Speaking in Tongues

[Damascus]

The Vatican has examined the gift of tongues in our current Church, and has given it’s blessing. There are many statements from Pope John Paul II giving his blessing, and approval, of the Charismatic renewal.

To my knowledge, the Church has never stated that the gift of tongues is not valid, or should be banned.

Yes, I am totally aware of the approval of the movement.

I am totally unaware of the qualifications of the interpreters and all the other questions I have on this thread that no one is directly addressing/.

 

[Michael_Welter]

I am totally unaware of the qualifications of the interpreters and all the other questions I have on this thread that no one is directly addressing/.

I just read through the entire thread for all your posts, and it looks like you main question, that we failed to address earlier (mea culpa) had to do with who authenticates, or tests, this gift of tongues. I hope that the Church’s approval of the Charismatic movement answered that question.

As for the interpretations, I must admit, in my 30+ years in the Charismatic renewal, I have rarely seen the gift of tongues and interpretation. That is, one person speaks to the assembly in tongues, and another person provides the interpretation (Neither of them knew what language was spoken). On those few occassions, the interpretation was either confirmed by a person who actually spoke the same language as the original message, or the interpretation was not confirmed. In all cases, there was a priest present to validate that the interpretation did not violate Catholic teaching.

I have a friend, whom I will call Wally for this discussion. Wally’s wife had attended Charismatic prayer meetings for several years without Wally. Wally refused to go because he believed that the Charismatic renewal was useless. Eventually, he agreed to go to one meeting. He was very uncomfortable, but met another man who was there for the first time. He was visiting from Germany.

During the prayer meeting, there was a period when everyone was praying in tongues. After the meeting, the german man asked Wally when his wife had learned german. Wally said that his wife had never learned german, and had never been to Germany. The man was surprised, because he had heard Wally’s wife, during the prayer meeting, praising God in perfect german.

Needless to say, Wally became a believer, and has been attending charismatic prayer meetings ever since.

 

[palmas85]

And I was trying to answer them. You do not give me the benefit of the doubt; instead, you are assuming that I am intentionally avoiding answering your questions. Rather than allow that perhaps I do not understand your question, or that I am not expressing myself clearly – maybe even charitably concluding that perhaps I lack the intelligence to respond adequately – you are suggesting that instead I am being devious in my responses. Why do you feel so comfortable making that rash judgment?

Why does anyone need to prove your point that “not all not all of these manifestations are of the Holy Spirit?” It’s pretty clear from Scripture, both OT and NT that there are and will be false prophets in the world. Not only will they proclaim false messages, but they will work miracles to “deceive even the elect”.

You have no disagreement from me in that. However, who is God and who is the creation, the Holy Spirit or the devil? Some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe that on earth, the devil and his angels are more powerful than God and his angels. God can far more effectively use such things to his advantage (and that of the Church) than Satan can.

I am comfortable in doing it because this is far from the first time this subject has been addressed on this forum and the answers are almost always the same, start quoting scripture, answer in fairly evasive,and very vague terms and if cornered, the defenders of the practice will normally trot out the big guns and yell uncharitable, in the hope I suppose of shutting down the opposition. You did stop just short of the ubcharitable claim but did bring it up in passing

You ask why do we ask for proof of these manifestations being genuine or at least that they are not demonic in nature. Well, I can answer this way.

Historically most charismatic movements normally came about through heresies, Montanus comes to mind on this one, whose services greatly resembled those of the charismatic renewal today. The other great revival of these practices came about approximately 100 years ago and was confined to the Protestants and only a small group of them. The Catholic experience did not even start until the mid 60’s under what can best be described very strange circumstances at best.

On to a few specifics, I have seen on these forums that the receiver of these gifts, normally has to seek them out and ask for them. They don’t normally seem to affect people who are not in a charismatic group setting. You don’t normally see someone carried away by the practice in the context of a normal Mass for instance. It always seems to happen in the company of other charismatics. I would think that a much more convincing thing would be for a non believer or even one hostile to the idea to be so affected completely outside of the context of a charismatic group, kind of like Sauls conversion on the way to damascus. Yet it doesn’t seem to happen that way.

Also many people say that the gift of tongues is personal and for private revelation and devotions. Scripturally, I don’t think that was what it was for and if I remember correctly interpretation was required by someone else. It seems as though the entire aspect has been changed. Along those same lines, people in the movement seem to have perfect control over the use of tongues and can use it whenever and however they want. That also seems to be outside of what at least scripturally happened with them.

Another problem that I have with the movement is that many people say, and I’ve heard them say it, that the Holy Spirit has been ignored for too long and it is His turn so to speak. I’ve also read in various charismatic writings that Jesus Christ gets all of the attention and the works of the Holy Spirt havebeen ignored.

To me that sounds almost like heresy. Separating the Holy Spirit from the Blessed Trinity doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea, and could lead some to believe that the entire movement is an attempt at destroying that aspect of the faith.

As far as esteemed people like Jim Jones and David Koresh speaking in tongues or heck even our good friend Montanus himself proves that not all manifestations of the charismatic experience are real and in fact quite possibly demonic in nature.

While I don’t doubt that charismatic events can occur, healings come to mind particularly mainly because they occur outside of the tight controls of a charismatic group normally, I do feel that most of them are either demonic or a result of people responding because they think they should or have to in a given situation.

I know that the church has given its OK for charismatic groups to operate but they have also endorsed neo catechumanals who step way over the boundaries in what they do. And in my opinion the Church gave permission for these grouos to operate more as w way to keep them in the Chr=urch than a ringing endorsement of the practice itself.

Just my opinion.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

On to a few specifics, I have seen on these forums that the receiver of these gifts, normally has to seek them out and ask for them. They don’t normally seem to affect people who are not in a charismatic group setting. You don’t normally see someone carried away by the practice in the context of a normal Mass for instance. It always seems to happen in the company of other charismatics. I would think that a much more convincing thing would be for a non believer or even one hostile to the idea to be so affected completely outside of the context of a charismatic group, kind of like Sauls conversion on the way to damascus. Yet it doesn’t seem to happen that way.

Palmas,

You don’t have to seek these gifts out. The Church teaches that the charismata are present in every believer at Baptism and fully released at Confirmation. However, like the sanctifying graces we receive, we have to cooperate with those graces and open ourselves up to experience them more. Since the charismatic movement is the largest group within the Church that makes the discernment and use of these charisms an integral part of its movement, it makes sense that many Catholics would experience the charisms in the context of this movement.

However, in my work providing formation to lay catholics and teaching workshops throughout the U.S., I have encountered many Catholics who have no connection to the Charismatic Movement and who have exhibited powerful charisms in their lives. Often these men and women are relieved to know that they aren’t crazy when the Church’s teaching on the charisms is finally presented to them.

All that being said, the Scriptures tell us to ask God for the gifts to be active in our lives. As Paul says, “Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy.” (1Cor 14:1). Just as we should ask God for an increase in the sanctifying graces in our lives, we should also ask God that He might increase in us both the gifts we have been given for the sake of others and our willingness to use them.

Also many people say that the gift of tongues is personal and for private revelation and devotions. Scripturally, I don’t think that was what it was for and if I remember correctly interpretation was required by someone else. It seems as though the entire aspect has been changed.

A close reading of scripture seems to indicate that Paul spoke of two aspects of tongues. One is that when tongues were used in the midst of the assembly, it should be interpreted and that interpretation should be tested. Another aspect indicates that with the use of tongues the Holy Spirit prays through us:

In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings.
And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will. (Romans 8: 26-27)

So, the gift of tongues can be a powerful way that we intercede for the needs of others–even when we ourselves might not know or understand exactly what those needs are. Paul again indicates this reality when he writes:

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. On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to human beings, for their building up, encouragement, and solace. (1Cor 14:2-3)

Here, Paul contrasts the gift of prophecy, which is intended for the building up of others, with the use of tongues in the context of a prayerful conversation with God.

In the Charismatic Movement, praying in tongues often occurs when an individual person is being prayed over by others, or in the context of prayerful praise to God (usually with music and spontaneous spoken prayer).

CONT NEXT POST

 

[Keith_Strohm]

Along those same lines, people in the movement seem to have perfect control over the use of tongues and can use it whenever and however they want. That also seems to be outside of what at least scripturally happened with them.

Scripture is quite clear that God’s doesn’t force the use of His gifts on anyone. Paul writes, “Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control, since he is not the God of disorder but of peace.” (1Cor 14:32-33).

God is a respecter of human persons–of our free will. Just as Christ doesn’t force our salvation upon us, he doesn’t force the use of gifts upon us. Although we are channels of God’s love and grace (particularly when we utilize our Charisms), we are not mediums whose personality is forced out by an external spirit and taken over.

Because God is a God of order, there is a proper time and place for every manifestation of the Spirit. Just because I may receive a prophetic word for someone in the middle of the Liturgy, it doesn’t mean that I then get up, interrupt the Liturgy and go and tell that individual right away. Likewise, just because there is a movement within a person to pray in tongues, it doesn’t mean that they have no choice but to pray in tongues.

Now, before anyone mentions members of the Charismatic Movement praying in tongues before the elevation of the host, I want to be clear that I’m not defending or trashing that practice. I’m not a member of the Charismatic Movement, and I’m not qualified to say what is or is not “correct” in the context of liturgies within Lay Movements. However, that specific practice has no bearing on the reality and the place of charisms in the life of the Church. It speaks to the Charismatic Movement itself (and the practices of its members) and not to charisms in general.

Another problem that I have with the movement is that many people say, and I’ve heard them say it, that the Holy Spirit has been ignored for too long and it is His turn so to speak. I’ve also read in various charismatic writings that Jesus Christ gets all of the attention and the works of the Holy Spirt havebeen ignored.

To me that sounds almost like heresy. Separating the Holy Spirit from the Blessed Trinity doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea, and could lead some to believe that the entire movement is an attempt at destroying that aspect of the faith.

I completely agree here! From my own experience, I can say that my relationship with the Holy Spirit was pretty non-existant until I experienced the charisms (both through other people and in myself). For me, the Holy Spirit was this nebulous “fairy godfather” whom I really didn’t understand and couldn’t relate to–until I saw the reality of His Presence in my life and the life of the Church.

And since one of the purposes of the Charismatic Movement seems to be to bring the reality of the charisms back in to everyday life of the Church, it makes sense that its members might emphasize the Holy Spirit greatly.

All that being said, the statements and beliefs that you have mentioned are clearly an over-emphasis. We are called to worship the Trinitarian God in His fullness. One of my critiques of the Charismatic Movement is that its theology does tend to get a little fuzzy.

Again, these are criticisms that have a bearing only on hte movement and not on the charisms themselves.

CONT NEXT POST

 

[Keith_Strohm]

As far as esteemed people like Jim Jones and David Koresh speaking in tongues or heck even our good friend Montanus himself proves that not all manifestations of the charismatic experience are real and in fact quite possibly demonic in nature.

I agree here, as well. Not every manifestation is necessarily from the Spirit. And not every event is a manifestation of supernatural power. Paul instructs us to “test everything and hold on to what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). Every manifestation should be submitted to the discernment of the leadership of the community (the pastor and those to whom he has delegated some of his pastoral office). Discernment, however, is sorely lacking with the Church as a whole and, often, within the Charismatic Movement.

Needless to say, it doesn’t mean that we should minimize and walk away from the gifts of the Spirit, but rather that we should make their discernment a priority.

While I don’t doubt that charismatic events can occur, healings come to mind particularly mainly because they occur outside of the tight controls of a charismatic group normally, I do feel that most of them are either demonic or a result of people responding because they think they should or have to in a given situation.

I think most Catholics would be surprised to know how often miraculous and supernatural events occur in the life of believers–and how often God does, indeed, heal. You are perfectly free to believe that most healings are demonic in nature. But, one must look at the fruits of these healings and mircaulous events to fully discern them.

I have personally witness miraculous healings and supernatural events that have deepened the faith and devotion of the recipient as well as the larger community.

I know that the church has given its OK for charismatic groups to operate but they have also endorsed neo catechumanals who step way over the boundaries in what they do. And in my opinion the Church gave permission for these grouos to operate more as w way to keep them in the Chr=urch than a ringing endorsement of the practice itself.
Just my opinion.

And you are free to hold that opinion–but it doesn’t change the reality of the charisms in the life of the believer. Whether or not one supports the Charismatic Movement, we must come to grips with the fact that charisms are an integral part of the Church’s life. They are not supposed to be fringe experiences, but rather normative in the life of a Christian.

The Second Vatican Council highlighted this dimension in Lumen Gentium:

It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the People, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. Cor.12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts he makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church, as it is written, “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit.” Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the church. (LG 12)

John Paul II, in his 1998 Pentecostal Address spoke about how integrally the charisms are a part of the very Church itself:

“I have often had occasion to stress that there is no conflict or opposition in the Church between the institutional dimension and the charismatic dimension, of which movements are a significant expression. Both are co-essential to the divine constitution of the Church founded by Jesus, because they both help to make the mystery of Christ and his saving work present in the world. Together they aim at renewing in their own ways the self-awareness of the Church, which in a certain sense can be called a “movement” herself, since she is the realization in time and space of the Father’s sending of his Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.”

One can have reservations about the way particular movements express the charisms, but one cannot argue that charisms are not a part of Christian life or something made up by Pentecostals.

In Christ,

Keith

 

[Prometheum_x]

I agree with a number of Keith’s points, including that there are and have been abuses within the so-called Charismatic movement. I say so-called because it isn’t a movement in the same way that other groups are called movements – there is no one Charismatic group of which all charismatics are a member.

I guess my I am leery of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have more to respond with, but I am, ah, in the middle of finals and should probably go pay attention to that.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Keith, you’ve done an excellent job in your most recent posts. I agree completely. I, too, have seen abuses within the charismatic movement. But then, I have also seen abuses within traditionalist circles. But that certainly doesn’t negate the validity of the charisms. I have seen significant fruit borne of those who have allowed the expression of the charisms in their lives. I believe that, if not for the charismatic gifts in my life, I would not be a Catholic today.

 

[DWPC]

John Paul II, in his 1998 Pentecostal Address spoke about how integrally the charisms are a part of the very Church itself:

“I have often had occasion to stress that there is no conflict or opposition in the Church between the institutional dimension and the charismatic dimension, of which movements are a significant expression. Both are co-essential to the divine constitution of the Church founded by Jesus, because they both help to make the mystery of Christ and his saving work present in the world. Together they aim at renewing in their own ways the self-awareness of the Church, which in a certain sense can be called a “movement” herself, since she is the realization in time and space of the Father’s sending of his Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.”

PJ II, being the master politician and diplomat that he was, was careful to speak of charismatic “movement” in ambiguous terms. There’s no real characterization of what it is. Clapping? Swaying? Dancing? Jumping? The charismatics can read into it what they like, and yet there’s nothing for the conservatives to take issue with. But there’s certainly no explicit acceptance of glossolalia; the non-understandable vocalizing popular among the American charismatics, in PJ II’s statement. HH’s statement is misapplied in support charismatics’ contention that their unstructured vocal emoting is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. He says no such thing and there is a world of difference between a personal expression and something attributed to the Holy Spirit.

I believe the issue of “tongues” in Catholic worship should receive *direct *and *explicit *examination by the Vatican to determine whether it is simply an emotion-driven personal expression or a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. No double talk about amorphous “charisms”. Until then, I’ll view it simply as a vain practice rooted in Anglo-American Pentecostalism.

 

[water]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand at all.
If the gift of tongues is truly a human language how is it that God can understand it but the devil cannot?

I only said what people told me. Did I say I said it?

WHOA! Have you read anything on demonic possession? You’re playing with fire here and opening a door you don’t really want to open.

It seems to me that you did not understand the whole point of my post. Your question should point to those I mentioned in my post, not me.

How do you know that they wouldn’t be drawing closer to God with the Divine Mercy Chaplet or any other devotion?

Again, you might want to read the post again.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

PJ II, being the master politician and diplomat that he was, was careful to speak of charismatic “movement” in ambiguous terms. There’s no real characterization of what it is. Clapping? Swaying? Dancing? Jumping? The charismatics can read into it what they like, and yet there’s nothing for the conservatives to take issue with. But there’s certainly no explicit acceptance of glossolalia; the non-understandable vocalizing popular among the American charismatics, in PJ II’s statement. HH’s statement is misapplied in support charismatics’ contention that their unstructured vocal emoting is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. He says no such thing and there is a world of difference between a personal expression and something attributed to the Holy Spirit.

I believe the issue of “tongues” in Catholic worship should receive *direct *and *explicit *examination by the Vatican to determine whether it is simply an emotion-driven personal expression or a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. No double talk about amorphous “charisms”. Until then, I’ll view it simply as a vain practice rooted in Anglo-American Pentecostalism.

So, am I right in understanding that you believe in the reality of the charisms and their integral part in the life of the Church (as the Church herself teaches), but that in particular you have an issue with whether or not tongues is an actual charism from the Holy Spirit?

Keith

 

[palmas85]

Keith, you’ve done an excellent job in your most recent posts. I agree completely. I, too, have seen abuses within the charismatic movement. But then, I have also seen abuses within traditionalist circles. But that certainly doesn’t negate the validity of the charisms. I have seen significant fruit borne of those who have allowed the expression of the charisms in their lives. I believe that, if not for the charismatic gifts in my life, I would not be a Catholic today.

Would that also mean then should the Church prohibit such practices that you would leave the Church? I certainly hope not but your remark could certainly be construed that way.

 

[palmas85]

**I think most Catholics would be surprised to know how often miraculous and supernatural events occur in the life of believers–and how often God does, indeed, heal. You are perfectly free to believe that most healings are demonic in nature. But, one must look at the fruits of these healings and mircaulous events to fully discern them.

I have personally witness miraculous healings and supernatural events that have deepened the faith and devotion of the recipient as well as the larger community. **

And you are free to hold that opinion–but it doesn’t change the reality of the charisms in the life of the believer. Whether or not one supports the Charismatic Movement, we must come to grips with the fact that charisms are an integral part of the Church’s life. They are not supposed to be fringe experiences, but rather normative in the life of a Christian.

The Second Vatican Council highlighted this dimension in Lumen Gentium:

It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the People, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. Cor.12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts he makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church, as it is written, “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit.” Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the church. (LG 12)

John Paul II, in his 1998 Pentecostal Address spoke about how integrally the charisms are a part of the very Church itself:

“I have often had occasion to stress that there is no conflict or opposition in the Church between the institutional dimension and the charismatic dimension, of which movements are a significant expression. Both are co-essential to the divine constitution of the Church founded by Jesus, because they both help to make the mystery of Christ and his saving work present in the world. Together they aim at renewing in their own ways the self-awareness of the Church, which in a certain sense can be called a “movement” herself, since she is the realization in time and space of the Father’s sending of his Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.”

One can have reservations about the way particular movements express the charisms, but one cannot argue that charisms are not a part of Christian life or something made up by Pentecostals.

In Christ,

Keith

I didn’t mean to say that healings are demonic and if it sounded that I did I apologize. What I was saying is that healings are about the only manifestation of the charisms that I take seriously . Not because they occur within the context of charismatic gatherings but because they normally and often appear outside of such gatherings and distinct from them,… I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. Old age I suppose.

Your statement that these charisms, and i suppose you are talking about tongues, I don’t know, needing to be normative in the life of every Christian appears to be rather elitist on the face of it. For hundreds of years they were not, and still are not except for the select few who adhere to the charismatic program. Are the rest of us less Christian and missing out on something that Charismatics have? It does appear that is what you are implying.

As far as quoting the late Holy Father on the charismatic movement I will only say that while he was a very holy man and a strong leader in the Church not everything he said or did was beneficial to the Church. All too often his unquestioned passion of uniting all religions and all groups no matter what they believed into a series of of circles under one banner with the Catholic Church in the center, resulted in the other groups questioning whether or not the Ccatholic Church understood or even accepted its own theology.

And I don’t believe that the quotation from Lumen Genitum had anything whatsoever to do with the charismatic movement, coming as it did well before the movement was even thought of.

I never implied that the Charismatic movement was made up by Protestants. I correctly pointed out that the movement was first manifested in a large scale by such groups and are still pretty much mainly comprised of them. We are of course speaking of modern times and not the initial apearance of these gifts.

I think it very useful to rememebr that when the Church speaks of charisms it is not speaking directly of or even obliquely of the charismatic movement Charisms and the Charismatic movement are two totally different things.

 

[DWPC]

So, am I right in understanding that you believe in the reality of the charisms and their integral part in the life of the Church (as the Church herself teaches), but that in particular you have an issue with whether or not tongues is an actual charism from the Holy Spirit?

Keith

Not quite. The issues for me are 1) whether *glossolalia *(incoherant babbling) is the “speaking in tongues” described in th Scriptures? and 2) is it simply an emotional outburst or a direct manifestation of the Holy Spirit as claimed by charismatics?

Until such explicit clarifications are forthcoming from Church authority, I want charismatics to cease referring to their demonstrations as manifestations of the Holy Spirit, and by inference equating themselves to the martyred Apostles and early disciples of Christ.

“Charism” is an ambiguous word that means different things in different contexts and can be used to manipulate the dialog. I will not use it because its too slippery.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

I didn’t mean to say that healings are demonic and if it sounded that I did I apologize. What I was saying is that healings are about the only manifestation of the charisms that I take seriously . Not because they occur within the context of charismatic gatherings but because they normally and often appear outside of such gatherings and distinct from them,… I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. Old age I suppose.

YEs, I definitely misunderstood you. No worries!

Your statement that these charisms, and i suppose you are talking about tongues, I don’t know, needing to be normative in the life of every Christian appears to be rather elitist on the face of it. For hundreds of years they were not, and still are not except for the select few who adhere to the charismatic program. Are the rest of us less Christian and missing out on something that Charismatics have? It does appear that is what you are implying.

I actually wasn’t talking about tongues specifically. In fact, I think it’s unfortunate that tongues is such a hot-button issue, because it obscures the rich gift of all the charisms.

The Church teaches that charisms are normative in the life of every Christian. Because they are given at Baptism (and Confirmation), there never was a time when the charisms were gone from the Church–even if they weren’t a subject of highlighting (like the charismatic movement does).

“The rest of us” (as you put it), are not less Christian, nor are you missing out on something. If you have been baptized, then you have charisms–and in fact, if you were to examine the whole of your life up until this point–you’d probably discover that the charisms are present and active in your life. There are many charisms that are not “flashy” like healing, prophecy, or tongues–and they work for the good of others that you encounter in your life.

The fact is that most catholics haven’t had the opportunity to discern the specific charisms that they have been given, nor do we have the structures in place to help lay men and women grow in their charisms and discover their vocation. In that sense, we are not utilizing all of the gifts that God has given us to the fullest.

But those who are actively and intentionally using their charisms are not more Christian than those who aren’t.

As far as quoting the late Holy Father on the charismatic movement I will only say that while he was a very holy man and a strong leader in the Church not everything he said or did was beneficial to the Church. All too often his unquestioned passion of uniting all religions and all groups no matter what they believed into a series of of circles under one banner with the Catholic Church in the center, resulted in the other groups questioning whether or not the Ccatholic Church understood or even accepted its own theology.

Although that quote ocurred at an address for Lay Movements, John Paul II was speaking about charisms and their co-essential place in the constitution of the Church–he was not talking specifically about the Charismatic Movement (the same point you make below).

And I don’t believe that the quotation from Lumen Genitum had anything whatsoever to do with the charismatic movement, coming as it did well before the movement was even thought of

I agree. That quote from LG was specifically about the importance of charisms in the life of the Church. I am not arguing in defense of the Charismatic Movement, but rather in defense of charisms themselves. I am not a member of the Charismatic Movement–though as a baptized member of the Church, I am charismatic by nature.

I think it very useful to rememebr that when the Church speaks of charisms it is not speaking directly of or even obliquely of the charismatic movement Charisms and the Charismatic movement are two totally different things.

We are in complete agreement here.

The Catherine of Siena Institute, a lay apostolate sponsored by the Western Dominican Province, has done a lot of work on the theology and discernment of charisms. If you are interested, you can go to www.siena.org for more info.

In Christ,

Keith

 

[palmas85]

YEs, I definitely misunderstood you. No worries!

I actually wasn’t talking about tongues specifically. In fact, I think it’s unfortunate that tongues is such a hot-button issue, because it obscures the rich gift of all the charisms.

The Church teaches that charisms are normative in the life of every Christian. Because they are given at Baptism (and Confirmation), there never was a time when the charisms were gone from the Church–even if they weren’t a subject of highlighting (like the charismatic movement does).

“The rest of us” (as you put it), are not less Christian, nor are you missing out on something. If you have been baptized, then you have charisms–and in fact, if you were to examine the whole of your life up until this point–you’d probably discover that the charisms are present and active in your life. There are many charisms that are not “flashy” like healing, prophecy, or tongues–and they work for the good of others that you encounter in your life.

The fact is that most catholics haven’t had the opportunity to discern the specific charisms that they have been given, nor do we have the structures in place to help lay men and women grow in their charisms and discover their vocation. In that sense, we are not utilizing all of the gifts that God has given us to the fullest.

But those who are actively and intentionally using their charisms are not more Christian than those who aren’t.

Although that quote ocurred at an address for Lay Movements, John Paul II was speaking about charisms and their co-essential place in the constitution of the Church–he was not talking specifically about the Charismatic Movement (the same point you make below).

I agree. That quote from LG was specifically about the importance of charisms in the life of the Church. I am not arguing in defense of the Charismatic Movement, but rather in defense of charisms themselves. I am not a member of the Charismatic Movement–though as a baptized member of the Church, I am charismatic by nature.

We are in complete agreement here.

The Catherine of Siena Institute, a lay apostolate sponsored by the Western Dominican Province, has done a lot of work on the theology and discernment of charisms. If you are interested, you can go to www.siena.org for more info.

In Christ,

Keith

Thanks for the link, I will check it out. And please understand, I don’t doubt the validity or the use of the various charisms at all, in their proper context What I do doubt is the validity of when people say that they requested and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and became spirit filled. It seems as if what they are saying is that you are not complete as a Christian unless you do that. And that certainly sounds elitist and is contrary to the teachings of the Church. I have never even seen a reference to such a second baptism in Catholic teachings although many Protestant groups do adhere to it as do apparently many if not all Catholic charismatics as well.

also doubt that the use of charisms or the spirit filled life is manifested by or the existance of the ability to speak in tongues. As I have stated if someone is using that particular gift for personal prayer, as many say they do, thet definitely appears different than what the gift was originally intended for . I think that in those cases we have to be guided by what scripture tellls us.

Again thanks for the link. Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

Thanks for the link, I will check it out. And please understand, I don’t doubt the validity or the use of the various charisms at all, in their proper context What I do doubt is the validity of when people say that they requested and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and became spirit filled. It seems as if what they are saying is that you are not complete as a Christian unless you do that. And that certainly sounds elitist and is contrary to the teachings of the Church. I have never even seen a reference to such a second baptism in Catholic teachings although many Protestant groups do adhere to it as do apparently many if not all Catholic charismatics as well.

also doubt that the use of charisms or the spirit filled life is manifested by or the existance of the ability to speak in tongues. As I have stated if someone is using that particular gift for personal prayer, as many say they do, thet definitely appears different than what the gift was originally intended for . I think that in those cases we have to be guided by what scripture tellls us.

Again thanks for the link. Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas.

Palmas,

We are in complete agreement! God bless you and your family this Advent and Christmas.

Keith

 

[Michael_Welter]

Would that also mean then should the Church prohibit such practices that you would leave the Church? I certainly hope not but your remark could certainly be construed that way.

To whom would I go? God draws mankind to Himself through His Church. So, if the Church were to prohibit the use of tongues, I would be obedient.

 

[Michael_Welter]

I believe the issue of “tongues” in Catholic worship should receive *direct *and *explicit *examination by the Vatican to determine whether it is simply an emotion-driven personal expression or a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. No double talk about amorphous “charisms”.

I think that is a great idea, and would welcome such. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the benefits that God has provided to me through the gift of tongues.

 

[Keith_Strohm]

“Charism” is an ambiguous word that means different things in different contexts and can be used to manipulate the dialog. I will not use it because its too slippery.

Charism is only an ambiguous term for most catholics because they have not mined scripture and tradition in a systematic way. For a very orthodox understanding of charisms, I would refer you to the Catherine of Siena Institute, a lay apostolate sponsored by the Western Dominican Province. You can find them at www.siena.org

Here is part of their FAQ on spiritual gifts:

What is a charism or spiritual gift?
Charism is simply the Greek word used in the New Testament for “favor” or “gratuitous gift”. Charisms, or spiritual gifts, are special abilities given to Christians by the Holy Spirit to enable them to be powerful channels of God’s love and redeeming presence in the world. Whether extraordinary or ordinary, charisms are to be used in charity or service to build up the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2003). (more…)

CONT NEXT POST