Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

  • Thread starter Thread starter MOTHBALL83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I tend to believe that there is an authentic expression of this, be it Protestant or Catholic, it’s just that there’s so much madness out there it makes it hard to discern…
We are given charisms which are intended to be used for the building up of the Church. There is a parallel to this in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). In the final accounting, we will be asked what we did with the gifts of the Holy Spirit that we received. I do not want to be the man who, out of fear, hid his charism and offered it alone back to the Lord. I desire to show Him at least some small fruits of that charism.

Since God alone knows the heart, I believe that it is error to judge another’s spirituality. The Catholic Church, over the millennia, has tested the various spiritual practices for genuineness and approves some while condemning others. That which the Church approves (but not requires) may be entered into according to one’s own spirituality, and preferably with spiritual direction from a Priest. Those who condemn ad hominem what the Church approves of and accepts, are either opposed to the Church, or simply do not know what they are talking about.
 
You could be right; you could just as easily be wrong.

you are right, I could be wrong. Just my experience based opinion not to be judgmental…

On what authority do you tell someone to only do it in private? Scripture does not limit tongues to the edification of the soul. It gives specific guidelines on the proper use of the gift of tongues in public.

You are correct, there are tongues for edification and also tongues for interpretation, to be used in public. From personal experience only, again not to be judgmental, I have never seen or experienced this in any orderly manner, it was always full of confusion and never seemed to profit anything. This was just my experiences over many years and several churches.

Does the Charismatic Movement in the Catholic Church handle snakes? If not, I fail to see why you mention this.

No I have never seen anything to this degree in the Charismatic Movement in the Catholic Church… The same people that do the snake handling also speak in tongues and have several things in common with the Pentecostals.

There are good christian people involved with the Charismatic Movement, they are sincere and believe in what their involved in. LOVE is the most important of all, I Love all my brothers and sisters in Christ…

The traditional Roman Catholic Mass, that’s after Vatican II for me… it is very orderly, peaceful, non-confusing and allows one to worship God. I am there to worship God, to receive Holy Communion. For me this is fullness, Peace and Gods Love to the ‘Highest Degree.’
 
So, with that in mind these are the types of questions I have based upon our experiences last Sunday: 1) If I were to walk into a charismatic Mass, would there be quiet reverence during the consecration, or would there be speaking in tongues, singing, or hallelujahs? 2) During the entrance hymn, would it be community singing or would it be people trying to turn the hymn into an opportunity to become the next gospel music sensation? 3) What about during the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, etc.? Would people sing it as written or change it as they see fit? Would someone start randomly speaking in tongues afterwards or throwing out "hallelujahs: or “praise Jesus” during an otherwise quiet time? 4) would I have to listen to people behind me saying the words of consecration along with the priest, or would it be quiet? 5) Would I have people singing the responses even though the priest is speaking them and the rest of the parish is not singing? 6) Would I have someone sitting down next to me prior to Mass when I am kneeling down in obvious prayer exclaiming loudly “how ya doin’ today brother?” or would people come in and pray quietly before Mass? 7) Would people come in prior to Mass and start singing to themselves or would they come in and pray quietly?
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i..._S2yahzRbQg8uTGO15AAfXL3tk5P7A2pEs_10GiYWtM4G

Anyone?
 
It is so sad that you have experienced such behaviour as this during your worship. Love Charismatic Renewal I certainly do. It is the most wonderful freeing part of the Catholic Church I have ever experienced. It is backed by many Popes, Bishops and Priests worldwide. If the time was available (maybe I will find it at some point, it is important) I can point you to the documents and people who write about it. Start with Raniero Cantalamessa, the Preacher to the Papal Household who has written extensively about Charismatic Renewal.

It is important those who have found and experienced the beauty of the Renewal pray alongside our brothers WHERE THEY ARE in their journey in seeking God, In doing so, we can petition the Holy Spirit open them up to the Truth they are seeking - and The Holy Spirit blows where He wills. Although the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and all it stands for is my life, it is important we acknowledge and respect people’s choices. After all, each one of us has been given ‘choice’, Charismatic Renewal is something for people to ‘find’, Yes, CCR is something which needs to be opened up to those who do not really know or understand it but in a way which does not create discord. When we seek the Holy Spirit, man and God ‘find’ one another. It is not something which, in our human frailty, we can force on one another by bringing a style of worship into a service which seems alien to it.
 
I do not think that the G.I.R.M. specifies that charisms be checked at the door before participating. With that in mind, prudential judgment must always be used. Charisms are for the building up of the Church, and that is not the purpose served by the mass, although neither is it entirely separate from it.

Lately, I have received the gift of tears. Should I restrain that out of fear that I might then cause a spectacle? Saint Dominic did not.
 
I do not think that the G.I.R.M. specifies that charisms be checked at the door before participating. With that in mind, prudential judgment must always be used. Charisms are for the building up of the Church, and that is not the purpose served by the mass, although neither is it entirely separate from it.
I am not sure what exactly you are saying. It may be OK for people to act as I described, but it also might not? If it is indeed the case that what I described might be relatively normal or even considered appropriate, then I unfortunately would have to start agreeing with critics of the Charismatic renewal that there are some serious problems with it. If not, then perhaps it was just problems with those people.
Lately, I have received the gift of tears. Should I restrain that out of fear that I might then cause a spectacle? Saint Dominic did not.
No, Saint Dominic did not. However, he did not go out of his way to make a spectacle of himself either. His tears did not serve as a barrier for others in the manner that I described above.
 
Hi Jason,

I have been involved with Catholic Charismatic for about 6 years now and have attended masses held by the CCR as well as masses attended by visiting overseas priests who are known to have the “Gift of Healing”. I have also attended masses held by covernent groups[Which tend to be very vibrant and Joyfull]. The mass tends to be led by the Priest and my experience has been that if the priest goes into tongues then the congregation tend to follow his lead. I havent experienced people calling out “Hallelujah” or running up and down the isles-I would’nt feel comfortable with this either!

Unfortunately the Charismatic movement does seem to attract some unbalanced people and the emotionally wounded as they often hold “Healing” masses. If these people don’t have strong faith and feel marginilzed they often turn to the Charismatic*.

I can see your concerns and before I came on this forum had no idea of the negativity and fear associated with the Charismatic movement which really saddens me - from the outside looking in I also probably felt like you.The reason the CCR is here is for education and order, and I think they would appreciate your feedback, I have attended thier meetings and found them to be extremely thoughtful and caring, nothing like other people here have made them out to be. I think also when some people recieve the Holy Spirit they become so on “fire” they forget that there are others that like a different spirituality. I love all parts of our Catholic faith and see it altogether, we don’t want to surpress this “JOY”, but we always have to be respectful of our other Catholic brothers and sisters.*
 
I am not sure what exactly you are saying. It may be OK for people to act as I described, but it also might not? If it is indeed the case that what I described might be relatively normal or even considered appropriate, then I unfortunately would have to start agreeing with critics of the Charismatic renewal that there are some serious problems with it. If not, then perhaps it was just problems with those people.
Charismatic masses are set purposefully apart due to the fact that charisms are the mode of the day. We must trust the Priest or Bishop that is celebrating the mass to teach on what is and is not proper during the mass. This instruction would be beneficial at all masses, actually.

We must again look to the context of the mass: it is celebrated among and by those whose charisms may be more visible than most. I think the fact that we moderns have had so little exposure to the charisms may have somewhat dulled our senses to their importance.
No, Saint Dominic did not. However, he did not go out of his way to make a spectacle of himself either. His tears did not serve as a barrier for others in the manner that I described above.
It was perhaps a rhetorical question that I asked. Nevertheless, the movement is not renegade, as some would have you believe. It is monitored and supervised, and participated in by Priests and Bishops. For those Catholics who do not like the NO masses, I say, don’t go! For those who do not like the TLM, I say don’t go! For those who do not like charismatic masses, don’t go! Simple. Why make it complicated? Let us allow the hierarchy run the Church, and we will obey them. What a concept!

The more negative among us can always call the judgment of our Bishops into question for approving the movement, but this approval was not made in a vacuum, or even hastily - but only after much discussion, observation and participation. Since relatively few in these threads appear to have actually seen the charisms on display in a Catholic setting (and may be imagining only a Benny Hinn spectacle), I think we are almost discussing a moot point.
 
There are two types of “tongues” mentioned in the Bible. The first, described in Acts, are “known tongues.” This is where the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in their own language, but many in the diverse crowd heard it in their own language. The only reason that people figured out that a miracle was taking place was because they saw that these diverse people all seemed to understand what was being said. But not everyone was able to understand.

It is not uncommon that miracles accompany new revelation but not continue. This sign “undid” what happened at Babel.

Then there are “unknown tongues” which is described in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This was a liturgical abuse, and Paul chastised them for it. There is not one verse in Scripture that is favorable to speaking in unknown tongues.

At any rate, neither known nor unknown tongues were practiced by any Christian community since the very early days. The Church Fathers tell us that the practice ceased:

No Christian practiced tongues until Agnes Ozman claimed to do so on Jan 1, 1901.

Ozman was the student of Charles Fox Parham, a Holiness minister. He set up Bethel Bible College in Topeka KS and came up with the novel idea that water Baptism and “spirit Baptism” are not bound together, but are separate actions. He asked his students to figure out what was the “sign” of Spirit Baptism, and they came up with the idea that speaking in (unknown) tongues was this sign. The school closed in 1902.

In 1905, Parham established another college in Houston, TX, and this school became the center of the Pentecostal “movement” (such as it was). In 1907, Parham’s ministry was discredited owing to sex scandals and his espousal of British Israelism. He lived out the rest of his life as head of a rather small group of Apostolic Faith churches headquartered in Baxter Springs, KS.

In 1906, in Los Angeles, William Joseph Seymour (1870-1922) held a revival at 312 Azusa Street, where the worldwide Pentecostal movement was launched. Seymour, an African-American Holiness preacher, was trained by Parham at his school in Houston. As in Topeka, the activity of this revival sparked considerable attention, but was short lived. By 1913, the Pentecostal movement was widely scattered, incohesive, and on the brink of extinction.

The Assemblies of God churches (the “home” of Charismatic Christianity) were established by a committee. A man named Eudorus N. Bell published a periodical from Malverm, Arkansas called the Word and Witness. Bell and four other men (Howard Goss, Daniel Opperman, Archibald Collins, and Mack Pinson) had become concerned with the future of the Pentecostal movement, and they decided to organize a general-invitation convention in Hot Springs, AK in April 1914. This convention attracted about 300 persons (about 120 of whom were delegates of various scattered Pentecostal movements). The Assemblies of God grew out of the resolutions of this convention, and was first headquartered in Findlay, OH, but moved to Springfield, Missouri in 1915, where it is still housed today.

In 1960, an Episcopal pastor, Dennis Bennett of Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California started a charismatic movement within his parish, and for the first time, Pentecostalism transcended its traditional denominational definitions and became a form of spirituality integrated into an otherwise “mainline” Christian framework. From there, it infiltrated other faiths, including Catholicism (by way of Notre Dame University - surprise!).

As Catholics, we have a Faith that is nearly 2,000 years old. We call ourselves “Catholic” because our Faith is universal (that’s what “catholic” means) – for all people, in all places, at all times. Yet this “Catholic Charismatic” movement is scarcely 50 years old! I have a vacuum cleaner that’s older than “Charismatic Catholicism!”

Occasionally, great Doctors of the Church reveal to us deeper insight into Catholic spirituality. But the whole Charismatic movement did not begin with any Catholic Doctor or Saint – it started with the students of a disenfranchised Holiness preacher with a lot of wacky ideas and who had a hard time keeping his pants buttoned, and who could not even muster credibility within the movement that he started. Not surprisingly, the movement found its way into Catholicism by way of the Episcopal Church, the very same church that was the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse birth control.

So, to me, the Charismatic movement has three fatal flaws:
  • Its origins are not Biblical (not one passage of Scripture encourages or promotes this form of worship)
  • It is not historical (no Catholic in almost 2,000 years had ever practiced it)
  • Its origins are not Catholic (it has never been promoted by any Pope or Saint, nor by the Church Magisterium).
Charismatic spirituality is a very recent invention of fringe protestants. It has no Biblical, historical, or theological precedence or merit. I do not believe this form of spirituality has ANY legitimate place in Catholic worship.
👍 Excellent post.
 
There are two types of “tongues” mentioned in the Bible. The first, described in Acts, are “known tongues.” This is where the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in their own language, but many in the diverse crowd heard it in their own language. The only reason that people figured out that a miracle was taking place was because they saw that these diverse people all seemed to understand what was being said. But not everyone was able to understand.

It is not uncommon that miracles accompany new revelation but not continue. This sign “undid” what happened at Babel.

Then there are “unknown tongues” which is described in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This was a liturgical abuse, and Paul chastised them for it. There is not one verse in Scripture that is favorable to speaking in unknown tongues.

At any rate, neither known nor unknown tongues were practiced by any Christian community since the very early days. The Church Fathers tell us that the practice ceased:

No Christian practiced tongues until Agnes Ozman claimed to do so on Jan 1, 1901.

Ozman was the student of Charles Fox Parham, a Holiness minister. He set up Bethel Bible College in Topeka KS and came up with the novel idea that water Baptism and “spirit Baptism” are not bound together, but are separate actions. He asked his students to figure out what was the “sign” of Spirit Baptism, and they came up with the idea that speaking in (unknown) tongues was this sign. The school closed in 1902.

In 1905, Parham established another college in Houston, TX, and this school became the center of the Pentecostal “movement” (such as it was). In 1907, Parham’s ministry was discredited owing to sex scandals and his espousal of British Israelism. He lived out the rest of his life as head of a rather small group of Apostolic Faith churches headquartered in Baxter Springs, KS.

In 1906, in Los Angeles, William Joseph Seymour (1870-1922) held a revival at 312 Azusa Street, where the worldwide Pentecostal movement was launched. Seymour, an African-American Holiness preacher, was trained by Parham at his school in Houston. As in Topeka, the activity of this revival sparked considerable attention, but was short lived. By 1913, the Pentecostal movement was widely scattered, incohesive, and on the brink of extinction.

The Assemblies of God churches (the “home” of Charismatic Christianity) were established by a committee. A man named Eudorus N. Bell published a periodical from Malverm, Arkansas called the Word and Witness. Bell and four other men (Howard Goss, Daniel Opperman, Archibald Collins, and Mack Pinson) had become concerned with the future of the Pentecostal movement, and they decided to organize a general-invitation convention in Hot Springs, AK in April 1914. This convention attracted about 300 persons (about 120 of whom were delegates of various scattered Pentecostal movements). The Assemblies of God grew out of the resolutions of this convention, and was first headquartered in Findlay, OH, but moved to Springfield, Missouri in 1915, where it is still housed today.

In 1960, an Episcopal pastor, Dennis Bennett of Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California started a charismatic movement within his parish, and for the first time, Pentecostalism transcended its traditional denominational definitions and became a form of spirituality integrated into an otherwise “mainline” Christian framework. From there, it infiltrated other faiths, including Catholicism (by way of Notre Dame University - surprise!).

As Catholics, we have a Faith that is nearly 2,000 years old. We call ourselves “Catholic” because our Faith is universal (that’s what “catholic” means) – for all people, in all places, at all times. Yet this “Catholic Charismatic” movement is scarcely 50 years old! I have a vacuum cleaner that’s older than “Charismatic Catholicism!”

Occasionally, great Doctors of the Church reveal to us deeper insight into Catholic spirituality. But the whole Charismatic movement did not begin with any Catholic Doctor or Saint – it started with the students of a disenfranchised Holiness preacher with a lot of wacky ideas and who had a hard time keeping his pants buttoned, and who could not even muster credibility within the movement that he started. Not surprisingly, the movement found its way into Catholicism by way of the Episcopal Church, the very same church that was the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse birth control.

So, to me, the Charismatic movement has three fatal flaws:
  • Its origins are not Biblical (not one passage of Scripture encourages or promotes this form of worship)
  • It is not historical (no Catholic in almost 2,000 years had ever practiced it)
  • Its origins are not Catholic (it has never been promoted by any Pope or Saint, nor by the Church Magisterium).
Charismatic spirituality is a very recent invention of fringe protestants. It has no Biblical, historical, or theological precedence or merit. I do not believe this form of spirituality has ANY legitimate place in Catholic worship.
👍
 
I can’t stand the charismatic movement to be honest.:mad:
It’s simply an infiltration of Pentecostalism into the Church, in much the same way as much New Age thought has entered the Church as well.
 
It is absolutely fine to reject the charismatic movement - and certain Catholics most vehemently do. However, we receive charisms that we are intended to use in the building up of he Church. I hope that those with great disdain for the charismatic movement have taken some other steps to both determine what their charism is, as well as use it - not for criticism and negativity - but for the building up of the Church.
 
Not entirely accurate.
There are two types of “tongues” mentioned in the Bible. The first, described in Acts, are “known tongues.” This is where the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel in their own language, but many in the diverse crowd heard it in their own language. The only reason that people figured out that a miracle was taking place was because they saw that these diverse people all seemed to understand what was being said. But not everyone was able to understand.

It is not uncommon that miracles accompany new revelation but not continue. This sign “undid” what happened at Babel.

Then there are “unknown tongues” which is described in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This was a liturgical abuse, and Paul chastised them for it.
No, you are seriously mistaken. Speaking “unknown tongues” was not an abuse. Paul clearly says the ability to speak in an unknown tongue is a gift from God. You err when you call the things of God “abuse.” The abuse was in the way the Corinthians were utilizing the gift and in their attitudes concerning it.
There is not one verse in Scripture that is favorable to speaking in unknown tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:

5 - Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.

18 - I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

Paul is talking about tongues in the context of 1 Corinthians, which were unknown tongues. He only puts one restriction on tongues: that when spoken publicly, they be interpreted. He obviously thinks very highly of the gift of tongues, otherwise he wouldn’t thank God that he spoke in tongues so much.

To Paul, when one spoke in an unknown language, he or she was speaking the languages of the angels. In this, he follows a Judeo-Christian tradition attributing inspired esoteric speech to angelic tongues. One such text is the Testament of Job, an apocryphal Jewish text, which says the following concerning Job’s daughters:
21Now then, my children, in keeping these, you will not have the enemy plotting against you nor [evil] intentions in your mind because this is a charm (Phylacterion) from theLord.22Rise then and gird these around you before I die in order that you may see theangels come at my parting so that you may see with wonder the powers of God.”23Thenrose the one whose name was Day (Yemima) and girt herself; and immediately shedeparted her body, as her father had said, and she put on another heart, as if she nevercared for earthly things.24And she sang angelic hymns in the voice of angels, and shechanted forth the angelic praise of God while dancing.
25Then the other daughter, Kassia by name, put on the girdle, and her heart wastransformed, so that she no longer wished for worldly things.26And her mouthassumed the dialect of the heavenly rulers (Archonts) and she sang the donology of the work of the High Place and if any one wishes to know the work of the heavens he may take an insight into the hymns of Kassia.
27Then did the other daughter by the name of Amalthea’s Horn (Keren Happukh) girdherself and her mouth spoke in the language of those on high; for her heart wastransformed, being lifted above the worldly things.28She spoke in the dialect of theCherubim, singing the praise of the Ruler of the cosmic powers (virtues) and extollingtheir (His?) glory.
29And he who desires to follow the vestiges of the “Glory of the Father” will find them written down in the Prayers of Amalthea’s Horn. (Chapter 11)
But what about after Paul’s time?
At any rate, neither known nor unknown tongues were practiced by any Christian community since the very early days. The Church Fathers tell us that the practice ceased:
In the earliest time, "the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues, "which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance. " These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign, and is passed away. [St. Augustine, TEN HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, Vol. VII]
Well Montanists spoke in tongues. Granted they were heretics, but even the pope thought about supporting them for awhile. Tertulian writes about a woman in the church at Carthage who:
has received gifts of revelations which she experiences by ecstasy in the Spirit in the Church at the Sunday service. She converses with angels, sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears secret things; she discerns the hearts of some, and she obtains instructions for healing for those who want them . . . . After the religious service was completed, when the people had been dismissed, according to her custom of reporting what she has seen to us (for her visions are also described very carefully that they may also be tested . . . (Tertullian On the Soul 9.4)
And Origin quotes Celsus (who tries to portray Christians as gullible and ignorant) criticizing a certain kind of prophecy he describes as
After they have brandished these words, they subsequently add words that are unintelligible, and frenzied, and totally obscure, whose meaning no intelligent person could discover, for they are obscure and void of meaning. . . . (Origin, Against Celsus 7.9)
 
And then there is Irenaeus, who was not a heretic, describing the charisms at work in the church:
For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. ([Against Heresies (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.vii.html) 5.6.1)
So, I guess Irenaeus was living in a time when Catholics still spoke in tongues. But then St. Augustine and John Chrysostom was living in a time when all those pesky charisms had just disappeared (with the exception of those heretical Montanists and other ecstatics who sound all happy clappy) huh?

Either way, this history lesson is not accurate at all. Tongues continued to be known about right up to the Protestant Reformation. There are Catholic saints who had the gift of tongues. During the Protestant Reformation many radical groups also exhibited charismatic forms of worship, including speaking in tongues.
Ozman was the student of Charles Fox Parham, a Holiness minister. He set up Bethel Bible College in Topeka KS and came up with the novel idea that water Baptism and “spirit Baptism” are not bound together, but are separate actions. He asked his students to figure out what was the “sign” of Spirit Baptism, and they came up with the idea that speaking in (unknown) tongues was this sign. The school closed in 1902.

In 1905, Parham established another college in Houston, TX, and this school became the center of the Pentecostal “movement” (such as it was). In 1907, Parham’s ministry was discredited owing to sex scandals and his espousal of British Israelism. He lived out the rest of his life as head of a rather small group of Apostolic Faith churches headquartered in Baxter Springs, KS.

In 1906, in Los Angeles, William Joseph Seymour (1870-1922) held a revival at 312 Azusa Street, where the worldwide Pentecostal movement was launched. Seymour, an African-American Holiness preacher, was trained by Parham at his school in Houston. As in Topeka, the activity of this revival sparked considerable attention, but was short lived. By 1913, the Pentecostal movement was widely scattered, incohesive, and on the brink of extinction.

The Assemblies of God churches (the “home” of Charismatic Christianity) were established by a committee. A man named Eudorus N. Bell published a periodical from Malverm, Arkansas called the Word and Witness. Bell and four other men (Howard Goss, Daniel Opperman, Archibald Collins, and Mack Pinson) had become concerned with the future of the Pentecostal movement, and they decided to organize a general-invitation convention in Hot Springs, AK in April 1914. This convention attracted about 300 persons (about 120 of whom were delegates of various scattered Pentecostal movements). The Assemblies of God grew out of the resolutions of this convention, and was first headquartered in Findlay, OH, but moved to Springfield, Missouri in 1915, where it is still housed today.

In 1960, an Episcopal pastor, Dennis Bennett of Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California started a charismatic movement within his parish, and for the first time, Pentecostalism transcended its traditional denominational definitions and became a form of spirituality integrated into an otherwise “mainline” Christian framework. From there, it infiltrated other faiths, including Catholicism (by way of Notre Dame University - surprise!).

As Catholics, we have a Faith that is nearly 2,000 years old. We call ourselves “Catholic” because our Faith is universal (that’s what “catholic” means) – for all people, in all places, at all times. Yet this “Catholic Charismatic” movement is scarcely 50 years old! I have a vacuum cleaner that’s older than “Charismatic Catholicism!”

Occasionally, great Doctors of the Church reveal to us deeper insight into Catholic spirituality. But the whole Charismatic movement did not begin with any Catholic Doctor or Saint – it started with the students of a disenfranchised Holiness preacher with a lot of wacky ideas and who had a hard time keeping his pants buttoned, and who could not even muster credibility within the movement that he started. Not surprisingly, the movement found its way into Catholicism by way of the Episcopal Church, the very same church that was the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse birth control.

So, to me, the Charismatic movement has three fatal flaws:
  • Its origins are not Biblical (not one passage of Scripture encourages or promotes this form of worship)
  • It is not historical (no Catholic in almost 2,000 years had ever practiced it)
  • Its origins are not Catholic (it has never been promoted by any Pope or Saint, nor by the Church Magisterium).
Charismatic spirituality is a very recent invention of fringe protestants. It has no Biblical, historical, or theological precedence or merit. I do not believe this form of spirituality has ANY legitimate place in Catholic worship.
 
Not entirely accurate.

No, you are seriously mistaken. Speaking “unknown tongues” was not an abuse. Paul clearly says the ability to speak in an unknown tongue is a gift from God. You err when you call the things of God “abuse.” The abuse was in the way the Corinthians were utilizing the gift and in their attitudes concerning it.

1 Corinthians 14:

5 - Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.

18 - I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

Paul is talking about tongues in the context of 1 Corinthians, which were unknown tongues. He only puts one restriction on tongues: that when spoken publicly, they be interpreted. He obviously thinks very highly of the gift of tongues, otherwise he wouldn’t thank God that he spoke in tongues so much.

To Paul, when one spoke in an unknown language, he or she was speaking the languages of the angels. In this, he follows a Judeo-Christian tradition attributing inspired esoteric speech to angelic tongues. One such text is the Testament of Job, an apocryphal Jewish text, which says the following concerning Job’s daughters:

But what about after Paul’s time?

Well Montanists spoke in tongues. Granted they were heretics, but even the pope thought about supporting them for awhile. Tertulian writes about a woman in the church at Carthage who:

And Origin quotes Celsus (who tries to portray Christians as gullible and ignorant) criticizing a certain kind of prophecy he describes as
Hmm, interesting, let’s see how David responds…
 
After re-reading this last portion of David’s comment, I have noticed several other inaccuracies.

As I said earlier, Agnes Ozman was not the first person in modern times to speak in tongues. Speaking in tongues, while never raised to the level of significance in Pentecostalism, was a feature of American revivalism in general: from the rise of Methodism in colonial America and the Great Awakenings to the frontier revivals of the Stone-Campbell and Mormon movements. All of these occurred much earlier than Agnes Ozman speaking in tongues.
He set up Bethel Bible College in Topeka KS and came up with the novel idea that water Baptism and “spirit Baptism” are not bound together, but are separate actions.
Parham certainly had a novel idea, but that novel idea WAS NOT that water baptism and Spirit baptism were separate events. In fact, the issue of separability actually has its roots in the separation of the rite of baptism and confirmation in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Per Wikipedia, which has an excellent article on Spirit baptism:
In the early Church, the practice of laying hands on the newly baptized to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit was the origin of the sacrament of confirmation. In the Eastern church, confirmation continued to be celebrated immediately after water baptism. The two rites were separated in the Western church.[8]
According to Pentecostal historian H. Vinson Synan, “the basic premise of Pentecostalism, that one may receive later effusions of the Spirit after initiation/conversion, can be clearly traced in Christian history to the beginnings of the rite of confirmation in the Western churches”.[9] Synan further traces the influence of Catholic and Anglican mystical traditions on John Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection, from which Pentecostal beliefs on Spirit baptism developed. John Fletcher, Wesley’s designated successor, argued that Christian perfection or the second blessing, as it was also called, was a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” as well as a cleansing experience.[10]
He asked his students to figure out what was the “sign” of Spirit Baptism, and they came up with the idea that speaking in (unknown) tongues was this sign.
This was the “novel” idea.
By 1913, the Pentecostal movement was widely scattered, incohesive, and on the brink of extinction.
Not true. It was highly expansive and missionary. Nearly all of the Southern US holiness denominations had entered the Pentecostal camp, the movement had spread to Canada, South America, Africa, Europe, and Australia. There were independent Pentecostal revivals in India and China. Where did you get the idea that Pentecostalism was on the brink of extinction? It has never been in its entire history, and today its the fastest growing form of Christianity in the world.
The Assemblies of God churches (the “home” of Charismatic Christianity) were established by a committee.
Not sure what you mean by “home” of Charismatic Christianity. The Assemblies of God is Pentecostal; the charismatic movement started in the historical churches.
A man named Eudorus N. Bell published a periodical from Malverm, Arkansas called the Word and Witness. Bell and four other men (Howard Goss, Daniel Opperman, Archibald Collins, and Mack Pinson) had become concerned with the future of the Pentecostal movement,
Well, they were concerned with maintaining unity in the midst of the large amount of growth and ensuring personal and institutional accountability among Pentecostals. In addition, they wanted to coordinate missionary work.
So, to me, the Charismatic movement has three fatal flaws:

*]Its origins are not Biblical (not one passage of Scripture encourages or promotes this form of worship)
You’re are exactly right. I cannot find one Scripture which encourages speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5), or prophecy (1 Thessalonians 5:20), or raising hands (Psalm 63:4), or dancing (2 Samuel 6:16-23), etc. I wonder where on earth do these people get these ideas :rolleyes:
*]It is not historical (no Catholic in almost 2,000 years had ever practiced it)
This has been addressed in my earlier posts.
*]Its origins are not Catholic (it has never been promoted by any Pope or Saint, nor by the Church Magisterium).
Umm, I’d think people affiliated with the CCR will be more able to respond to this. It certainly hasn’t been condemned by any of the people you mention, has it?
Charismatic spirituality is a very recent invention of fringe protestants. It has no Biblical, historical, or theological precedence or merit. I do not believe this form of spirituality has ANY legitimate place in Catholic worship.
You may not agree with everything about charismatic spirituality, but you would have to be blind not to admit that it certainly has some Biblical, some historical, and some theological precedence and merit. With the growth of this form of spirituality, you are going to have to take it seriously.
 
My understanding is that the Holy Spirit does not give the charismatic gift of tongues to everyone, just as He does not give the gift of healing or the gift of miracles to everyone. He distributes His gifts according to His Will (1 Cor. 12:11). To some He gives the gift of wisdom, but not the gift of healing; to others he gives the gift of tongues, but not the gift of miracles; etc. (See 1 Cor. 12:8-11)

I also have the impression that the charismatic gift of tongues, just like any charismatic gift, is actually not so common. Yes, some saints of the Catholic Church were given this gift, but not all of them. And historically the number of those who are on record as having received this gift is way smaller than the total number of saints. Likewise, not all saints received the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, for there are so far only 33 Doctors of the Church. Even the gift of miracles is rare; many saints don’t perform healing and miracles frequently or to a great number of people.

Now, when you are in a CCR worship service and the participants (sometimes the entire congregation) begin speaking in tongues, then you wonder what happened. I am not denying that the Holy Spirit still gives the charismatic gift of tongues to people in the present world, but I thought that it was rare - just as the gift of miracles is rare, - and given only to a select few. Then how come there are suddenly so many people speaking in tongues? Not only that, but there seems to be a frequent occurrence of this “rare” gift in most CCR worship services around the globe. I am not doubting the “gift” because the participants were praying irreverently, or because I don’t understand what they were uttering. I was just wondering why such a precious gift suddenly becomes so cheap. Something does not sit right. Can somebody answer this post?
 
My understanding is that the Holy Spirit does not give the charismatic gift of tongues to everyone, just as He does not give the gift of healing or the gift of miracles to everyone. He distributes His gifts according to His Will (1 Cor. 12:11). To some He gives the gift of wisdom, but not the gift of healing; to others he gives the gift of tongues, but not the gift of miracles; etc. (See 1 Cor. 12:8-11)

I also have the impression that the charismatic gift of tongues, just like any charismatic gift, is actually not so common. Yes, some saints of the Catholic Church were given this gift, but not all of them. And historically the number of those who are on record as having received this gift is way smaller than the total number of saints. Likewise, not all saints received the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, for there are so far only 33 Doctors of the Church. Even the gift of miracles is rare; many saints don’t perform healing and miracles frequently or to a great number of people.

Now, when you are in a CCR worship service and the participants (sometimes the entire congregation) begin speaking in tongues, then you wonder what happened. I am not denying that the Holy Spirit still gives the charismatic gift of tongues to people in the present world, but I thought that it was rare - just as the gift of miracles is rare, - and given only to a select few. Then how come there are suddenly so many people speaking in tongues? Not only that, but there seems to be a frequent occurrence of this “rare” gift in most CCR worship services around the globe. I am not doubting the “gift” because the participants were praying irreverently, or because I don’t understand what they were uttering. I was just wondering why such a precious gift suddenly becomes so cheap. Something does not sit right. Can somebody answer this post?
This isn’t a bad question. It is my understanding that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal does not maintain that every Christian will exhibit the gift of tongues.

As to the question of the rarity of the gift of tongues, I think if we read 1 Corinthians we must come away with the realization that in the church at Corinth the gift of tongues was not rare. This can be clearly seen by the amount of time Paul spends on the subject. In chapter 14 verse 12, Paul says, “So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.” The Corinthians were eager for the gift of tongues and, as can be seen by Paul’s letter, were speaking in tongues during public Christian worship.

The fact that many in the congregation were doing this becomes clear when he says in verses 20-25
If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
Why would Paul use an entirely glossolalic congregation and an entirely prophetic congregation as examples if these were impossibilities? Clearly, Paul was juxtaposing the actions of the Corinthians (a focus on speaking in tongues which no one can understand but God) with a better way (focusing on prophecy which everyone could understand).

There is also the order that he institutes at Corinth. This can be found in verses 27-33
If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
The gift of tongues was common enough in the church at Corinth that Paul felt it necessary to limit the number of people speaking in esoteric speech to 3 in one service and for those messages to be interpreted by one with the gift of interpretation. Notice also that prophecy was also apparently common.

Two last things should be noted. First, Paul says in verse 5
Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
A number of things can be taken from this scripture. The most important is (1) that the gift of tongues is beneficial to the gifted person and to the wider church (otherwise Paul would not stress that he wanted all of the Corinthians to speak in tongues), (2) prophesy is more desirable than speaking in tongues because it does not need interpretation, (3) the most important thing when using charismatic gifts is that they build up the church.

Second, we should note that before moving on to another subject, Paul ends this section of his letter with this command in verses 39-40
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.
 
This isn’t a bad question. It is my understanding that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal does not maintain that every Christian will exhibit the gift of tongues.
Although I have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I have never uttered a word in a tongue. Not my charism. We are to gratefully accept whatever the Spirit desires us to have, and use it not for building ourselves up, but for building the Church up. In that context, amazing things happen.

Truly, the Holy Spirit is the forgotten member of the Holy Trinity.
 
Although I have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I have never uttered a word in a tongue. Not my charism. We are to gratefully accept whatever the Spirit desires us to have, and use it not for building ourselves up, but for building the Church up. In that context, amazing things happen.

Truly, the Holy Spirit is the forgotten member of the Holy Trinity.
That is what I thought, po18guy. From what I understand from CAF and reading up on the CCR, is that Catholics believe that baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. However, the gifts and empowerment are not always manifested at that time, but are often released at a later date. It is this releasing that is often termed Spirit baptism, although that term is not actually correct.

May I ask if you are aware of any charismatic gifts other than tongues at work in your own life? Coming from a Pentecostal background where tongues is the only initial physical sign looked for, I would be interested to know how do people in the CCR know that they have received an outpouring of the Spirit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top