Questions about the charismatic renewal...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikaele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Healing Reawakening, The: Reclaiming Our Lost Inheritance
amazon.com/Healing-Reawakening-Reclaiming-Lost-Inheritance/dp/0800794141/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304829948&sr=1-1

This is a book I am currently reading which sheds some light on the history of healing within the church and how healing has been removed from its central “Kingdom of God” message to a sideline specialist role administered in extremis yet in the first 350 years of christianity all people expected to pray for and receive physical healing, deliverance from evil spirits, gift of tongues, etc. I am beginning to open my heart to the possibility that our beloved Catholic Church has forgotten about the power of the Holy Spirit to physically heal our wounds if we but believe and ask. Note that physical healing occurs when an early church Christian but prayed for the healing power of the Holy Spirit.

Another key point is that there are two ways the Holy Spirit is active in our life. Traditionally Catholics have submitted to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. The second way the Holy Spirit can operate is when he comes upon in power and this is episodic as opposed to the indwelling which is constant. The episodic power of the HS coming upon is when the HS heals or immerses and baptises us in his HS, or delivers us from evil spirits, or gives tongues to speak.

The question about the baptism of the Holy Spirit is also worth considering and may be beneficial to a Catholic if you are but open to the fact that we Catholics may not have been clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit as Jesus instructed the Apostles to wait for on Pentecost. Consider for a moment that the Apostles had already received the Holy Spirit, did believe in Jesus Christ and had already been instructed for three years by our Lord. Therefore they had faith and the indwelling of the HS and our Father. Pentecost was the Holy Spirit clothing the Apostles in power, immersing the Apostles in his Holy Spirit, the Baptism of the HS.
 
Two points I wish to clarify, and two observations:

Clarification
  1. When I previously referred to “gibberish”, I was not saying that all people who “speak in tongues” were uttering non-sensical sounds. I used the term “gibberish” as it is commonly defined: “an unintelligible or meaningless language” (Merriam-Webster).
If someone is uttering a sound that is understood by anyone hearing it as a language and that has meaning, then that sound, by definition, is not gibberish.
  1. I still stand by my original point: Why utter gibberish (as defined above)? What possible motive or value could one have to utter sounds that no one listening can understand? I really don’t see the obviousness of this. God wants to spread his word to all men. Does uttering unintelligible sounds that no one understands help God in any way?
Observations

A. Someone above said that “charismatic renewal” is a choice.

A choice? How can one’s body and soul being “grabbed” by the Holy Spirit be by choice? How does one have a choice in when or where the Holy Spirit chooses to “renew” faith in that individual to such a degree that he or she feels the need to share his or her experience with others with the hope of bringing about a renewal in the listeners?

Jimmy Akin, an apologist long associated with Catholic Answers (the sponsor of this forum), said the following (in relevant part) regarding “speaking in tongues”:

"Ever since 1906 Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, from which the current Pentecostal and charismatic movements flow, speaking in tongues has been the subject of controversy. Some of the confusion concerns the nature of the gift. One idea is that tongues is a mode of utterance that can be understood by anyone regardless of his native language. Another is that tongues are a ‘private prayer language’ that is uniquely created by the Holy Spirit for each tongues-speaker.

"Neither idea is correct, and both stem from a failure to appreciate what the word ‘tongues’ means. Contemporary English speakers often look on the term as if it were mysterious and hard to understand. It’s not. When discussing speech, “tongues” has a simple and established meaning.*** It just means ‘languages’***.
“As the multinational crowd gathered on the day of Pentecost showed, the languages in which the apostles spoke were real human languages that could be understood by anyone who spoke them (Acts 2:11).”

B. This last observation better explains my major point in this discussion from the beginning: what is the point in uttering sounds that no one understands? Who benefits?

In the Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, the relevant passage states:

"In 1967, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States witnessed the emergence of Neo-Pentecostalism, a charismatic movement that gave rise to prayer groups and basic Christian communites in which some of the members experienced glossolalia and baptism in the spirit. However, Neo-Pentecostalism had already been introduced in some of the Protestant churches as early as 1890.

"When discussing “babbling” that is neither understood by the speaker nor the listener, the Encyclopedia goes on to say: “In that case, the phenomenon may be associated with a schizophrenic syndrome, an intense emotional seizure, or a diabolical intervention. In fact, glossolalia is one of the symptoms of diabolical possession.”

Conclusion

St. Paul, in discussing “speaking in tongues”, said the following:

1 Corinth. 14:2-6 “For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not unto men, but unto God: for no man hears. Yet by the Spirit he speaks mysteries. But he that prophesies, speaks to men unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaks in a tongue, edifies himself: but he that prophesies, edifies the church . . . For greater is he that prophesies, than he that speaks with tongues: unless perhaps he interprets, that the church may receive edification. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine?”

St. Paul himself asked basically the same as I did: what is the point when no one understands?

Continuing:

14:19-14 “But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also; than ten thousand words in a tongue.”

14:27-28 “27 If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God.”

St. Paul is obviously pointing out the danger of doing this publically.

Finally, in the recently published Catholic Dictionary edited by Scott Hahn, the relevant discussion states in part:

Speaking in tongues and edifying one’s self, “is fine as far as it goes, and personal edification has its place, but St. Paul counsels that tongues should not be exercised in the context of public worship unless someone with the charism of interpretation is present to share the meaning of the words with the assembly. For this reason, St. Paul subordinates tongues to other charisms such as prophecy, because the latter provides encouragement for all in attendance.”

In conclusion, I am NOT against “charismatic renewal” or any “gifts” people of this movement/renewal purport to have. I simply have said from the beginning (with obvious support from others more authoritative than me) that it has NEVER made sense to me for people to engage in any type of behavior that does not benefit anyone else.

What is the point if no one understands you?
 
Romans 8:26-27 - In the same way the Spirit also joins to help in our weakness, because we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with unspoken groanings. And He who searches the hearts knows the Spirit’s mind-set, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

That is one point. The prayer language of the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. It doesn’t matter if we understand it, or if anyone else understands it. God understands it.

The other point is the same as the reason for prophecy.

Why do you put the words of Akin or Hahn above higher authorities in the CC who have approved of the movement? Why is it so important to you that you seek to marginalize those who are part of that movement? What are you trying to prove or gain?
 
PLeeD said:
Why do you put the words of Akin or Hahn above higher authorities in the CC who have approved of the movement? Why is it so important to you that you seek to marginalize those who are part of that movement? What are you trying to prove or gain?
Click to expand...
In addition, Hahn is completely supportive of the Charismatic Renewal, which emcompasses much more than “speaking in tongues”
 
PLeeD said:
Romans 8:26-27 - In the same way the Spirit also joins to help in our weakness, because we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with unspoken groanings. And He who searches the hearts knows the Spirit’s mind-set, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

That is one point. The prayer language of the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. It doesn’t matter if we understand it, or if anyone else understands it. God understands it.

The other point is the same as the reason for prophecy.

Why do you put the words of Akin or Hahn above higher authorities in the CC who have approved of the movement? Why is it so important to you that you seek to marginalize those who are part of that movement? What are you trying to prove or gain?
Click to expand...
👍 Good point…
 
PLeedD,

I am not trying to put anyone “higher” than anyone else.

I reported, VERBATIM, words spoken by people who are affiliated with this website, one of whom serves as an apologist for This Rock. Now when it gets to the point that I cannot quote people who contribute to This Rock because their opinion is contrary to a group on the CAF, then what is the point of having CAF?

I made it clear at the outset, I do NOT reject “charismatic renewal” in general. My “bones of contention” is that:
  1. There seems to be no set “definition” of what that phrase actually means and entails. Christ the King Church in Ann Arbor, MI gives a description of “charismatic renewal” about as close to what I would call a definition as I can find:
“A charismatic style of prayer is common at Christ the King. People are free to raise their hands in prayer and during songs, many pray their own prayers audibly, some pray in tongues, etc… They pray with expressive or charismatic prayer at monthly parish prayer meetings, at the beginning of parish meetings, and most especially during certain moments in the Holy Mass. These are some of the external markers of a charismatic parish. Internal markers include a radical surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all parts of life, a strong adherence to the Gospel and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the pursuit of strong friendships centered on Christ.”

This is taken vebatim from their website - not Wikipedia.

I am ALL FOR everything stated in the last sentence.

I am COMPLETELY AGAINST everything said before the last sentence for one simple reason: none of these “acts” are sanction or authorized by the GIRM. By acting this was at Holy Mass, attention is being called to them (whether they admit to doing so intentionally or not), and it makes those who do NOT act in such a manner feel as though they are no longer part of that congregation.

At Mass, we are to participate in the celebration of Mass by giving thanks to God in the manner prescribed by Rome. We are not supposed to make up a “Mass” as we go along.

I remember a time when all Catholics on Sunday, no matter what part of the world they lived in, could feel “at peace” and a sense of unity in knowing that they were attending a Mass and were doing the same thing wordwide (excepting, of course, those Rites that have Catholic approval to differ from the Latin Rite). That sense of unity is gone.
  1. Secondly, people say that “the popes are all for it”, but they never say exactly what the popes are for because I can never get a straight answer as to what charismatic renewal is.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II said:

“At this moment in the Church’s history, the Charismatic Renewal*** can ***play a significant role in promoting the much-needed defense of Christian life in societies where secularism and materialism have weakened many people’s ability to respond to the Spirit and to discern God’s loving call. Your contribution to the re-evangelization of society will be made in the first place by personal witness to the indwelling Spirit and by showing forth His presence through works of holiness and solidarity.”
  1. Finally, as far as me citing Hahn and Akin, I am certain that if they had heaped praise on the charism of “speaking in tongues”, people would have cited them LONG ago in this thread. Now, the response is akin to, “well who are Hahn and Akin to question what popes have said”?
I am a student of the 1960’s and 1970’s because that is when I grew up and served as an altar boy through the transition from the “old” to the “new”. When I discover that a “movement” had its start in the late 1960’s where people were encouraged to engage in behavior at Mass that differed from the prescribed form, I am cautious. If one digs deep enough, the very roots of being “charistmatic” in general (I am not speaking to individuals, as I don’t know anyone’s heart and soul - only God does) traces back to protestant evangelicalism.

Look at the description give by Christ the King Church above: “many pray their own prayers audibly”. That violates the GIRM and I can tell you first hand: if I am attending Mass and the person next to me starts waiving their hands and praying prayers that are not even being said at that point during the Mass, that is going to disrupt MY concentration and deflect from what is SUPPOSED to be said during Mass.

I remember sitting around holding hands and singing Kumbaya. It didn’t work :mad:

P.S.

PLeedD,

You said: “That is one point. The prayer language of the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. It doesn’t matter if we understand it, or if anyone else understands it. God understands it.”

That is fine - perfectly acceptable.

Do you care to explain WHY someone doing that feels the need to break out in prayer out loud in the middle of a Mass and start swaying back and forth and uttering sounds that no one understands? You don’t find that to be “self centered behavior”? I have seen that first hand and was even a part of it (as an altar boy, I was asked by the priest to go to this person and request that they leave Mass).

Even St. Paul (and I don’t know of anyone “higher than him” in this discussion) said that if someone is engaging in such behavior and no one is present to interpret what is being said or done, that person should do it quietly.
 
I agree with you that someone acting like that in a situation where it is not expected is disruptive, and is similar to what Paul warned against. This is not the way praying in tongues should be practiced. If it is being done in a way that would intrude on the worship of another then it’s not acceptable.

I’m not familiar enough with the procedures of the Catholic mass to comment further, except to say that from reading the quote from the Ann Arbor church, they apparently encourage and expect this behavior. To quote, “and most especially during certain moments in the Holy Mass.” If that’s the case, and the behavior is acceptable and allowed at certain times within the mass, then it seems perfectly acceptable. I would think that if they are breaking some code of behavior of then Catholic church, someone like yourself would contact the authorities and have it put to a stop.

To answer your last question:

“Do you care to explain WHY someone doing that feels the need to break out in prayer out loud in the middle of a Mass and start swaying back and forth and uttering sounds that no one understands?”

No, because I can’t explain it. The act of initiating speaking or praying in tongues is fully voluntary. If someone does this in a disruptive way, then it was right for them to be asked to leave. I wouldn’t care if they were praying in tongues, or breaking out into show tunes. They should stop, or leave, assuming the behavior is not allowed by the church leadership.
 
Salvatore123 said:
I am COMPLETELY AGAINST everything said before the last sentence for one simple reason: none of these “acts” are sanction or authorized by the GIRM. By acting this was at Holy Mass, attention is being called to them (whether they admit to doing so intentionally or not), and it makes those who do NOT act in such a manner feel as though they are no longer part of that congregation.
Click to expand...
Additional thought; read Romans 14 and think about how it tells us to treat other Christians in our midst.
 
PLeeD,

First, I apologize for a big mistake on my part. I simply took it for granted that you were Catholic and did not even bother to look at your faith indicator. This, of course, would explain you not knowing about the practices of the Holy Mass.

Second, EVERY thing I mentioned that I am against - I assure you - is NOT sanctioned by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (again - my apologies for assuming you knew what the GIRM was). The GIRM was enacted and priest MUST follow it for one simple reason: we want Catholics to adhere to the same worship of God throughout the world within a particular Rite.

Third, you said something that immediately caught my attention, and that seems to be at odds with an earlier poster. Perhaps it is because you are Assemblies of God and the other poster was Catholic. The Catholic poster said that, “The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a choice.” I get the impression from you that “behavior” associated with the charismatic movement is not by choice - it comes unexpectedly and the recipient supposedly has no control over themselves once they are “seized in the spirit”. I am curious as to which is the more accurate description (or if they can co-exist).

Finally, regardless of Catholic or Protestant, I am, by nature, always suspect of some new “method of worshipping” that seems to be a product of only the 20th century, with no documented evidence of charismatic behavior recorded only than as described by St. Paul - and after his description, there is an almost 1900 year gap. This just seems odd to me, given the importance attributed to it by those who say they experience it.

P.S. - the reference you make to the Ann Arbor church reminded me of something I forgot to say: there is NO point during a Mass where such behavior is more acceptable than another part of the Mass. As I said above, the GIRM spells out what may be done - and that is it. Deviation is not legally allowed. Many priests deviate, but that does not make it right.
 
Salvatore123 said:
I get the impression from you that “behavior” associated with the charismatic movement is not by choice - it comes unexpectedly and the recipient supposedly has no control over themselves once they are “seized in the spirit”. I am curious as to which is the more accurate description (or if they can co-exist).
Click to expand...
Nothing I said implies that a person speaking in tongues during a mass, a protestant praise and worship service, or during private prayer, does so involuntarily.

Speaking or praying in tongues in these situations is always started and stopped voluntarily. The person is in complete control over whether they do it or not. Otherwise, the kind of self-regulation that Paul instructs us to use, namely that only two or three should speak in tongues, and only if an interpreter is present, wouldn’t be possible.

I think the Catholic poster is saying that engaging or not engaging in the biblical gift of tongues is completely up to the choice of the individual. I completely agree with that.

If your problem is with the use of tongues by Catholics at improper times during Mass, then you should direct your complaints in that way. In doing so you are in agreement with Paul. But, it seems more like you are marginalizing the use of that gift of the spirit in general, in which case you are not in line with what Paul teaches.
 
After the first or perhaps the second century there is no record of it (tongues) in any Orthodox source, and it is not recorded as occurring even among the great Fathers of the Egyptian desert, who were so filled with the Spirit of God that they performed numerous astonishing miracles, including raising the dead.
 
The heretic Montanus used to speak in tongues:

He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times. (Eusebius, d.c.339)
 
bkovacs said:
And that is where it should stay!. In protestant churches. It is not Catholic or Orthodox at all!.
Click to expand...
Mickey said:
👍
Click to expand...
How do you justify that opinion when it directly contradicts scripture?:

1 Corinthians 14:39 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition) - Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy; and forbid not to speak with tongues.
Mickey said:
The heretic Montanus used to speak in tongues:
Click to expand...
Was he baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Did he ever receive the Eucharist? Maybe those things should be forbidden as well? 🤷
 
“This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more”? (St John Chrysostom)
 
I had a friend who never attended church but watched different tv evangelists.He would speak this particular phrase when I asked him and it was always the same one.I say about 5 words.i asked him once what it meant and he said he didn’t know it just came to him one day after watching the television church ministry.He said he was speaking in tongues.I thought it was kinda unique.It wasn’t baby talk just some kind of strange jibberish.It might have been some kind of language but I’d never heard it before.Kinda weird.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Two points I wish to clarify, and two observations:

Clarification
  1. When I previously referred to “gibberish”, I was not saying that all people who “speak in tongues” were uttering non-sensical sounds. I used the term “gibberish” as it is commonly defined: “an unintelligible or meaningless language” (Merriam-Webster).
If someone is uttering a sound that is understood by anyone hearing it as a language and that has meaning, then that sound, by definition, is not gibberish.
  1. I still stand by my original point: Why utter gibberish (as defined above)? What possible motive or value could one have to utter sounds that no one listening can understand? I really don’t see the obviousness of this. God wants to spread his word to all men. Does uttering unintelligible sounds that no one understands help God in any way?
(…)
Click to expand...
God understands. In most cases the person is just praising God.

I read about someone was criticizing the Latin Mass (EO) saying he couldn’t hear what the priest was saying. He was answered with “that’s okay; he isn’t talking to you”. It’s similar to that. The person praying in tongues isn’t praying to you.

FYI I don’t have the gift of tongues and I was blessed that I belonged to 2 groups that didn’t put tongues higher than other gifts even though it seemed like not having that gift was the exception. I even know someone who spoke in tongues in Hebrew for awhile.
 
Salvatore123 provided the key Verse earlier: 1 Cor 14:27-28 “27 If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God.”

The problem with some groups, charismatics among them, is that they do not believe they have to be obedient to the Church or even the bishop for that matter. I was at a charismatic prayer group meeting when a woman purported to speak in tongues and then interpreted it herself as the Holy Spirit saying we do not need the Church. Because of this I am very wary of anyone who claims to speak in tongues but refuses the admonition to have someone else present to interpret.
 
Paul also says we are to test the spirit of the prophecy or message in tongues to discern if it is really from the Holy Spirit.

I’ve also seen some instances where IMO the source was not the Holy Spirit, but the mind of the person doing the speaking. These weren’t even messages in tongues, though, they were prophecy. These instances led to my pastor cracking down on some of the displays of the gifts per Paul’s instructions.

Those few bad examples don’t negate the other positive and powerful cases I’ve seen.

I ask again; how do you justify forbidding speaking in tongues, when that directly contradicts scripture?:

1 Corinthians 14:39 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition) - *Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy; and forbid not to speak with tongues.
*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top