The Charismatic Movement and Glossolalia

[sauce]

I think the Church needs Revival.

Where is that “new springtime” that JP ll prayed for? In fact, he promised it.
In my local church, no one seems to be interested in anything.

Kids’ activities are now scheduled on Sunday. Interesting, huh?

 

[Paul_Brann]

It’s strange but I feel that we, at St Georges are having a revival in as much that our Parish Priest, who is probably only in his thirties and was a convert to Rome before Holy Orders, celebrates Mass every Sunday evening at 6pm in the 1962 Latin Rite…talking in real tongues you might say, and a real revival; We have Bible studies, all sorts of meetings, lots of young members coming to the Latin Mass, I’m currently sponsoring a convert from the Charismatic Protestant church who has had enough of the lack of real depth in their very open demonstraion of this gift of exuberance, and has found real peace and God consciousness in quiet meditation and praying the rosary. I suppose the bottom line is, within the disclipine of the Catholic Church, we may worship God in the way that is genuine and comfortable for us, and as long as it’s not heretical or likely to bring the Church into disrepute, we may move as the Spirit ‘takes’ us.
Paul

 

[sauce]

I suppose the bottom line is, within the disclipine of the Catholic Church, we may worship God in the way that is genuine and comfortable for us, and as long as it’s not heretical or likely to bring the Church into disrepute, we may move as the Spirit ‘takes’ us.
Paul

This is true. And the Latin Rite is making a comeback.

 

[IanGE]

I seem to remember that Paul also counselled his followers to not do anything that might make people feel uncomfortable of ‘put off’. He was also concerned that, if not carefully metered, his pride and fortitude might get in the way of his ultimate salvation. He was very human and I believe from a sect of Judaism (under the instruction of Gamalial) that also enjoyed this ‘gift’ of talking in tongues; so apparantly it wasn’t ‘new’ to the jewish followers of Jesus post penticost but had, in fact, been a continuation of a previous practice. However the ‘new wine’ incident was specific to penticost and, I believe, the true meaning of the ‘gift of tongues’ for the spreading of the message of salvation to those who could not speak Aramaic (of Greek, for that matter). I’ve also been to other ‘non-Christian’ events where there is emotional ‘hype’, and there have been claimed miracles and cures, the majority of which seem to be short lived and for the purpose of performance; witness the euphoric state of mind after supporting a football match when the home team wins…same sort of stuff really. I fear the danger of trying to interpret scripture on my own, or selecting small specific parts to score points. We are warned by Jesus Himself that the Devil can cite scripture for his own porpose. (And I’ve just done it!}
Paul

My brother in Christ,
Sorry, but you haven’t quoted scripture at all. I wish you would cite the letter from your namesake on which you launch your first sentence. I presume it was Romans Ch 14, in which Paul speaks about eating unclean meat.
V20:“All things indeed are clean (see Acts 10, Peter’s vision, esp V15) but evil (kakon, bad, wrong) for a man whose eating causes a stumbling-block for others.”
However, where ‘tongues’ are concerned, Paul is specific (1Cor. 14:39): "DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES.) His words, check ‘em out in the original Greek (Koine) text if you (like me) are suspicious of other interpretations.
Also, where in scripture did you read about Gamaliel’s sect speaking in tongues?
And at which football matches did you see miracles and healing? Billy Graham at Wembley, yes, but of course he’s no Catholic (but a WONDERFUL Christian!).
Charismatics have been around from the very beginning, folks, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t hang out with them much but I understand the essentials of their beliefs and practices, (after all, I was a deacon in an AoG for some time).

There are some, Southern and independent fundamentalist Baptists, and probably some others as well, who are pretty down on all of that. I was essentially dropped from any chance of entering the ministry as a Southern Baptist because I professed that I believed the gifts of the spirit were scripturally shown to be for today.

That said…speaking/praying in tongues (called glossolalia) is somewhat overrated IMO, and I don’t do it anymore, though I still find many of the other gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in my daily spiritual life.

One thing that tends to get somewhat shoved to the side is that the church and the scriptures both express both approval and caution with regard to this issue.

Just where do you think that the church will draw it’s guidance from as to the CCR? From non-Catholic theology? No…it will, just as we have done here in this thread, look to the scriptures for guidance and discipline. As well it should…

All the approval has done is allow and encourage the spiritual practice and devotion within the context of the orthodoxy of the Catholic faith. To go beyond that in either pro or con directions is unwise at best.

1 Corinthians 14 gives some pretty clear instructions on what not do and what to do during Mass. It’s my understanding that the church in Corinthian was doing what a lot of Pentecostals do today. Everyone was speaking in tongues. St. Paul clearly gets onto them for that.

23 **So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person should come in, he will be convinced by everyone and judged by everyone,
25 and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, “God is really in your midst.”
26 So what is to be done, brothers? When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything should be done for building up.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church **and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern.
30 But if a revelation is given to another person sitting there, the first one should be silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.
32 Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control,
33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones

As an ex-deacon in an Assembly of God church I have to say that though I have prayed in tongues, prophesied in tongues and interpreted tongues, as well as discerning within me when it was not of the Holy Spirit I have no real interest in the Charismatic Catholic movement, for several reasons.

Mainly it is because of the kind of scriptural and liturgical abuses that I have witnessed in my days in the AoG and the ones some of you have mentioned on this thread. One time I nearly had to turn around during Mass and tell a guy to be quiet during the consecration.

My biggest gripe is that the vast majority of Pentecostals/charismatics I have encountered try to act like the passage cited above doesn’t exist and speak out without interpretation. None of that is scriptural and none of it is obedient either to the Word of God or to the Church. That is plainly wrong.

If I was in a Mass where that was allowed to happen, I would stand up and walk out and dare anyone to say a word to me about it.

Tongues is grossly overrated my friends. Certainly it can and does exist, but only in certain contexts and always in obedience. If the people cannot be obedient to the Word of God, then what does that tell you as to its source?

I agree with St. Paul when he said "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. " (1st Corinthians 14:19).

The other thing that is a problem with this is their theology. I have talked to charismatic Catholics who say precisely the same things that Evangelicals do as to “accepting Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior”, which is nowhere found in scripture or in the historic teachings of the Church and is in fact an error that comes directly from non-Catholic preaching. And it’s wrong…

I no longer speak in tongues at all, though I enjoy praying in Latin sometimes. I no longer see any need for that in my life and in fact I feel a strong leading of the Holy Spirit away from that.

Are there some good and holy folks among the Charismatics? Yes, I know several. Do I go to their meetings and in any way give even the impression that I agree with charismatic/Pentecostalism? Not a chance.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[IanGE]

Dear me, Jesus certainly poked a stick in a hornet’s nest when he said (according to Mark 16); “These signs shall follow the Believer…they shall speak in new tongues.”

 

[Paul_Brann]

Well, I hadn’t been on this site for months and kept getting reminders, so I did look to it, and still find the enormity of each ‘member’ trying to prove that they, or the Church is right, and others are wrong. I’m secure enough in my faith not to need this. For me it is unhealthy to continue and underlying so many of these comments I feel there is a hidden agenda, barely concealed at times.
I have no axe to grind, I’m not in need to justify myself, Jesus will be my judge and Saviour and I’m going to have to leave these sorts of sites to those who need them more than me.
With love
Paul

 

[Omyo12]

Dear me, Jesus certainly poked a stick in a hornet’s nest when he said (according to Mark 16); “These signs shall follow the Believer…they shall speak in new tongues.”

What of the following verse?

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast our demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick and they will recover.

Just wonder what you make of the serpents and poison?

Also, for speaking in new tongues, I’ve always taken it to be Jesus telling his Apostles to look for these signs as proof.

At Pentecost (Acts 2), this was the very first time this ever occurred so the sign had to be establish on what “speaking in new tongues” meant.

One thing I always found strange was that the “devout Jews” heard the disciples speaking in their own tongues. One of the other gifts is the interpretation of tongues, however, these devout Jews did not receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. So if this really was the “tongue speaking” of today, how did the Jews understand?

One thing people bring up is in Acts 10:13 when they are accused of being drunk. They say “well, to them it sounded like babbling as if they were drunk.”
However, this doesn’t need to be so. If you’ve ever seen a show on the History Channel or something about something supernatural and one of the guest speakers is a know-it-all skeptic, you’d know what I mean.
(I recently saw a pretty good special on Mary apparitions. It focused on Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of Fatima )

Also, remember that many of the Jews didn’t think or want Gentiles to be in the New Covenant. So when Cornelius and his household heard the Gospel from Peter (Acts 10:34-48), the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were angry (Acts 11:3). However, Peter told them that in a vision he heard the Lord tell him the Gentiles were also to be saved. As proof for the Gentiles being in the New Covenant, he tells them they spoke in tongues as they did at Pentecost (Acts 11:15-17). It wasn’t Peter own interpretation of what Christ said in Mark 16:17, but it was the same thing that happened to them…

It could (in addition to the previous interpretation) also be a sign of the spreading of the Church to the Gentiles. As the Church spread, new tongues would accompany new believers. Christ never really discussed the gifts and he mentioned other acts like picking up snakes and being unharmed by poison.

This is really an interesting topic that merits much more study from me.

Charismatics have been around from the very beginning, folks, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!

Hmm,

• Can you back that up with Sacred Scripture but the history Sacred Scripture covers ends before 160 AD
• Can you back that up with Sacred Tradition but it doesn’t have a teaching on tongues.
• Can you back that up with Church history but as time goes on it’s downplayed, St. Justin recorded instances in 150 AD but St. Augustine said they were no longer available in 380 AD

I read other comments in this thread about tongues and Holy Spirit gifts being exclusively for ‘holy men’ and Apostles and Bishops

If you’re refering my comment:

These holy men do not receive these gifts yet a group of laymen do?

I mean to point out that Bishops today don’t speak in tongues but a few laymen do. I’m not saying laymen shouldn’t but I just found it strange that these men and women (nuns) who devout their lives to the Church never receive these gift today. Stigmata is more common…
Of course I could be wrong on this… Could you site a bishop or pope (in the past 1000 years) who actually spoke in tongues?

I remember a disparaging comment about a Church Council somewhere “…of course the Tongue-Speakers tried to put their tuppence in (or words to that effect)”. I guess that was when the Church decided that the Holy Spirit was not wanted on voyage.

what?

 

[SonofMonica]

Since this is a thread mostly about opinion, I’ll give mine. And before you think I’m some old stick in the mud, pre-VII geriatric, I’ll disclose that I’m 28 years old. And here’s my opinion: If speaking “in tongues” is a gift to anyone today, then it consists solely of speaking in recognizable language in order to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to foreigners as clearly contemplated in Acts. Since I’m not aware of anyone today spontaneously being able to speak Mandarin Chinese after being raised in Alabama, I’ll agree with those who say the gift is dead. It has accomplished its purpose–the spread of the Gospel.

By contrast, I see this gibberish-speaking as all for naught. I have never experienced “Charismatic Catholicism,” but if it’s anything like Pentecostalism, you can have it. Paul clearly recognized that what was going on at Corinth could cause folks to think the Church was insane, and he tried to establish limits–limits that, if you read carefully–practically abolish its practice at Mass. Well, Paul must have been talking about me, because I do see it as insanity.

People will know we are Christians by our love, not by our uncontrolled yapping. We live in a world of atheism, agnosticism and–worse–sarcasm and skepticism. But I dont’ need sarcasm and skepticism to view this gibberish-talk as insane. I would never be “amazed” and “moved” by the fact that you have worked yourself into a religious frenzy. I would laugh at what I would perceive as confusion, immaturity and gullibility. If I had walked into a Catholic Church for the first time and saw folks dancing around and engaging in “holy laughter” and speaking gibberish, I would have walked out. Mass is about worshiping God in the manner he has told us to worship Him. It is not about a person’s need for attention from God or others by speaking gibberish.

Yes, I am not afraid to call gibberish what it is. And I will add that I find it extremely sacrilegious in every sense of the term that someone would pretend to be drunk or would babel on or be disruptive of the liturgy at Mass–we are a Church of liturgy and of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ on the altar. How dare I, or anyone else for that matter, act like a 6-year old brat or, perhaps more accurately, my golden retriever, in front of the Most High God in his Tabernacle? Can you imagine the High Priest entering the Holiest of Holies once a year and then being “moved” to fall out on the ground and roll around laughing and speaking baby-talk? We ought to be approaching God at his altar with humility, reverence and awe of HIM, not seeking to do anything at all to edify ourselves. For Pete’s sake! (literally).

 

[Omyo12]

Since this is a thread mostly about opinion, I’ll give mine. And before you think I’m some old stick in the mud, pre-VII geriatric, I’ll disclose that I’m 28 years old. And here’s my opinion: If speaking “in tongues” is a gift to anyone today, then it consists solely of speaking in recognizable language in order to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to foreigners as clearly contemplated in Acts. Since I’m not aware of anyone today spontaneously being able to speak Mandarin Chinese after being raised in Alabama, I’ll agree with those who say the gift is dead. It has accomplished its purpose–the spread of the Gospel.

By contrast, I see this gibberish-speaking as all for naught. I have never experienced “Charismatic Catholicism,” but if it’s anything like Pentecostalism, you can have it. Paul clearly recognized that what was going on at Corinth could cause folks to think the Church was insane, and he tried to establish limits–limits that, if you read carefully–practically abolish its practice at Mass. Well, Paul must have been talking about me, because I do see it as insanity.

People will know we are Christians by our love, not by our uncontrolled yapping. We live in a world of atheism, agnosticism and–worse–sarcasm and skepticism. But I dont’ need sarcasm and skepticism to view this gibberish-talk as insane. I would never be “amazed” and “moved” by the fact that you have worked yourself into a religious frenzy. I would laugh at what I would perceive as confusion, immaturity and gullibility. If I had walked into a Catholic Church for the first time and saw folks dancing around and engaging in “holy laughter” and speaking gibberish, I would have walked out. Mass is about worshiping God in the manner he has told us to worship Him. It is not about a person’s need for attention from God or others by speaking gibberish.

Yes, I am not afraid to call gibberish what it is. And I will add that I find it extremely sacrilegious in every sense of the term that someone would pretend to be drunk or would babel on or be disruptive of the liturgy at Mass–we are a Church of liturgy and of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ on the altar. How dare I, or anyone else for that matter, act like a 6-year old brat or, perhaps more accurately, my golden retriever, in front of the Most High God in his Tabernacle? Can you imagine the High Priest entering the Holiest of Holies once a year and then being “moved” to fall out on the ground and roll around laughing and speaking baby-talk? We ought to be approaching God at his altar with humility, reverence and awe of HIM, not seeking to do anything at all to edify ourselves. For Pete’s sake! (literally).

While I’ve refrained from calling it “gibberish” for the sake of courteous argument, I complete agree.

By the 300’s, the Church no longer practiced tongue speaking, however others appear to have.

One was the heretical Montanium sect.

According to “Church History” by Eusebius:

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.

^ sounds familiar?

Saint John Chrysostom noted:

“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?”

Saint Augustine believed it was a gift given to the Church in apostolic times alone.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica that it was the gift of speaking in different languages and it was no longer available because the Church now “spoke” in all languages.

“nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue”

“no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations”

 

[walker_p]

When a foundation has been laid once, it does not need to be laid a second time. Unless, of course, it was not laid correctly the first time. Jesus and the Apostles laid the foundation for the Church correctly. All this charismatic renewal nonsense or pentecostal movement junk has no place in Christ’s one true Church called Catholic. The Holy Spirit has never abandoned the Church. Catholics don’t need to go outside the Church to protestant heretics (by heretic, I simply mean someone who thinks they can pick and choose what they want to believe) to receive the Holy Spirit. Which Church Father had to go to the pagans to receive the Holy Spirit? We know the so-called Catholic Charismatic Movement is not of God because it came from the Protestant world, it leads Catholics out of the Church, and it does not lead Protestants into the only Church founded by our Lord Himself. If it were from God, it would lead people into the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit will never lead people out of the Catholic Church, which has the fullness of truth. Just because the Apostles spoke in other languages, does not mean that is meant for us. Did not Peter preach the Gospel in their common language of Aramaic, which led to 3,000 conversions? In the Gospels Jesus said: " On that day many will say to me Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many mighty works. And I will say to them: I never knew you. Depart from me you evil doers." I think the passage should say: “On that day many Pentecostals and Charismatics will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons, and in your name perform many mighty works. And I will say to the Pentecostals and Charismatics: I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers.” It is obvious to me that these movements are not of God and should have no place in the Catholic Church. These movements are of men and based on hyper emotionalism. God has given us an intellect to balance our emotions. It is dangerous to allow your emotions to overrule your intellect. Don’t be fooled by people’s overly emotional testimonies about how they were “born again” or “baptized in the Spirit.” I was “born again” as an infant through baptism - which is what Jesus was talking about. I was born of “water and Spirit,” which is one thing, not two.

 

[sauce]

I’m afraid someone may be forgetting scripture.

“This is that, which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.”

Jesus speaks of One who will baptize in “fire.” Basically, it deals with when does Jesus
get you? Yes, we get Him at Baptism. Yes we are sealed in Confirmation. And, yes we
receive those 7 gifts to grow in holiness. But when Jesus gets you, it can be considered
the baptism of fire. Ignition, lift-off. The nine ministerial gifts can kick in.

I wouldn’t reject someone who’s life has changed due to an outpouring of the Spirit
on his/her life. Not for us to judge.

 

[SonofMonica]

I’m afraid someone may be forgetting scripture.

“This is that, which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.”

Jesus speaks of One who will baptize in “fire.” Basically, it deals with when does Jesus
get you? Yes, we get Him at Baptism. Yes we are sealed in Confirmation. And, yes we
receive those 7 gifts to grow in holiness. But when Jesus gets you, it can be considered
the baptism of fire. Ignition, lift-off. The nine ministerial gifts can kick in.

I wouldn’t reject someone who’s life has changed due to an outpouring of the Spirit
on his/her life. Not for us to judge.

I wouldn’t “reject” anyone who’s had a life change because of the Holy Spirit. I would simply ask them to refrain from acting a fool during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And acting a fool is what these people are doing: youtube.com/watch?v=1SgByE0pX1M

What they do in their own prayer meetings or tent revivals or whatever is fine with me. But forgive me if I don’t take you guys’ interpretations of scripture as binding on me. I don’t really care to be ignited or blasted off into space, or whatever, and I certainly don’t want to be forced to watch your shuttle launch during the middle of the Eucharist… Jesus gave me plenty of gifts: piety, reason, intelligence, temperance, modesty, respect, compassion for the less fortunate, consideration of others… I’ll do my best to use those to grow in holiness, with the help of God.

 

[sauce]

The Holy Spirit is the author of praise.

Anybody ever been to a Polka Mass? Now those can be quite wonderful I hear.

 

[sauce]

I wouldn’t “reject” anyone who’s had a life change because of the Holy Spirit. I would simply ask them to refrain from acting a fool during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And acting a fool is what these people are doing: youtube.com/watch?v=1SgByE0pX1M

This is called being drunk in the spirit just like the apostles were at 9 in the morning
on Pentecost. People thought they were drunk. This gift of laughter is quite valid. St Philip Neri had it.

The red type on purple background is a sure sign of lack of scholarship. That’s what’s
manipulative. I don’t need to be told what to think about it. Just simply present it.
Anyway, I’ve been in these meetings. God is touching His people. It’s the
new wine. Nothing compares with being a fool for Christ.

 

[SonofMonica]

This is called being drunk in the spirit just like the apostles were at 9 in the morning
on Pentecost. People thought they were drunk. This gift of laughter is quite valid. St Philip Neri had it.

The red type on purple background is a sure sign of lack of scholarship. That’s what’s
manipulative. I don’t need to be told what to think about it. Just simply present it.
Anyway, I’ve been in these meetings. God is touching His people. It’s the
new wine. Nothing compares with being a fool for Christ.

1. The scripture you’re talking about where it says that people thought the apostles were drunk is irrefutably talking about the sort of “speaking in tongues” which simply means speaking in another valid, recognized language that people already know, without having been trained to do so. Acts Chapter 2. Read it. This was a miracle and the purpose for which was just the same as any other miracle ever done—to confirm that it was God who was at work. This was a way to confirm that these twelve apostles had God’s “seal of approval” as leaders of the new church and that it was Christ who was working through them. As the scene was creating quite a stir, a huge crowd formed and was amazed that these Twelve men were speaking in languages that they had not studied. These other languages they had spoken were not gibberish, but actual languages of nations that existed at the time. See verse 8.
2. The apostles were NOT DRUNK IN THE SPIRIT. They were not drunk in anything. Peter specifically said they were not drunk in verse 15. There is absolutely no indication that the apostles lost control of their senses, spoke in “new” languages that no one had ever spoken before. None of that. Your claim is a complete fabrication.
3. The gift of laughter is not a fruit of the spirit. Those fruits are, as listed by Paul in his letter to the Galatians,
   • love (agape);
   • joy (chara);
   • peace (eirene);
   • patience (makrothumia);
   • kindness (chrestotes);
   • goodness (agathosune);
   • faithfulness (pistis);
   • gentleness (prautes);
     ** * self-control (egkrateia).**

Hmm… I wonder why Paul lists self-control. Could this have anything to do with the fact that he tells the Church at Corinth not to act like a fool in Church, because people will think they are insane? Could be…

1. The content of the video stands on its own.
2. Laughter is a gift from God, apart from any particular moving of the Spirit, and I exercise that gift when I look at videos like the one I posted. I don’t think I would be laughing if you brought that mockery of God into my parish church, though. New wine according to whom? You? The Pentecostals? I’ll remain safe inside the arms of Mary and her Church with 2000 years of sophisticated theology and her humble, meek and self-controlled Saints. Forgive me if I don’t drink what you’re selling, and I’ll thank you to stay out of my parish with it, as I view it as poison.

 

[Little_Katie]

What exactly is a Charismatic Catholic? I have only been catholic for a few years and I have just come across this term recently. I don’t know what it means though.

 

[SonofMonica]

What exactly is a Charismatic Catholic? I have only been catholic for a few years and I have just come across this term recently. I don’t know what it means though.

If it were simply an openness to the movement of the Holy Spirit and a recognition that some might have charisms which would build up the Church, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, in practice, I understand (and sauce seems to be confirming) that it is basically a recreation of Pentacostalism within the Catholic Church, complete with absolute chaos and lack of order (in spite of Paul’s warnings to Corinth about that very thing).

This article from EWTN lays out a very balanced and responsible view on the issue:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm

It’s basically the idea that we need to encourage folks to receive a bigger “dose” of the Holy Spirit (as though He could be received in quantified doses) and a pressure tactic to get everyone gibbering and falling out in the isles. Pentacostalism completely ignores the fact that no one could stop the Holy Spirit from giving a person this charism if He chose to, and instead turns it into a litmus test on whether you have the Holy Spirit (or enough of Him).

If all the Charismatic movement wanted to do was keep folks from being too dull at Mass and let folks raise their hands in worship, it would be one thing. But do not be fooled. What they desire is what is in that Youtube video I posted.

 

[juliamajor]

I’ve never seen so much misundertanding,bile, anger ,hatred aimed at at a Catholic group.You see the extreme and think it the common.You see no intellect. you only see emotion. The Problem is that at average prayer meeting we pray praise,sing meditate.Charismatic Mass are not a common occurence.People who are involved in the movement are also involved in so called traditional devotions, are enamored of the Eucharist, go to reconciliation,honor the sacraments listen to the the bishop, pope- are more obedient then ultra- traditionalist no matter how super Catholic they believe they are.
The lack of charity is palpable here and the ire that is so obvious here is very unChristlike.
Since the movement is accepted by the church and the popes why others disdain and despise the movement(which surprise is comprised of actually people) who you also show disdain for- where is the ire for the schismatics for those who deny the pope is the pope. who despise everything that they personally don’t understand and doesn’t adhere to there concept of"church’.
We are not uneducated
we are not stupid
we read the catechism
we know our traditions
we love our church
our sacraments
our hierarchy
we respect our priests
we honor we venerate Mary
and the saints
We trust completely in the Trinity
we don’t deny the power of the sacraments and the grace therein
as some suggest.
We are not in league with Satan no matter what others infer-who see Satan everywhere except in themselves.
I end this missive and will no longer post here because of the unbridled ugliness that is mirrored within.
The lack of respect toward your brothers and sisters in Christ is just plain wrong-no matter how you justify your dislike of the renewal.
The peace and Love of Jesus be with all of you.!

 

[DorianGregorian]

What exactly is a Charismatic Catholic? I have only been catholic for a few years and I have just come across this term recently. I don’t know what it means though.

The Charismatic movement is a movement made up of groups such as the neocatechumenal way who wish to, in their eyes, “modernize” the Church, which they see as a “dinosaur”, an archaic organization, a “fossil.”

They reject traditional liturgy, they deemphasize the distinction between the laity and clergy, they reject reason in favor of emotion, they use guitars and drumsets instead of an organ, they treat Communion as a communal meal instead of a sacrifice, they allow anyone to give homilies, they have microphones and speakers on their altar, the word “Rosary” sounds more like a spice to them, they are very suspicious of Church authority and clergy, they speak in tounges, they read scripture literally. Notice many of these characteristics are common to the Protestant ‘holiness’ movement.

However it’s not the fault of the people, it’s a result of a generation of bad catechism in schools. My brother went to an RCIA class where the teacher talked about her personal life, there was no mention of the Baltimore Catechism. It’s a result of forgetting our history, our tradition, our culture. They seek to infuse modern society with the Church, it’s like Servant of God Paul VI said: The smoke of Satan has entered the Church. This smoke is modernism.