreciate your contribution.

In what Category do you consider an Apostolic Exhortation?

Actually, you directed a question to me regarding the reconciliation of ‘passages’ with the writings of the saints and doctors, remember?

Why are you asking the question regarding the category of apostolic exhortation?

 

[guanophore]

Actually, you directed a question to me regarding the reconciliation of ‘passages’ with the writings of the saints and doctors, remember?

Why are you asking the question regarding the category of apostolic exhortation?

Yes, I remember. I realize now that you are basing your objections upon some other source. The question remains, however. Since none of the sources you cited can be in contradiction to one another, those statements in Scripture that appear to contradict other statements from the Church must be fully reconcilable. I understand that you have no need or desire to reconcile them, but for those of us who accept the Apostolic Exhortation as valid, it falls to us to reconcile these.

I was asking about the AE because in it, the faithful are encouraged to yield to the charisms. I gather that your assertion “the Church does not teach us to yield…” means that you don’t consider the AE an authorative expression of Church teaching, or that you don’t consider tongues and prophesy as charisms. This latter would present the puzzlement of why you continue to refer to them as charisms, rather than some other more appropriate descriptor.

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, I remember. I realize now that you are basing your objections upon some other source. The question remains, however. Since none of the sources you cited can be in contradiction to one another, those statements in Scripture that appear to contradict other statements from the Church must be fully reconcilable. I understand that you have no need or desire to reconcile them, but for those of us who accept the Apostolic Exhortation as valid, it falls to us to reconcile these.

I was asking about the AE because in it, the faithful are encouraged to yield to the charisms. I gather that your assertion “the Church does not teach us to yield…” means that you don’t consider the AE an authorative expression of Church teaching, or that you don’t consider tongues and prophesy as charisms. This latter would present the puzzlement of why you continue to refer to them as charisms, rather than some other more appropriate descriptor.

Whatever you want to refer to them as is fine. The Catholic Church does not teach that the faithful are to seek after speaking or praying in tongues, or prophesying.

 

[guanophore]

Whatever you want to refer to them as is fine. The Catholic Church does not teach that the faithful are to seek after speaking or praying in tongues, or prophesying.

Yes, but you also said that we are not to “yield” to them. That means that you either don’t consider them valid charisms, or that you don’t consider Apostolic Exhortation as valid instruction to the faithful regarding the charisms.

And, since the Scripture specifically states that we are to do so, and we agree that Church Teaching cannot contradict itself (what is stated in the Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the Scriptures) the statements must be fully reconcilable.

Your list of Church Teachings above includes the Scriptures. Can we not assume that all that is contained in the Scriptures is there for our instruction? Or do you think the Apostles’ instructions to the Corinthians no longer apply to us today?

Should we accept Chapter 13 as valid for today, but skip over 12 and 14?