Rejecting the Motu Proprio....at Steubenville?

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Brenda V.:

If the school, FUS, is drawing people away from HMC then explain why my daughter has several friends who went there for the educational program and came out as converts (not Charismatics btw, just orthodox Catholics)? My daughter’s best friend from here joined her there for the education she could get and the fact that it is a small school compared to a State University. She went in fear that everyone would make fun of her because she wasn’t Catholic and that they would try to convert her, well they did but they used the method St. Francis is purported to advocate, “Preach always, use words when necessary”. In other words, actions is what got her asking questions and the students were able to answer them for her and, lo and behold, here she is now, an orthodox Catholic still learning her faith and asking me and her mil (the two most knowledgeable people she knows about the faith and if we can’t answer her we do send her to her Priest who will answer her) married to a practicing Catholic and pregnant with her second child (btw, they practice NFP and want lots of children!) She is not Charismatic nor is her husband but she is faithful.

Brenda V.

Franciscan University used to be extremely charismatic. The element is still strong, but the school is more contemporary in most regards now. I had several friends there who used to speak in tongues, prophesy, etc., and some were involved in Catholic Theophostic; but most of the people I knew were more contemporary than charismatic in their spirituality. Many of my friends also preferred more traditional worship. Many students went to St. Peter’s downtown for this purpose.

As to conversions, it goes many ways. Several of my friends who went in Roman Catholic or became Roman Catholic now do not identify themselves as Roman Catholics. For many, the difficulty is remaining in the faith when one leaves the community at Franciscan. I can’t imagine what that must be like, since I lived on the fringe of the Franciscan faith, so to speak.

 

[latinmass]

For all who think that Franciscan should have a TLM on campus and want to see a new church, perhaps y’all should donate some funds to the school to build one.

I knew many devout Catholics while attending Franciscan and I really hate these threads that imply that Fransiscan isn’t in line with the Church which couldn’t be farther from the truth.

The point is that FUS foucuses on the charismatic movement which should not be a focus at all in the Catholic faith. Yes, at this point this movement has not been looked down upon by the Church yet. This movement being the focus is taking people away from the true traditions of the Catholic faith which should be focused on.

 

[cothrige]

RE: Charismatic being Protestant, we should bring this to a different thread but my understanding is it started way before Vat. 2. It was endorsed by more than one Pope too.

This may be so, but several of the “endorsements” I have seen touted by Charismatics as having come from Pope’s were really nothing more than the typical friendly and warm language of the Pope when speaking to visiting people. That is quite typical of Popes, and they very regularly speak in very friendly and supportive terms regarding the Protestants they receive, as well as Muslims, and any other group or person who chooses to visit them. I am not very sure that any of these statements truly represent a Pope endorsing the Charismatic movement.

Like any movement, it can be hijacked by some. My personal experience is that those involved are more into praise of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - they are very devoted to Mary and her Son (definitely not protestant).

True, they are not Protestant, which is quite specific, but that doesn’t actually make them Catholic. There are many forms of devotions and faiths which have retained, to a greater or lesser degree, core Catholic practices, but this simply will not make them acceptable or wise. The SSPX, high church Episcopalians and the Fatima Crusader croud are all more “catholic” than the Charismatics, and all share a very strong devotion to Our Lady, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are good examples of people leading others to the Catholic Church. And even the fact that there are very sincere and faithful Charismatics doesn’t mean anything, as I have known several Muslims I could describe the same way. Rather, the Charismatic movement should be measured, as any such thing is, by its fruits. Living in a town with a surprising surplus of Charismatics I can tell you that if you consider rampant liturgical abuse and religious education with a focus on the beauty of Pentecostal Protestantism then the fruit is good. But, if you would value respectful worship in the manner taught by the Church with educational focus on real Catholic teachings, then you would likely feel differently.

Patrick

 

[maria29]

The point is that FUS foucuses on the charismatic movement which should not be a focus at all in the Catholic faith. Yes, at this point this movement has not been looked down upon by the Church yet. This movement being the focus is taking people away from the true traditions of the Catholic faith which should be focused on.

This movement isn’t a main focus at Franciscan University, besides the FOP’s and the one summer conference none of my theology professors ever touched the whole charismatic movement subject.

I’ve read some of the letters and addresses that the Holy Father Pope John Paul II had read to the Charismatic movement over the years where he thanks them for bringing Catholics back to the fold and enriching their spirituality. If done in a holy and correct way I really don’t see how its taking away the true traditions of the Catholic faith.

 

[catharina]

The point is that FUS foucuses on the charismatic movement which should not be a focus at all in the Catholic faith. Yes, at this point this movement has not been looked down upon by the Church yet. This movement being the focus is taking people away from the true traditions of the Catholic faith which should be focused on.

Your statement has a bit of a “de fide” ring to it yet it is nothing more than your opinion. Since the Church has recognized and supported charismatic action as a special gift of the Holy Spirit, going back to the Apostles, I wonder when/why did you step away from Church teachings?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Catharina:

Your statement has a bit of a “de fide” ring to it yet it is nothing more than your opinion. Since the Church has recognized and supported charismatic action as a special gift of the Holy Spirit, going back to the Apostles, I wonder when/why did you step away from Church teachings?

When I was involved in the Charismatic movement, I tried to find papal support for it. What I found was that the Vatican approves of the Charismatic movement itself, but it remains tantalizingly silent on the validity of the special “gifts” of the charismatic movement. Nowhere did I find any Vatican statement specifically confirming the validity of the gift of tongues, of the baptism in the Spirit, etc. that are so frequent in the Charismatic movement. In fact, I remember reading one papal text in which the Pope mentions (in a subtle way) the need for discernment (of the validity of the gifts).

Not all students at Franciscan are supportive of the Charismatic movement. Many become involved their first or second year and then become disillusioned. One of my friends at Franciscan told me a story of a Catholic (linguist) friend who went to a Charismatic Mass (not at Franciscan). He recognized the tongues as a certain language, and the people were actually worshiping Satan. I don’t know for sure if this is true, but my friend is reliable. Isn’t it ironic that many Catholics who reject Latin as a language that is not understood by the people at Mass, are the same persons who blabber tongues at Mass?

 

[catharina]

When I was involved in the Charismatic movement, I tried to find papal support for it. What I found was that the Vatican approves of the Charismatic movement itself, but it remains tantalizingly silent on the validity of the special “gifts” of the charismatic movement. Nowhere did I find any Vatican statement specifically confirming the validity of the gift of tongues, of the baptism in the Spirit, etc. that are so frequent in the Charismatic movement. In fact, I remember reading one papal text in which the Pope mentions (in a subtle way) the need for discernment (of the validity of the gifts).

Not all students at Franciscan are supportive of the Charismatic movement. Many become involved their first or second year and then become disillusioned. One of my friends at Franciscan told me a story of a Catholic (linguist) friend who went to a Charismatic Mass (not at Franciscan). He recognized the tongues as a certain language, and the people were actually worshiping Satan. I don’t know for sure if this is true, but my friend is reliable. Isn’t it ironic that many Catholics who reject Latin as a language that is not understood by the people at Mass, are the same persons who blabber tongues at Mass?

My point is that since Apostolic times, the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been accepted and respected. I leave it to you to refer to the Acts? the Epistles? to confirm this for yourself, noting well the caution that one is not to speak in tongues in a setting wherein the uniformed might be confused by that gift. It’s in the BIBLE, for heaven’s sake; the Church needn’t comment on what’s already been made perfectly clear in Apostolic times. I have never had the gift of tongues nor do I desire it, but for anyone to guess that speaking in tongues is “blabber” seems to me to be quite dangerous. As fro speaking in tongues at Mass, I can’t imagine any use for that either.

**addition: **
On second thought, here is one quote from Paul, 1 Corinthians 14.

1
Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy.
2
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit.
3
On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to human beings, for their building up, encouragement, and solace.
4
Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church.
5
Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up.
6
Now, brothers, if I should come to you speaking in tongues, what good will I do you if I do not speak to you by way of revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or instruction?
7
Likewise, if inanimate things that produce sound, such as flute or harp, do not give out the tones distinctly, how will what is being played on flute or harp be recognized?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Catharina:

My point is that since Apostolic times, the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been accepted and respected. I leave it to you to refer to the Acts? the Epistles? to confirm this for yourself, noting well the caution that one is not to speak in tongues in a setting wherein the uniformed might be confused by that gift. It’s in the BIBLE, for heaven’s sake; the Church needn’t comment on what’s already been made perfectly clear in Apostolic times. I have never had the gift of tongues nor do I desire it, but for anyone to guess that speaking in tongues is “blabber” seems to me to be quite dangerous. As fro speaking in tongues at Mass, I can’t imagine any use for that either.

You don’t get my point. Just because these gifts were in Apostolic times does not mean that they are for everyone for today. Much less does it mean that every appearance of a “gift” is really from God. The Devil too can perform apparent miracles (see Simon Magus). Also, many of these gifts may have more universally been needed back then but not so much now.

The tongues is blabber, because nobody is at Mass to interpret what is being said. Paul discourages speaking in tongues without an interpreter, and yet this is what Charismatics frequently do: speak in tongues together without anyone to explain what is being said. Were there someone there to interpret, well then maybe it wouldn’t be blabber. Plus, perhaps more importantly: in Acts the Apostles and disciples speak KNOWN tongues. The tongues that Charismatics often speak is not a known language but a cacophony of sha lala’s. I do not see this type of tongues in the Bible nor in Apostolic times.

 

[catharina]

You don’t get my point. Just because these gifts were in Apostolic times does not mean that they are for everyone for today. Much less does it mean that every appearance of a “gift” is really from God. The Devil too can perform apparent miracles (see Simon Magus). Also, many of these gifts may have more universally been needed back then but not so much now.

The tongues is blabber, because nobody is at Mass to interpret what is being said. Paul discourages speaking in tongues without an interpreter, and yet this is what Charismatics frequently do: speak in tongues together without anyone to explain what is being said. Were there someone there to interpret, well then maybe it wouldn’t be blabber. Plus, perhaps more importantly: in Acts the Apostles and disciples speak KNOWN tongues. The tongues that Charismatics often speak is not a known language but a cacophony of sha lala’s. I do not see this type of tongues in the Bible nor in Apostolic times.

Please do not pretend to instruct me, using the very same words of Paul that I quoted to you! Really. Please. Your insignificant judgment that the gift of tongues is “not needed” today is simply that: your judgment - although I must add that many fundamentalist Protestant preachers agree with you. It is not for you or for me to determine whether tongues are from God. That is between the soul and God.

Now, read (again?) the quote I submitted from Paul - and don’t throw into it your own impression of what Paul is or is not saying. Paul speaks quite clearly enough for me, thank you.

**"Paul, 1 Corinthians 14.

1
Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy.
2
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit.
3
On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to human beings, for their building up, encouragement, and solace.
4
Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church.
5
Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up.
6
Now, brothers, if I should come to you speaking in tongues, what good will I do you if I do not speak to you by way of revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or instruction?"**

Do you honestly believe that you are qualified to speak for God in regard to what is or is not “needed” today? You are re-interpreting Sacred Scripture! On the other hand, if you are some graced and renowned Scripture scholar, please identify yourself as such.

 

[lucybeebee]

The problem I have with tongues is that no one can understand them. The entire miracle of Pentecost revolved around the fact that everyone could understand each other, even though they came from different regions or countries, thus creating an “anti-Babel” effect. Modern tongue speakers don’t communicate in an intelligible way. For the most part, it is just babbling and we’re told that it’s supposed to be a language spoken in some obscure tribe in the Congo (I have heard that when missionaries first arrived in Africa and Asia that they did miraculously recieve the ability to speak to the people in their native languages). To me, a real gift of tongues would be the ability to communicate to people in different actual languages, like the John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[catharina]

The problem I have with tongues is that no one can understand them. The entire miracle of Pentecost revolved around the fact that everyone could understand each other, even though they came from different regions or countries, thus creating an “anti-Babel” effect. Modern tongue speakers don’t communicate in an intelligible way. For the most part, it is just babbling and we’re told that it’s supposed to be a language spoken in some obscure tribe in the Congo (I have heard that when missionaries first arrived in Africa and Asia that they did miraculously recieve the ability to speak to the people in their native languages). To me, a real gift of tongues would be the ability to communicate to people in different actual languages, like the John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

… and again, I say it is not for us to limit the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are not all-knowing.

 

[childofmary1143]

… and again, I say it is not for us to limit the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are not all-knowing.

What are your credentials as a theologian to say that we are limiting the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

 

[catharina]

What are your credentials as a theologian to say that we are limiting the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

childofmary, I didn’t realize you’re a “we” but if you’re speaking as a group leader for for madaglan, lucy, latimass and yourself, then the statements recently posted indicate a teaching other than Church teaching. You must know that. Although my education included Theology, I’m speaking with the credentials of any logical human being. One does not negate Scripture and defy Church teaching without expecting contradiction on a Catholic site.

 

[catharina]

Let me put this more simply: we are not free to decide that any gift of the Holy Spirit or fruit of the Holy Spirit is not to be used or is ‘not as needed’ today. In deciding those things, we would be contradicting Holy Scripture and “inventing” a new (and erroneous) Chruch Teaching.

Is that clear to you, childofmary?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I was formerly involved in the charismatic movement as a Protestant. Since becoming Catholic I’ve had really no desire to become involved in the charismatic movement in Catholicism.

There is an interesting article worth reading by Fr. John Hardson, S.J.

It’s called,

Pentecostalism: Evaluating a Phenomenon

therealpresence.org/archives/Protestantism/Protestantism_002.htm

and I think it applies in places to the charismatic movement as well. Here are some excerpts (naturally it would be best to read the whole article):

Critical Analysis

I have witnessed the phenomena they describe, read the literature they have written, spent hours in conference and consultation with those deeply committed to the movement, conferred at length with specialists in the psychological sciences who dealt professionally with “Catholic Pentecostals,” and I have carefully watched the consequences of the movement for several years. My growing conclusion is that Pentecostalism in the Catholic Church is symptomatic of some grave needs among the faithful that should be met soon and by all effective means at our disposal. But I also think that Pentecostalism as an ideology is not the answer to these needs. In fact, it may be a serious obstacle, even a threat, to the authentic renewal in the Spirit inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council.

Pentecostalism As Mistaken Ideology.

The question that still remains, however, is whether the Pentecostal movement is a valid answer to these recognized needs. Notice I do not say that individuals who have entered the movement cannot find many of their spiritual needs satisfied. Nor am I saying that group prayer is not helpful for many people; nor, least of all, that the Holy Spirit has been inactive during these trying times to confer precisely an abundance of His seven-fold gifts on those who humbly and in faith invoke His sanctifying name.

What I must affirm is that Pentecostalism is not a mere movement; it is, as the ending “ism” indicates, an ideology. And as such it is creating more problems objectively than it solves subjectively. In other words, even when it gives symptomatic relief to some people, it produces a rash of new, and graver, issues touching on the Catholic faith and its authentic expression by the faithful.

The New Spirituality.

Given the posture of Pentecostalism as a phenomenal downpour of charismatic grace, it is only natural that the human contribution to the divine effusion is minimized. Actual defendants of the movement are careful to explain that a new kind of spirituality was born with Pentecostalism.

As heretofore taught, persons aspiring to sanctity were told that recollection has to be worked at and cultivated. It meant painstaking effort to keep oneself in the presence of God and consciously fostering, perhaps through years of practice, prayerful awareness of God. The charismatic movement is actually a discovery that all of these propaedeutics are unnecessary. In view of its importance, it is worth quoting the new spiritual doctrine in full:

There is a subtle but very significant difference between what the presence of God means in the spiritual doctrine that has long been usual in novitiates, seminaries and the like, and what it means for those who have shared the Pentecostal experience.The difference can be put bluntly in the following terms: the former put the accent on the practice, whereas the latter put it on the presence. That is to say, the former regard the constant awareness of God’s presence as a goal to be striven for but difficult to attain; hence they exert themselves in recalling over and over that God is here and in frequently renewing their intention to turn their thoughts to Him.The latter, on the contrary, seem to start with the experiential awareness of God’s presence as the root which enlivens and gives its characteristic notes to all their prayer, love and spirituality. 3]It is not too much to call this “instant mysticism.” And if some Charismatics do not succeed as well (or as soon) as others in this sudden experience of God which dispenses with the laborious process of cultivating recollection, it must be put down to a lack of sufficient docility to the Spirit or, more simply, to the fact that the Holy Spirit remains master of His gifts and breathes when (and where) He wills.

But the essential dictum stands: those who charismatically experience God, and they are now numbered in thousands, came by the phenomenon without having to go through the hard school of mental and ascetical discipline still taught by an outmoded spirituality.

 

[catharina]

It is not too much to call this “instant mysticism.” And if some Charismatics do not succeed as well (or as soon) as others in this sudden experience of God which dispenses with the laborious process of cultivating recollection, it must be put down to a lack of sufficient docility to the Spirit or, more simply, to the fact that the Holy Spirit remains master of His gifts and breathes when (and where) He wills.

But the essential dictum stands: those who charismatically experience God, and they are now numbered in thousands, came by the phenomenon without having to go through the hard school of mental and ascetical discipline still taught by an outmoded spirituality.

Brennan, I do appreciate your commentary and the thoughts of Father Hardon as well - with the notable exception of your concluding words. That is, in no way and at no times has the Church declared its own long history of preparation for all called to the religious state, including the constant striving to be aware of the Presence of God to be (now) “an outmoded spirituality.” On the contrary it is alive and well and flourishing as the growth of the most traditional religious communities proves to all of us every day.

 

[Madaglan]

I think Fr. John Hardson sums up the case very well. As a side note, I was involved in the charismatic movement partially because I wanted something that I wasn’t getting in normal NO spirituality. The charismatics were very hospitable and pastoral; and this I very much appreciated. The element of personal dedication to the Lord–fostering the personal relationship with God, was also something to which I was attracted and found lost at the church I attended (separate from the charismatic group).

From a personal standpoint, I found what I needed in Byzantine Christianity. I only attended traditional Latin Masses after I already attended a Byzantine parish for a while. I wonder if I would have felt the need to attend a charismatic prayer group had I attended a Tridentine Latin Mass community during my earlier years.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by catharina:

That is, in no way and at no times has the Church declared its own long history of preparation for all called to the religious state, including the constant striving to be aware of the Presence of God to be (now) “an outmoded spirituality.” On the contrary it is alive and well and flourishing as the growth of the most traditional religious communities proves to all of us every day.

The Church has not dropped the older spirituality; however, the charismatic spirituality, if not contrary to the older spirituality, is much different from it. In the older spirituality, the person must go through the purgative way before being fully initiated into the illuminative and unitive ways. The charismatic movement seems to prematurely place the illuminative way besides or even in front of the purgative way, IMHO.

 

[DustinsDad]

Regarding toungues, I would submit this website - a personal account (and criticism) of the movement from someone who was heavily involved for a long time.

It’s not exactly scholarly - but for a lay person’s blog, it’s pretty interesting: charismatic-heresy.blogspot.com/

 

[catharina]

The Church has not dropped the older spirituality; however, the charismatic spirituality, if not contrary to the older spirituality, is much different from it. In the older spirituality, the person must go through the purgative way before being fully initiated into the illuminative and unitive ways. The charismatic movement seems to prematurely place the illuminative way besides or even in front of the purgative way, IMHO.

As I said: “in no way and at no times has the Church declared its own long history of preparation for all called to the religious state, including the constant striving to be aware of the Presence of God to be (now) “an outmoded spirituality.” On the contrary it is alive and well and flourishing as the growth of the most traditional religious communities proves to all of us every day.”

Now I’ll add that it’s obvious to me that I am in no position to question God regarding the granting of gifts of grace; nor am I willing to second-guess God, His actions or His purposes.