Poll regarding "Are Charismatics truly Catholic?"

[pnewton]

SPOKENWORD:

They are the ones that want to be more intimate with Jesus. They are the ones who recieve Gods extra blessings.

My only experience with Charismatics and tounges was outside of the RCC, but I see one commonality that expressed in this quote. There seems to be an spiritual elitism in that those who speak in toungues. Note the word “more” intimate and “extra” blessing. I am sure it feels extra special when one is speaking in toungues and there is nothing wrong with feeling good. However, I am still think we should follow Paul’s advise and strive for greater charity.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

pnewton:

My only experience with Charismatics and tounges was outside of the RCC, but I see one commonality that expressed in this quote. There seems to be an spiritual elitism in that those who speak in toungues. Note the word “more” intimate and “extra” blessing. I am sure it feels extra special when one is speaking in toungues and there is nothing wrong with feeling good. However, I am still think we should follow Paul’s advise and strive for greater charity.

Pnewton, You will see that I have not mentioned anything about tongues in any of my posts. Others have. The gift of tongues is there for those who seek it.It is not a requirement.As for me this gift is to edify and praise God. Its is also used when in Im in a spiritual battle.I see no one greater because they have this gift. We are all equal in the eyes of God but all have different gifts but the same spirit.The closer you draw to God ,the closer God draws to you and the charismatic movement is one of the ways. Thats what I am saying.

 

[space_ghost]

i liken it to interpretive dance… not for me, but if that’s your way to express your love to God??? If your not against us then i guess your for us… peace be with you, but please stay there…

 

[Melchior]

From a Protestant perspective I find the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” sort of embarrasing for Catholics. What I mean is when I was a teenager and left the Catholic Church (officially) I became a Charismatic/Pentacostal. Like most Charismatics I burned out after a few years. They were years of emotionalism without substance. You just can’t get yourself emotionally worked up week after week, year after year and remain spiritually healthy. Most people who leave either end up outside of any church or in churches that are more historically and theologically rooted. But a movement based on emotionalism that expects constant (emotional) gratification and supernatural experience is not the Christianity of the Bible or Church history.

The reason I would be embarrassed as a Cathlolic is because this movement came out of a very new, very theologically shallow brand of Protestantism. Why people in a Church with a rich sacramental understanding would look to cheep imitations from those whose spiritual heritage goes back maybe 150 years at most is beyond me. And make no mistake the charismatic movements is, at its core, trying to fill a sacramental void. Baptism is replaced with an emotional “altar call” or raising of hands or a “sinner’s prayer”. The Eucharist is also replaced with the “altar call” or speaking in tongues or even things that are even worse - see TBN for examples. They are usually callled “Revivals”.

It is similar to some of the hideous folk music that has replaced the great Catholic Hymns in many Roman Catholic churches. It is following a lame protestant trend. What is worse is that these evangelical trends are usually attempts at appealling to the secular culture and are about 20 years behind. When Catholics try to do this they are about 20 years behind the Protestants.

Honestly, your heritage is so much richer than ours. Your spirituality so much deeper. Why on earth would any devout Catholic want to imitate the worst of Protestantism? If some Catholics insist on doing this at least try to draw from historic Protestantism whose theology is deeper than a kiddy pool.

My point is the richness of Catholicism (from an outsiders perspective) can be found in *your * vast history not our recent history. The new movement among all conservative Christians is back to historic, liturgical, sacramental Christianity. Other trends are just that - trends.

Mel

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Melchior:

From a Protestant perspective I find the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” sort of embarrasing for Catholics. What I mean is when I was a teenager and left the Catholic Church (officially) I became a Charismatic/Pentacostal. Like most Charismatics I burned out after a few years. They were years of emotionalism without substance. You just can’t get yourself emotionally worked up week after week, year after year and remain spiritually healthy. Most people who leave either end up outside of any church or in churches that are more historically and theologically rooted. But a movement based on emotionalism that expects constant (emotional) gratification and supernatural experience is not the Christianity of the Bible or Church history.

The reason I would be embarrassed as a Cathlolic is because this movement came out of a very new, very theologically shallow brand of Protestantism. Why people in a Church with a rich sacramental understanding would look to cheep imitations from those whose spiritual heritage goes back maybe 150 years at most is beyond me. And make no mistake the charismatic movements is, at its core, trying to fill a sacramental void. Baptism is replaced with an emotional “altar call” or raising of hands or a “sinner’s prayer”. The Eucharist is also replaced with the “altar call” or speaking in tongues or even things that are even worse - see TBN for examples. They are usually callled “Revivals”.

It is similar to some of the hideous folk music that has replaced the great Catholic Hymns in many Roman Catholic churches. It is following a lame protestant trend. What is worse is that these evangelical trends are usually attempts at appealling to the secular culture and are about 20 years behind. When Catholics try to do this they are about 20 years behind the Protestants.

Honestly, your heritage is so much richer than ours. Your spirituality so much deeper. Why on earth would any devout Catholic want to imitate the worst of Protestantism? If some Catholics insist on doing this at least try to draw from historic Protestantism whose theology is deeper than a kiddy pool.

My point is the richness of Catholicism (from an outsiders perspective) can be found in *your * vast history not our recent history. The new movement among all conservative Christians is back to historic, liturgical, sacramental Christianity. Other trends are just that - trends.

Mel

Just curious Mel, What caused you to burn out after a couple of years.? Did you loose your focus? Ive been involved in the charismatic movement since 1985 and im stiil on fire for the Lord. Its brought me closer to Him and its made me a soldier for Christ. I guess everyones different.

 

[Melchior]

Hi Spokenword,

Please don’t take my answer personally. It is meant with all due respect but I must be honest.

My experience as a Charismatic/Pentacostal came to a head when I went to an Assemblies of God college. It was in Springfield, MO, the denominations headquarters. I went to many churches that were Pentacostal and Charismatic and there was always the constant theme of “come down to the altar get right with God” through an emotional experience. I never in all those years heard any real teaching on living the faith day to day, through good times and bad, mortifying the sinful nature. The focus was always whatever happens can be fixed instantaneously. Sexual sin? Immoral lifestyle? Bad husband or parent? Go to the altar and have an instant transformation. The only problem was I very rarely saw anyone actually overcome anything. If you were not living victoruously your faith was week or you were not “baptised in the Holy Spirit”. You did not have to work at anything you just had to speak in tongues, with tears rolling down your face singing some shallow chorus over and over again to keep you emotionally worked up" etc. Most families I knew were a mess. My college classmates were constantly redicating themselves every week. It was just chaos. No catechism, no Creed no confession of faith. This of course led to the toleration of all sorts of heresy. I have heard many a Charismatic excuse people for being anti-Trinitarian because the obviously love the Lord since the speak in tongues and say they believe in Jesus. Most of the famous Charismatic leaders on TV believe in one ancient heresy or another. T.D. Jakes denies the Trinity yet he is embraced as a “Bishop” in the Charismatic movement. Theology has consequences and I have never seen anything good and lasting come out of the Charismatic movement. I have seen destroyed souls. It did some pretty good damage to me as well. I thank God for His faithfulness and mercy to me.

I finally ended up in more classically Protestant churches that had a higher view of the Sacraments and taught scriptural Christian living. They had real Sacraments not crackers and grapejuice with empty symbolism. I saw succesful Christian parenting.

In short it was the lack of Biblical understanding, novel teachings that never existed in Church history and emotionalism that burned me out. What Christ actually proscribed - Word and Sacrament was all but ignored. The Bible was used by inserting isolated verses to support a topical “Sermon” that always ended up in an earth shattering emotional frenzy.

I am glad you are able to sustain your faith in a Charismatic environment. I have seen very few people last as long as you. If you were to guess what percentage of people that you knew in 1985 are still Charismatics or even Christians today what would be your honest answer?

Mel

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Mel. In honesty many are no longer around because of their age. The prayer groups were not that large,but they were spirit filled christians who loved the Lord. My experiences are much different then yours because when I say charismatics I mean Catholic charasmatics. I was not exposed to the pentacostal charasmatics. Completely different enviroment,and I understand where you are coming from.Peace in Christ.

 

[roibeard]

beng:

That is why we must expose unbiblical lies.

Careful, Beng - you’re starting to sound like a “sola scriptura” type …

 

[Melchior]

SPOKENWORD:

Mel. In honesty many are no longer around because of their age. The prayer groups were not that large,but they were spirit filled christians who loved the Lord. My experiences are much different then yours because when I say charismatics I mean Catholic charasmatics. I was not exposed to the pentacostal charasmatics. Completely different enviroment,and I understand where you are coming from.Peace in Christ.

Ahhh. I can see how it could be different in a Catholic context. Sorry for assuming you were Protestant. Probably because that was my point of reference.

Peace,

Mel

 

[CatholicGeek]

Why on earth would any devout Catholic want to imitate the worst of Protestantism?

I realize that your talking about the protestant charismatic movements, and not the Catholic one here. There is no substitute for the sacraments, for the eucharist!

In my experience, the Catholic charismatic movement brings something to the church that it (generally speaking) was lacking. More than any “gifts of the Holy Spirit”, I think that the greatest gift of this movement of the Holy Spirit is a renewed love for Jesus, and an emphasis on being in a personal relationship with him.

Catholics have a richness in our tradition and sacraments that protestant churches just do not have. But many protestant churches have a something in the emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus.

I’m not saying the Catholic church did not have it, or doesn’t have it. I think it is more of a re-emphasis on it, in a Catholic context - with the sacraments, within the teachings of the church.

Many charismatics that I know have moved from the prayer groups/meetings, into fuller participation in parish life, bringing their love of God into other areas. Perhaps the charismatic renewal is dying down because God is moving those people into new areas of growth?

 

[WanderingCathol]

The charasmatic movement is the continual process of protestation of the catholic church.

 

[Melchior]

I realize that your talking about the protestant charismatic movements, and not the Catholic one here. There is no substitute for the sacraments, for the eucharist!

When I said that I was actually talking about the Catholic Charismatic movement as well. Back in the 80’s I did attend a few Catholic Charismatic prayer meetings to try and get my mom involved. And to be completely honest it was identical to the Protestant ones. In fact the way they spoke in tongues and behaved was identical to Protestant Charismatics. I just remember thinking that they seemed like Evangelical wannabe’s. And the Charismatic movement was a Protestant movement that some Catholics adopted. They were not seperate and unrelated movements. One came from the other. Catholic Charismatics did not evolve ina vacuum. They simply bacame part of a larger movement within the newest Protestant Churches. Back then I thought it was cool and gave me some hope for Catholics. Now I see it as the opposite and I am frankly glad the movement is diminishing. I say this with the greatest respect, but it is just a fad. Catholics can have a deeper prayer life and acloser walk with Jesus with our a hyper charged atmosphere with supposed speaking in tongues that is more similar to Benny Hinn than to the New Testament Church.

This is why I suggest that Catholic Charismatics have adopted (even if some don’t know it) the worst in Protestantism. This movement goes back about 100 years to something called the Azuza Street Revival. The founder was a heretic who had a “Prophetic” vision that the doctrine of the Trinity was false. This was the beggining of the entire movement. Not only is it novel but the people who started the movement were incredibly out in left field. That is why I think the entire Charismatic movement, which is cross denominational, is dying out. It has no substance.

No disrespect intended but I am obliged not to sugar coat the facts.

Blessings,

Mel

 

[dcs]

AFAICT Charismatics are Catholic, but Charismaticism is not Catholicism.

We recently had our home blessed by a priest who is associated with the Charismatic movement (we like him anyway ). He related a story about a Charismatic retreat at Steubenville, I believe, where some participants were receiving the “gift” of “holy laughter.” Anyway, one girl laughed continuously for two hours and couldn’t stop no matter what they did. They eventually came to the conclusion that she was being influenced by a malicious spirit. Now, I think “malicious spirit” is a euphemism for a demon, since neither the angels nor Holy Souls are malicious. So why would you want to be involved with something that leaves you open to diabolical influences? Doesn’t this anecdote cast doubt on the whole business of “holy laughter” and, indeed, Charismaticism itself?

 

[CatholicGeek]

Melchior:

… And to be completely honest it was identical to the Protestant ones. In fact the way they spoke in tongues and behaved was identical to Protestant Charismatics. I just remember thinking that they seemed like Evangelical wannabe’s. And the Charismatic movement was a Protestant movement that some Catholics adopted. They were not seperate and unrelated movements. One came from the other. …

I think you are somewhat correct here, in that the movement began in the Catholic church when some Catholic individuals began to seek understanding of what God was doing in the Pentecostal churches. Many references cite the beginning of the Catholic charismatic renewal as a retreat weekin in 1967 at Duquesne University. The pentecostal movement began back in 1901 or so.

Melchior:

it is just a fad

I tend to think it’s a movement of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think God starts “fads”. But I can understand where you are coming from, and take no offense.

Melchior:

Catholics can have a deeper prayer life and acloser walk with Jesus with our a hyper charged atmosphere with supposed speaking in tongues that is more similar to Benny Hinn than to the New Testament Church.

I agree to a point. Our Catholic faith stand up without these charismatic gifts. But if these same gifts enhance our faith, and is of God, we should not discount them.

Melchior:

This is why I suggest that Catholic Charismatics have adopted (even if some don’t know it) the worst in Protestantism. … the doctrine of the Trinity was false

Are you saying that the Catholic Charismatics have adopted the idea that the Trinity is false? I must assume you are not saying such, and I only mis-interpreted it. Can you be more specifice about what you mean by the “worst in Protestantism”? I think the worst in Protestantism is just that - protesting against the Catholic church and its teachings. I don’t see the CCR doing that.

Melchior:

No disrespect intended but I am obliged not to sugar coat the facts.

The truth shall set you free. I’m all for facts!

 

[Melchior]

Are you saying that the Catholic Charismatics have adopted the idea that the Trinity is false? I must assume you are not saying such, and I only mis-interpreted it.

Absolutely not. I never meant to imply that. I am sorry for not being more clear. I think the Catholic Church is thoroughly Trinitarian and always will be.

Can you be more specifice about what you mean by the “worst in Protestantism”? I think the worst in Protestantism is just that - protesting against the Catholic church and its teachings. I don’t see the CCR doing that.

What I mean by the worst in Protestantism is the later, uniquely American, movements that spawned all sorts of weird theology. The Pentacostal/Charismatic movement gave rise to goof balls like you see on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Benny Hinn, the Brownsville and Toronto Revival folks who started the whole “holy laughter” and holy barking" thing. And of course cults like the Oneness Pentacostals who deny the Trinity. That is what I mean by the worst on Protestantism. A johnny-come-lately movement that has produced an abundance of bad fruit. While you may disagree with Protestantism as a whole the classical Protestants (followers of Luther and Calvin and the Reformation confessions) at least were serious about the Creeds and the essentials of the Christian faith - The Trinity, the Virgin Birth the Resurrection etc. You may not like them but to Protestants the principles of our founders were much more noble, even if misguided, than the principles of some of their step-grandchildren that Wesley spawned - the Charismatics.

I hope that makes more sense.

Mel

 

[James_2_24]

I agree with what you are saying Mel… Also with the utmost respect: I am glad that the Charismatic movement is diminishing within Catholicism.

God Bless you…

 

[Vitus]

What is the difference between the Protestant Charismatics and Catholic Charismatics, other than one being affiliated with the Catholic Church in some way and the other not?

I was a Protestant Charismatic for years, even led and taught in church groups. However, the deeper I studied their beliefs and movements, the more problems I had with the theology behind it. I could no longer in good faith participate in that movement, so I left. I left Christianity all together, but now after soul searching, I returned. Wiser and more sceptical, but returned none the less.

Now being a Catholic, I have great trepidation when hearing about ANY Charismatic movement. I’ve been there. I’ve done the tongue speaking, the dancing, the laying on of hands, the weeping. It’s a very emotion inducing feeling. And IMO, that’s all it is. It’s emotions taking over, interfering with heart and mind. Dangerous? Sometimes. Of God? Doubtful.

Historically, it’s exactly what Paul was warning the Corinthians about. The mystery religions of Corinth were all about pure emotional outpouring, which led people down a twisted road. This is why Paul called for order and for women to remain silent (women were usually leading the chaotic religous meetings). Corinth was a particular trouble spot, which is why the charims aren’t mentioned in many other spots in the New Testament.

Also, the early church leaders agreed that the charims ended with the passing of the apostles. This was done in response to the Montanist heresy. The charims were used to establish the early church, they were a tool that passed away (as the Bible said they would).

Fast forward 1700 years to Azusa street as Melchoir mention and you see the begining of the Charismatic movement. Why the lack of charims for 1700 years? Where the early church leaders wrong? Or is this something new with a religous twist on it?

Biblically, it doesn’t hold much water either. It’s taking a few chapters written specifically to the people of Corinth and letting your emotions take control to fit into the words of the book. Paul was warning about ecstatic outbursts, about speaking in tongues (which was common in non-christian religions of the day) without interpreters and about putting the quest for charims ahead of the expression of love from the heart (see banging gong in 1 Corinthians 13). There is no “personal prayer language” as espoused by tongue speaking charsimatics today. They aren’t speaking in tongues of angels, but simply letting their emotions spout gibberish. It “feels right” because it’s emotional, nothing more.

I’m not saying that God can’t or hasn’t used tongues or prophesy or healing since the days of the apostles. He’s God, he’s got a lot of leaway. I’m saying that the commonality of the emotion filled, tongue talking, slain in the spirit, holy laughter church services are neither historically nor biblically (in context) supported.

 

[CatholicGeek]

Melchior:

What I mean by the worst in Protestantism is the later, uniquely American, movements that spawned all sorts of weird theology.

From catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/bishops.htm

Grace For The New Springtime
A Statement from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops on the Charismatic Renewal
1997

The impact of the Charismatic Renewal on the broader Church has been significant. The Renewal has nourished the call of all to holiness as a gift from the Spirit and helped the Church come to a greater awareness and expectancy of the Holy Spirit and the charismatic gifts of the Spirit. The Charismatic Renewal has led the people of God in a revival of the ministry of healing, encouraging them – laity and clergy alike – to pray for the sick with faith and expectancy.

It has renewed the appreciation for the role of praise in individual and communal prayer and enriched the Church with many gifted musicians, music ministries, and song writers. The Renewal has taught a commitment to the Pope, the Bishops, and to orthodox teaching. Vocations to priesthood, diaconate, and religious life have been fostered. It has called forth the gifts of the laity who are today serving in a variety of ecclesial lay ministries; e.g., in the liturgy, religious education, and youth ministry, and ministries for the transformation of the world.

Melchior:

… gave rise to goof balls …

We don’t gauge our Catholic church by what the “goof balls” do. Even if they have their own “sacraments” or whatever. We need to look at things in the light of Christ despite our aversions to those “goof balls”.

Melchior:

A johnny-come-lately movement that has produced an abundance of bad fruit.

You are confusing me with these generalities. I’m not defending Pentecostalism. I’m looking at the charismatic movement within the Catholic church. Based on the quote from “Grace For The New Springtime” above, the movement has produced positive fruit. Where is the “bad fruit” within the church as a movement? (There will always be some story of “bad fruit” based on an individual’s experience, but I’m looking at the movement as a whole.)

 

[CatholicGeek]

Vitus:

What is the difference between the Protestant Charismatics and Catholic Charismatics, other than one being affiliated with the Catholic Church in some way and the other not?

I think the difference is that the Catholic movement supports and upholds the teachings of the church and the pope. The catholic movement also focuses on Christ’s suffering and death in addition to his resurrection. I think non-catholic versions don’t focus on the suffering, but more on the resurrection.

Vitus:

It’s emotions taking over, interfering with heart and mind.

As christian, we are not called to lack emotions, to only be stoic in our prayers. Emotions are a part of us as human beings. The problem comes in when there is too much reliance upon them, or when they direct our will. This can happen in charismatic groups, but does not mean that it is the driving force. There are many more mature charismatic groups who have been around for years, and would not be if only driven by emotions.

Vitus:

women were usually leading the chaotic religous meetings

Are you sure about this, or is this just what you’ve heard? I never heard this. It would seem to contradict they role of women at the time.

Vitus:

Also, the early church leaders agreed that the charims ended with the passing of the apostles. This was done in response to the Montanist heresy. The charims were used to establish the early church, they were a tool that passed away (as the Bible said they would).

Assuming it is true that the gifts where for the early church, although Paul quotes Joel in Acts 2 “'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people”, why cannot God renew the gift in later times? Or if we continue to live in “the last days”, why can not this be a continuation of the fulfillment of this prophesy?

Vitus:

Paul was warning about ecstatic outbursts, about speaking in tongues (which was common in non-christian religions of the day)

I was not aware that this was common in that day.

Vitus:

There is no “personal prayer language” as espoused by tongue speaking charsimatics today.

1 Corinthians 14:2
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

a.k.a. - personal

I agree that there is a lot of flaky stuff out there, but when you examine something, I think we need to look beyond the implementation and at the underlying teaching of it. How many people leave the Catholic church based on what they think it teaches vs what it actually teaches. I think some of the same logic can be applied to the CCR (Catholic Charismatic Renewal). Some implementations of it (prayer groups, people, etc) are not acting out what it is really all about. Then people get hurt, have bad experiences, and write the whole thing off. We are all affected by our experiences for the good or the bad.

 

[Vitus]

CatholicGeek:

I think the difference is that the Catholic movement supports and upholds the teachings of the church and the pope. The catholic movement also focuses on Christ’s suffering and death in addition to his resurrection. I think non-catholic versions don’t focus on the suffering, but more on the resurrection.

Interesting. Teaching-wise it was similar to other protestant churches, including Christ’s suffering and death. I wouldn’t say it was a focus though. The years I spent in the protestant movement was Spirit focused, focusing on using gifts. Also spiritual warfare was a main focus, always concerned about the evil of the world tainting us, bringing one away from the Lord somehow and how we should avoid such things or attack it head on. Much was about “feeling the presence”, always preceded by emotional music and singing of course.

As christian, we are not called to lack emotions, to only be stoic in our prayers. Emotions are a part of us as human beings. The problem comes in when there is too much reliance upon them, or when they direct our will.

Bolding mine. I’m not saying we should be automatons, there is nothing wrong with emotion. The problem lies in the area I’ve bolded. We are called to love the Lord with all of our heart, soul and mind. There is a reason why mind is included.

Are you sure about this, or is this just what you’ve heard? I never heard this. It would seem to contradict they role of women at the time.

I’m sorry, I should have clarified. Most often, it was the women who would be the most vocal, falling into emotional states, leading the congregations to follow their lead. This is quite possibly why Paul instructed the Corinthians to have women stay silent or speak only with their husbands present. Less chance of things falling apart.

Assuming it is true that the gifts where for the early church, although Paul quotes Joel in Acts 2 “'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people”, why cannot God renew the gift in later times? Or if we continue to live in “the last days”, why can not this be a continuation of the fulfillment of this prophesy?

You must remember that the apostles thought they were IN the last days. The expected Christ’s return at any moment, hence “the last days”. This second outpouring that you refer to is a new ideaology, not something taught by the church throughout history.

And remember Paul said to the Corinthians “Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.” Hence the focus on love. Did these extraordinary gifts come to an end? The early church sure thought so (again, the Montanist Heresy)

I was not aware that this was common in that day.

Extremely. It’s estatic utterings. When put into a purely emotional state, it’s fairly common. And to a variety of religions up to this day. What differentiated Pentecost was that they spoke actual languages, understood by people who spoke them. Studies on glossaholia show that they aren’t languages, the don’t even have structure enough to be parts of languages. In other words, gibberish.