Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

[Road2Damascus]

I’m not sure how this passage is supposed to support Charismatic Christianity (and especially the practice of speaking in unknown tongues, which is inseparably linked to the movement).

But whatever support this passage might lend is predicated on the assumption that we are, indeed, living in the “last days.” This assumption is taken for granted in most Charismatic circles, but there is not one shred of Biblical evidence (or any other form of evidence) that supports this conclusion. However, the Bible DOES say that it is impossible for us to know this - so this is just bad theology on top of bad theology (typical of most protestant spiritual movements).

There is another prophecy of Scripture - not restricted to the “last days” - which says,

Nobody listens to the Charismatic message and doesn’t *want *it to be true. It’s what everyone *wants *to hear.

The initial post here indeed couples the “Charasmatic movement” with phenomenon “speaking in tongues” and “prophesizing”, if you read the original post, you would see it is all tied into the same statement.

Not that I agree with it but it does show the danger of indeed, how “some” Charismatics do evangelize. I think Catholic Answers might do well to publish a pamphlet or something on this movement as they have addressed fundamentalists in the past. Too, speaking of the evangelizing of some of the Charismatic movement, the original post really doesn’t differentiate between Charismatic Protestants doing this vs. Charismatic Catholics doing this, the example that I gave does show the way the logic of how some Pentecostals of those evangelizing works and yes, it is comparing apples and oranges but one might NOT know that if confronted with it in real time.

 

[vardaquinn]

I’m not sure how this passage is supposed to support Charismatic Christianity (and especially the practice of speaking in unknown tongues, which is inseparably linked to the movement).

But whatever support this passage might lend is predicated on the assumption that we are, indeed, living in the “last days.” This assumption is taken for granted in most Charismatic circles, but there is not one shred of Biblical evidence (or any other form of evidence) that supports this conclusion. However, the Bible DOES say that it is impossible for us to know this - so this is just bad theology on top of bad theology (typical of most protestant spiritual movements).

There is another prophecy of Scripture - not restricted to the “last days” - which says,

Nobody listens to the Charismatic message and doesn’t *want *it to be true. It’s what everyone *wants *to hear.

Huh, I actually always thought that passage that Peter quotes was a reference to what was happening then at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was poured out on everyone, not just the Prophets. And that we are indeed living in the last days, and we have been ever since then. Whether or not the end of the world is going to happen tomorrow, or in a million years, I think it’s very Scripturally supported that we should go about our lives as if we are living in the last days. When the real last days before the end of the world come, it really shouldn’t change anything in what we’re doing.

 

[vardaquinn]

It does not mention speaking in unknown tongues.

There is both a legitimate and an illegitimate form of this charism. The legitimate form is what happened in Acts2 - speaking in known tongues. The illegitimate and corrupted form is what happened in 1Cor - speaking in unknown tongues (see my post #17 of this thread).

The Church has never promoted in any way whatsoever the practice of speaking in unknown tongues, which (in it’s recent incarnation) is a protestant practice which infiltrated the Catholic Church in 1968 (just 43 years ago).

Well, it’s very Scriptural. I wonder what you mean by unknown tongues. Do you mean unknown to the speaker, or unknown in general (as in, a language not known on earth)? The whole point of speaking in tongues is that the person is speaking in a language they don’t know. Otherwise I don’t understand what the gift would possibly even be. You either pray or preach or instruct in a language you don’t know. That’s what’s in Scripture, and that’s what the Church affirms as valid.

What strikes me as happening in Acts 2 was that at the moment of Pentecost, the disciples began proclaiming in tongues. They weren’t preaching, yet. Because they were still in the room. Then they go out, praising God in tongues. The people there hear them “extolling God” in their own individual languages. This was really not totally necessary - all the people there would have shared at least one or two common languages.

I see far more Biblical support for praying in languages you have never studied, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, then I do even for preaching the Gospel in languages you have never studied. But both are affirmed by Church teaching, Scripture, and Tradition.

 

[HisLamb]

Praying in tongues is when the Holy Spirit helps us to pray with inexpressible utterances (Rm 8:26). I respect your right to interpret the passage differently, but I hope you can at least understand that I am turning to scripture based on what has been given to me, and I find a scriptural affirmation in Romans 8:26. I can only say that as a result of a gift from God, I have prayed in tongues, laid hands on the sick to have them healed, and have fallen on my face in the presence of the Lord. I know He is still granting His gifts to His people, I’ve seen it-- and I was skeptical about it too. I believe caution and discernment must be used because there are wolves among the sheep and this includes the charismatic renewal. That said, I’m sort of surprised at some of the assumptions being made here, particularly about charismatics just being power hungry and seeking the gifts and not the Giver. I have never seen that. I have never seen anything but humility and love for the Lord and a faithful desire to serve Him.

As to the suggestion that there is no history of praying in tongues among the saints, I would say that it is precisely because it is a personal gift that is for the building up of your soul that it is not publicized. I’m sure you would be shocked to to know that Pope John Paul II was witnessed praying in tongues when he met with a group of charismatic priests. Why don’t more people know about this? Because it was personal; it was between the pope and God. Speaking in tongues as happened when St. Peter preached at Pentecost is another matter. It is for the building up of those who are witnessing it (although I’m sure it builds the faith of the believer too). But a “prayer language” is just between a believer and God.

I am a little perplexed at all the time spent in this thread on the subject of praying in tongues. What about the other gifts that are occurring in Charismatic groups, like people being healed of stage 4 cancer, kidney disease, diabetes, etc? What about speaking prophetic words? I am appalled at the immediate assumption on the part of some that says praying in tongues is satanic. We are told to test the fruit and to discern. If you have a group that is 100% faithful to the Magesterium, that is going to daily Mass, that believes in the Real Presence, that is studying the Word, and that is living the beatitudes, I can tell you, it isn’t satan leading the group. However, if there is a charismatic group that is not faithful to the magisterium, that is not obedient to the form of the Mass, or that is generally going their own way, yes, that is a problem. But don’t make the mistake of thinking throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

PS. I can’t remember who said it but there was a comment about being slain in the spirit not being scriptural. I believe this is a misinterpretation of Scripture. Being slain in the spirit is simply an experience so powerful with the Lord that you fall down as if dead. This is exactly what happened to St. John in Revelation 1:17.“And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead.” There’s many more references to this in the OT including Ez 2:1 “This was the vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And I saw, and I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice of one that spoke”, or 3 Kgs 8:11 "And the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord. ") I used the DRV on those verses, I believe other Bibles may have the verses numbered different.

 

[Holly3278]

I consider myself to be a charismatic Catholic. That said, a few different Popes have said good things about the Charismatic Catholic Renewal so I see it as a good thing too.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m sure you would be shocked to to know that Pope John Paul II was witnessed praying in tongues when he met with a group of charismatic priests.

I would not be shocked to hear it, because I have heard it before. What would absolutely shock me would be if someone reliably cited this story. I have asked enough people to do so (and have been disappointed) that I must strongly suspect the story is a work of pure fiction. Perhaps *you *can provide such a citation?

As to the suggestion that there is no history of praying in tongues among the saints, I would say that it is precisely because it is a personal gift that is for the building up of your soul that it is not publicized.

Waitaminute - are we now to understand that great Saints and Doctors of the Church do not share with us their own personal spirituality - they do not share with us how they built up their own souls??? That’s just plain silly - they have regularly done so throughout history. Have you ever heard of Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila? The Dark Night of the Soul and Ascent by St. John of the Cross? Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius of Loyola? The Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux? The *Dialogues *by St. Catherine of Siena? These are all Doctors of the Church who relate deeply personal aspects of their own spiritual lives and journeys (but don’t happen to mention any of this Charismatic nonsense). The list of similar writings would number hundreds or thousands, but all equally lacking in any reference to Charismatic spirituality - not one single Doctor or Saint ever mentions any of that. Are we to understand that these great Saints and Doctors have shared all of their deepest and most personal spiritual experiences except the Charismatic stuff? C’mon!

Even great Saints who have written “how to” manuals fail to mention Charismatic practices. For example, Saint (and Doctor) Alphonsus Maria de Liguori’s *The Twelve Steps to Holiness Salvation *and Way of Salvation and of Perfection.

And we can also add the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (cited in post #6 of this thread) that speaking in tongues was something that happened in the very beginning but no longer takes place.

No, I think there’s a much more plausible reason why the writings of the great Saints and Doctors of the Church are unanimously devoid of any reference to Charismatic ideas and practices. It is simply because they did not hold or practice them. Wouldn’t you agree that this is the more likely explanation?

I am a little perplexed at all the time spent in this thread on the subject of praying in tongues.

You wouldn’t be so perplexed if you read post #6 of this thread where I summarized the history of the Charismatic movement. Speaking in unknown tongues has always been at the heart of Charismatic spirituality - first at Bethel Bible College (where the modern incarnation of this practice started in 1901), and at the Asuza Street Revival in 1906, and at the Hot Springs Convention in 1914 (which established the Assemblies of God, the first structured Charismatic denomination), and at the group at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in 1960 (which was the first “mainline” church to practice this), to a group at Notre Dame in 1968 (which was how the Catholic Church was infiltrated with this form of spirituality) up until today. At no point in this timeline have you ever been able to observe any Charismatic worship service which did not prominently feature the practice of speaking in unknown tongues.

Speaking in “unknown tongues” is what got the whole Charismatic movement started. The practice seems inseparably linked to each and every Charismatic worship service - even though it is clearly a liturgical abuse when practiced within a Catholic Mass. The reason why many respondents have emphasized this particular practice is precisely because Charismatics themselves emphasize this particular practice.

 

[vardaquinn]

I would not be shocked to hear it, because I have heard it before. What would absolutely shock me would be if someone reliably cited this story. I have asked enough people to do so (and have been disappointed) that I must strongly suspect the story is a work of pure fiction. Perhaps *you *can provide such a citation?

Check out Hungry for God by Ralph Martin, and maybe a few other things he’s written. He and several other charismatics met with the Pope, and he prayed in tongues with them.

Waitaminute - are we now to understand that great Saints and Doctors of the Church do not share with us their own personal spirituality - they do not share with us how they built up their own souls??? That’s just plain silly - they have regularly done so throughout history. Have you ever heard of Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila? The Dark Night of the Soul and Ascent by St. John of the Cross? Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius of Loyola? The Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux? The *Dialogues *by St. Catherine of Siena? These are all Doctors of the Church who relate deeply personal aspects of their own spiritual lives and journeys (but don’t happen to mention any of this Charismatic nonsense). The list of similar writings would number hundreds or thousands, but all equally lacking in any reference to Charismatic spirituality - not one single Doctor or Saint ever mentions any of that. Are we to understand that these great Saints and Doctors have shared all of their deepest and most personal spiritual experiences except the Charismatic stuff? C’mon!

You obviously haven’t read them yourself!. St. Teresa of Avila had the gift of tongues, and she talks a bit about it. I haven’t read much St. John of the Cross (who I have heard had the gift of tongues), but he definitely talks about some of the other charismatic gifts. Their reforms of the Carmelite order were very charismatic in nature. I have only read some of the Dialogues, but St. Catherine was absolutely a charismatic. I don’t know of any record that says she prayed in tongues (beyond her line: “We’ve Had Enough Of Exhortations To Be Silent! Cry Out With A Hundred Thousand Tongues. I See That The World Is Rotten Because Of Silence.”) but she clearly manifested many of the charismatic gifts: prophecy, healing, miracles, knowledge… Not to mention she was slain in the spirit every time she received communion. St. Ignatius of Loyola definitely manifested many of the charismatic gifts in his life, and he does write about discernment of spirits. I haven’t read much of him though, pretty much nothing really, so I can’t tell you much myself. Even so, many of them don’t deal much with the charismatic gifts. Unfortunately, there was almost no emphasis on them at times in the church’s history.

And we can also add the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (cited in post #6 of this thread) that speaking in tongues was something that happened in the very beginning but no longer takes place.

Yes, well St. Augustine recanted his position in his last book when so many miraculous and charismatic activities happened at his cathedral, and you obviously haven’t read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on 1 Corinthians (one of the most valuable resources for understanding the letter I’ve found). Check it out: newadvent.org/fathers/2201.htm

He says things in there like:

“Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of interpretation, that thou
mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in
a tongue,” saith he, “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou
how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is
such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For
if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not
understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there
were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed,
and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their
understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, “but my
understanding is unfruitful.”
What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one
to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with
the understanding.” Wherefore also he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray
with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the
understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may
speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken.”

I think the explanation is simple: nobody really talked about the charisms, there was immense confusion as to what they were, and thus nobody wrote very much on them. But all of those saints, and I’m sure even you, have used the charisms before. If you’re a serious Christian, it’s hard not to.

 

[vardaquinn]

You wouldn’t be so perplexed if you read post #6 of this thread where I summarized the history of the Charismatic movement. Speaking in unknown tongues has always been at the heart of Charismatic spirituality - first at Bethel Bible College (where the modern incarnation of this practice started in 1901), and at the Asuza Street Revival in 1906, and at the Hot Springs Convention in 1914 (which established the Assemblies of God, the first structured Charismatic denomination), and at the group at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in 1960 (which was the first “mainline” church to practice this), to a group at Notre Dame in 1968 (which was how the Catholic Church was infiltrated with this form of spirituality) up until today. At no point in this timeline have you ever been able to observe any Charismatic worship service which did not prominently feature the practice of speaking in unknown tongues.

Speaking in “unknown tongues” is what got the whole Charismatic movement started. The practice seems inseparably linked to each and every Charismatic worship service - even though it is clearly a liturgical abuse when practiced within a Catholic Mass. The reason why many respondents have emphasized this particular practice is precisely because Charismatics themselves emphasize this particular practice.

Do you know anything about Bl. Elena Guerra? The following is a quote from this s112766157.onlinehome.us/godsdelight/ebh/outreach/Document%20Library/1/RENEWAL/BA%20History%20of%20the%20Renewal.htm

In the last 100 years one of the most obvious and perhaps the most important development for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in modern times came when Pope Leo XIII published Divinum Illud Munus, an encyclical on the Spirit. He labored the fact that the Holy Spirit was little known and appreciated. This came about through the prayers and encouragement of an Italian nun, Elena Guerra. The main characteristic of her spirituality was an all-encompassing devotion to the Holy Spirit. It grieved her that most people seldom thought of and knew so little about the Holy Spirit. Inspired by a practice she had learned as a child in her parish, she would recommend that the time from Ascension to Pentecost be spent in prayer and preparation for the coming of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. Eventually she had the boldness and audacity to write to Pope Leo urging him to recommend this practice.

To the amazement of many people who had tried to dissuade her, the Pope responded promptly by a letter officially endorsing her idea. Although the Pope had not met her, he told his counselors that if she had any other such inspirations for the welfare of the Church, that they be communicated to him.

With this encouragement, Elena promptly wrote the Pope again, urging him to establish this practice throughout the whole Church. On the first day of the first year in the twentieth century, January 1, 1901, the Pope did just that!

He prescribed that every Catholic Church should prepare for the Feast of Pentecost by a novena. He issued this letter to all the bishops of the world, begging them to encourage their people to pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. These prayers began to move in God’s heart in a significant way. On that same day an event took place in Topeka, Kansas, which marked the beginning of a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was destined to sweep the country and the world. The Pentecostal movement broke out in a little Bible school in a small town in the heart of America. It was no accident that God choose America to be the first place to do that because of the great capabilities of our country. On that day a young woman named Agnes Ozman received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Her pastor, Charles Parham later recalled. “I had just laid my hands on her. When I scarcely began to speak the glory of God fell on her. There seemed to be a halo surrounding her head and her face began to glow. She began to speak the Chinese language which she had never learned.” This event has since gone on to become a mighty river. Few people could have imagined that this humble event would trigger the worldwide pentecostal charismatic movement. Most all historians agree that the move of the modern day outpouring of the Spirit began in Topeka.

 

[vardaquinn]

Speaking in “unknown tongues” is what got the whole Charismatic movement started. The practice seems inseparably linked to each and every Charismatic worship service - even though it is clearly a liturgical abuse when practiced within a Catholic Mass. The reason why many respondents have emphasized this particular practice is precisely because Charismatics themselves emphasize this particular practice.

No, what got the whole movement started was being baptized in the Holy Spirit, an experience of Pentecost. This manifested itself in tongues (among other things), and renewed the focus on charisms. Read some accounts of the people who were at the original Dusquene retreat.

It is not a liturgical abuse when there is proper ecclesiastical approval, as there is at many charismatic parishes and places like the Fransiscan University of Stuebenville. I see no reason why it should be surprising that it’s at prayer meetings and worship services (in a non-liturgical setting). It’s a gift meant for the worship of God. Hence, when people who have this gift come together: they use it!

It’s rather controversial, for some strange reason. Probably because nobody even heard of it until the Pentecostals and charismatics came around actually doing it. Catholics don’t read their Bibles…

 

[vardaquinn]

Oh, another reason why there’s not a lot of time devoted to the charisms, is that many spiritual writers were contemplatives. They would emphasize different things, naturally, because they weren’t called to the active life. And the charisms are much more part of the active life, especially to evangelize. There are other things that aren’t emphasized enough, but should be for those living an active life. That was one of the reasons St. Francis de Sales wrote, so there would be more material on living the active life.

Also, the gifts are generally primarily meant for the sanctification of others, for the upbuilding of the church. They are not necessary for individual personal holiness. So, given the huge ignorance of them anyway, I’m not surprised to see very little “press coverage” of them in the writings of the Doctors of the Church.

 

[byers]

David
I have indeed enjoyed the show. Thank you.

 

[Road2Damascus]

It’s rather controversial, for some strange reason. Probably because nobody even heard of it until the Pentecostals and charismatics came around actually doing it. Catholics don’t read their Bibles…

In your posts, you have been articulate Vardaquinn. However, this last paragraph, no, I don’t agree with. The Mass after all, is largely the Bible, all of that is New Testament, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed”, of course, in the Bible it is, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you under my roof but only say the word and my servant will be healed” and other in it is the Creed through Apostolic tradition.

And here, I would point out that at times, many Pentecostals, not all of course and especially “Oneness Pentecostals” seem to go to the book of Acts and in fact, in their faith, and overemphasis on the Book of Acts.

Now I see what Paul was lecturing the Corinthians about was possibly in part to the Corinthians going to much in about “Speaking in Tongues”, not being disciplined about it, not criticizing the practice itself. The Corinthians likewise, could have had an understanding relying too much on Acts.

We have the act of Confirmation where the Holy Spirit comes.

If we pray the Rosary, we pray the “Descent of the Holy Spirit” in the 3rd Glorious Mystery.

The Mysteries of the Rosary really do well to sum up the highlights of the Catholic Faith, in my humble opinion, Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious and Luminous.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Check out Hungry for God by Ralph Martin, and maybe a few other things he’s written. He and several other charismatics met with the Pope, and he prayed in tongues with them.

I ask for an authoritative citation and I get “check out Ralph Martin and you might find something.”

Ralph Martin is a layman who is part of Renewal Ministries. I did search this website for some such claim - I could find none. The website of his own organization does not claim that John Paul II ever spoke in tongues with Ralph Martin (because, um, he did not). True, Martin did have a (brief, public) audience with JP2. Anything about a private “speaking in tongues” audience is an outright fabrication.

St. Teresa of Avila had the gift of tongues, and she talks a bit about it.

I have done this before, you know. In Interior Castle (Chapter 6), St. Theresa says,

Amongst these favours, at once painful and pleasant, Our Lord sometimes causes in the soul a certain jubilation and a strange and mysterious kind of prayer. If He bestows this grace on you, praise Him fervently for it; I describe it so that you may know that it is something real. I believe that the faculties of the soul are closely united to God but that He leaves them at liberty to rejoice in their happiness together with the senses, although they do not know what they are enjoying nor how they do so. This may sound nonsense but it really happens. So excessive is its jubilee that the soul will not enjoy it alone but speaks of it to all around so that they may help it to praise God, which is its one desire.

Well, by golly, the ONLY way to interpret that passage is if she means speaking in unknown tongues. Yet, all mystics describe periods of rapture - she is framing these words in that context. Although the passage could be read favorably with regard to Charismatic practices, it is hardly conclusive (and such a reading is not supported in context - especially as these raptures are limited to one particular “mansion” on our spiritual journey - they come and they go as we mature in the faith.

Saying that Theresa spoke in tongues (per the modern Charismatic understanding) and wrote about it stretches the truth so much that it borders on outright deception. I recommend that you choose your words more carefully.

I haven’t read much St. John of the Cross (who I have heard had the gift of tongues)

Oh, I am quite sure you have heard that. Quite sure. FWIW, I have heard of Pope Joan.

Their reforms of the Carmelite order were very charismatic in nature.

I would actually agree with that on some level - the fundamental principles of the Catholic Charismatic movement are much aligned with the principles that St. Teresa and St. John instituted in forming the OCD. And these same fundamental principles of the Catholic Charismatic movement are perfectly agreeable to me and all Catholics of good will.

It is the abuses of the movement that I object to. And at the very top of the list (far eclipsing all other abuses) is the practice of speaking in unknown tongues within the assembly. This was an abuse at Corinth, and it is an abuse today. None of the Charismatic abuses were taught by either Teresa or John. You will not find any Carmelite community - either OCD or O’Carm - which teaches or practices this. Well, you might, given the state of Religious Orders these days - but they would not have learned these practices from their Founders.

I have only read some of the Dialogues, but St. Catherine was absolutely a charismatic. I don’t know of any record that says she prayed in tongues (beyond her line: “We’ve Had Enough Of Exhortations To Be Silent! Cry Out With A Hundred Thousand Tongues. I See That The World Is Rotten Because Of Silence.”)

Yeah, that’s all you’ve got. And I think you would agree it’s pretty thin support for the notion that she is advocating unknown tongues.

but she clearly manifested many of the charismatic gifts: prophecy, healing, miracles, knowledge…

Ah, but I have not commented on these (and St. Catherine did possess them). But it is misleading to label her a “Charismatic” because she did not speak in tongues - which is an inseparable part of the Charismatic movement.

St. Ignatius of Loyola definitely manifested many of the charismatic gifts in his life

Yeah, but tongues was not one of them.

Yes, well St. Augustine recanted his position in his last book when so many miraculous and charismatic activities happened at his cathedral

Ah, well that claim is new to me. When I make such claims, I cite the source. Would you be so kind as to do likewise so I can investigate this claim? The works of St. Augustine are widely available on the internet and are easily cited.

and you obviously haven’t read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on 1 Corinthians (one of the most valuable resources for understanding the letter I’ve found).

Actually, that was the very source that I cited in Post #6, where he says:

This entire passage [regarding tongues in 1Cor] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer takes place [St. John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON FIRST CORINTHIANS, Vol. XII]

Indeed, in his earlier material, he makes a stab at trying to figure out what Paul is talking about, but finally concludes that nobody really knows because none of this goes on any more. The man flat-out says it DOES NOT HAPPEN. How could he be any more clear? How can you invoke him in support of your position? He is your bogey-man. Or did you not realize that?

 

[DavidFilmer]

s112766157.onlinehome.us/godsdelight/ebh/outreach/Document%20Library/1/RENEWAL/BA%20History%20of%20the%20Renewal.htm

In the last 100 years one of the most obvious and perhaps the most important development for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in modern times came when Pope Leo XIII published Divinum Illud Munus, an encyclical on the Spirit…

He prescribed that every Catholic Church should prepare for the Feast of Pentecost by a novena. He issued this letter to all the bishops of the world, begging them to encourage their people to pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. These prayers began to move in God’s heart in a significant way. On that same day [emphasis mine] an event took place in Topeka, Kansas, which marked the beginning of a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit which was destined to sweep the country and the world. The Pentecostal movement broke out in a little Bible school in a small town in the heart of America. It was no accident that God choose America to be the first place to do that because of the great capabilities of our country.

Woah! On the very same day that Pope Leo XII issued Divinum Illud Munus Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues??? I had no idea.

That’s because it is a lie. If you read my summary history of the Charismatic movement (Post #6) you will see that Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues on Jan 1, 1901. And if you bother to use Google at all, you will see that Divinum Illud Munus was issued on May 9, 1897.

Don’t be so gullible! You can’t take this stuff at face value - you can’t automatically accept anything you read at a Charismatic website - there is MUCH deception within this movement. Google is your friend. You can expose many of the lies that you have been told with a bit of simple searching.

And, besides - ask yourself - does legitimate teaching come into the Catholic Church by way of the protestant students of a Holiness Bible College? Are we to believe that THIS is how Our Lord fulfilled the prayer intentions of Our Holy Father Leo13? (Leo died in the summer of 1903, without ever acknowledging it.) And that this spirituality (the alleged answer to Leo’s prayer intentions - alive and well in the fringe protestant community) would not find itself in the Catholic Faith until 68 years later?

I cite Doctors, who legitimately inform us about finer aspects of Catholic belief and worship (that’s what “Doctor” means), but teach none of this Charismatic business. You cite fringe protestants (Parham and Ozman).

Which of these do you think is a more reliable source for Catholic belief and practice? Which do you think is a completely invalid source for Catholic belief and practice?

 

[DavidFilmer]

No, what got the whole movement started was being baptized in the Holy Spirit, an experience of Pentecost.

What got the movement started was Charles Parham’s novel teaching that Baptism in the Holy Spirit was somehow distinct from Sacramental Baptism (in water). Until Parham, every single Christian in the whole world (whether Catholic or protestant) taught and maintained that water Baptism and Spirit Baptism were inseparably bound together. There was disagreement about whether an infant could receive this Baptism (in both water and Spirit), but *nobody *speculated that there were two distinctly different types of Baptism.

All protestants unanimously agreed with the Catholic Church that water Baptism was an “outward and visible sign” of “an inward and spiritual Grace” (ie, Baptism in the Spirit).

Charles F. Parham was the first Christian in recorded history to suggest these were two distinctly separate events which had two distinctly different “outward and visible signs.”

He asked his students at Bethel Bible College to identify what the “outward and visible sign” of “Spirit Baptism” was. They concluded that the outwardly visible sign was speaking in unknown tongues. Thus, this practice became the very foundation of this new theology.

But NOBODY had done that since the early Corinthians (unless one wants to consider the Second Century Montainist heretics). Of course, this is not a problem for a bunch of fringe protestants - they simply invent this “new” practice (the introduction of novel doctrines is commonplace in many protestant faiths).

This idea of two distinct forms of Baptism is absolute heresy for any Catholic.

This manifested itself in tongues (among other things), and renewed the focus on charisms. Read some accounts of the people who were at the original Dusquene retreat.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up Duquesne University. I have said that the Charismatic movement infiltrated the Catholic Faith by way of Notre Dame University in 1968. But the Notre Dame movement originated at Duquesne University in 1967. The writings of Patti Gallagher Mansfield (a proponent of the movement who attended this retreat) speaks volumes to anyone who is informed about legitimate Catholic beliefs and practice.

It is not a liturgical abuse when there is proper ecclesiastical approval

Agreed (and I note that any such deviation from the liturgical norms must be approved by the Holy See). Would you please be so kind as to actually cite any such valid Ecclesiastical approval of ANY Charismatic Catholic Mass ANYWHERE in the WHOLE WORLD?

No? Nothing???

 

[yablabo]

What got the movement started was Charles Parham’s novel teaching that Baptism in the Holy Spirit was somehow distinct from Sacramental Baptism (in water). Until Parham, every single Christian in the whole world (whether Catholic or protestant) taught and maintained that water Baptism and Spirit Baptism were inseparably bound together. There was disagreement about whether an infant could receive this Baptism (in both water and Spirit), but *nobody *speculated that there were two distinctly different types of Baptism.

All protestants unanimously agreed with the Catholic Church that water Baptism was an “outward and visible sign” of “an inward and spiritual Grace” (ie, Baptism in the Spirit).

Charles F. Parham was the first Christian in recorded history to suggest these were two distinctly separate events which had two distinctly different “outward and visible signs.”

He asked his students at Bethel Bible College to identify what the “outward and visible sign” of “Spirit Baptism” was. They concluded that the outwardly visible sign was speaking in unknown tongues. Thus, this practice became the very foundation of this new theology.

But NOBODY had done that since the early Corinthians (unless one wants to consider the Second Century Montainist heretics). Of course, this is not a problem for a bunch of fringe protestants - they simply invent this “new” practice (the introduction of novel doctrines is commonplace in many protestant faiths).

This idea of two distinct forms of Baptism is absolute heresy for any Catholic.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up Duquesne University. I have said that the Charismatic movement infiltrated the Catholic Faith by way of Notre Dame University in 1968. But the Notre Dame movement originated at Duquesne University in 1967. The writings of Patti Gallagher Mansfield (a proponent of the movement who attended this retreat) speaks volumes to anyone who is informed about legitimate Catholic beliefs and practice.

Agreed (and I note that any such deviation from the liturgical norms must be approved by the Holy See). Would you please be so kind as to actually cite any such valid Ecclesiastical approval of ANY Charismatic Catholic Mass ANYWHERE in the WHOLE WORLD?

No? Nothing???

Hi, Mr. Filmer,

I know this is not directly an answer to what you’ve written, but it is indirectly related.

In my teen years, I was involved in several gatherings of a so-called “charismatic” nature. I attended Youth 2000, several weekends at the Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH and other local gatherings that were held around where I used to live in Michigan. I can say that what I saw there, at these different “charismatic” gatherings was key in my decision as a teen that Catholicism was, well I’m trying to think of something euphemistic, but “****” is all that comes to mind. Now, I am not saying that I was correct in the least concluding that, but I do believe it was key in my formation toward apostasy.

There were so many liturgical anomalies that went on…nothing was ordinary. There was jumping, screaming, costumes, hysteria, etc.

It was a terrible experience.

– Nicole

 

[vardaquinn]

@ DavidFilmer: just quickly, what that was referring to was that at the end of the novena, which the pope had done in preparation for the new year, in which he sang the Veni Creator Spiritus on behalf of the whole Church, on the same day, Agnes Ozman received a “baptism in the Holy Spirit”.

I will address your others questions later…

 

[HisLamb]

I would not be shocked to hear it, because I have heard it before. What would absolutely shock me would be if someone reliably cited this story. I have asked enough people to do so (and have been disappointed) that I must strongly suspect the story is a work of pure fiction. Perhaps *you *can provide such a citation?

This citation is the live testimony of Fr. John Hampsch a Cleretian priest. Whether he wrote it in a book for one to cite, I do not know. But he is still alive, although last I heard, he has cancer. Perhaps you can email him (just google, you’ll find his site) and he will respond.

Waitaminute - are we now to understand that great Saints and Doctors of the Church do not share with us their own personal spirituality - they do not share with us how they built up their own souls??? That’s just plain silly - they have regularly done so throughout history. Have you ever heard of Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila? The Dark Night of the Soul and Ascent by St. John of the Cross? Spiritual Exercises by St. Ignatius of Loyola? The Autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux? The *Dialogues *by St. Catherine of Siena? These are all Doctors of the Church who relate deeply personal aspects of their own spiritual lives and journeys (but don’t happen to mention any of this Charismatic nonsense). The list of similar writings would number hundreds or thousands, but all equally lacking in any reference to Charismatic spirituality - not one single Doctor or Saint ever mentions any of that. Are we to understand that these great Saints and Doctors have shared all of their deepest and most personal spiritual experiences except the Charismatic stuff? C’mon!

Even great Saints who have written “how to” manuals fail to mention Charismatic practices. For example, Saint (and Doctor) Alphonsus Maria de Liguori’s *The Twelve Steps to Holiness Salvation *and Way of Salvation and of Perfection.

Actually, many people believe St. Teresa’s writings of the Interior Castle (4th mansion) describing the joy of the soul are in fact a description of the Holy Spirit’s charisms.

And we can also add the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (cited in post #6 of this thread) that speaking in tongues was something that happened in the very beginning but no longer takes place.

No, I think there’s a much more plausible reason why the writings of the great Saints and Doctors of the Church are unanimously devoid of any reference to Charismatic ideas and practices. It is simply because they did not hold or practice them. Wouldn’t you agree that this is the more likely explanation?

No, because I know what praying in tongues is about.

You wouldn’t be so perplexed if you read post #6 of this thread where I summarized the history of the Charismatic movement. Speaking in unknown tongues has always been at the heart of Charismatic spirituality - first at Bethel Bible College (where the modern incarnation of this practice started in 1901), and at the Asuza Street Revival in 1906, and at the Hot Springs Convention in 1914 (which established the Assemblies of God, the first structured Charismatic denomination), and at the group at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in 1960 (which was the first “mainline” church to practice this), to a group at Notre Dame in 1968 (which was how the Catholic Church was infiltrated with this form of spirituality) up until today. At no point in this timeline have you ever been able to observe any Charismatic worship service which did not prominently feature the practice of speaking in unknown tongues.

Speaking in “unknown tongues” is what got the whole Charismatic movement started. The practice seems inseparably linked to each and every Charismatic worship service - even though it is clearly a liturgical abuse when practiced within a Catholic Mass. The reason why many respondents have emphasized this particular practice is precisely because Charismatics themselves emphasize this particular practice.

I haven’t researched the origins of the charismatic movement very much. In fact, I do not consider myself a part of any movement, though I have received many gifts from the Holy Spirit. I did hear the testimony of Ralph Martin who was part of that movement. He did not present “praying in tongues” as a key element of the movement. Only the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. However, whatever the beginnings, there are charismatic groups such as my Bible study/prayer group that have received far greater gifts, thanks be to God. The gifts that are promised in the Bible are indeed happening to this day. Tongues is the least of the gifts that I have seen. That is why I am perplexed; far greater things are happening and I am surprised that there isn’t more discussion on those things.

I’d also like to respond to Yablabo: if you witnessed jumping around, screaming, etc… that is not of God. Praying in tongues is serene, music like. It is all about humility… if you are acting like you are having a fit, you are drawing attention to yourself. That is not an authentic gift, it is either fake or demonic. This is why we must use discernment.

 

[HisLamb]

Ah, but I have not commented on these (and St. Catherine did possess them). But it is misleading to label her a “Charismatic” because she did not speak in tongues - which is an inseparable part of the Charismatic movement.

This is absolutely not true, in my experience. Many people are charismatic who do not pray in tongues.

As to the ABSOLUTE HERESY of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” it is a matter of semantics. It is not a sacramental baptism, nor is it represented as one. It is simply a prayer, asking Jesus to “baptize” with the Holy Spirit as John said He would. We know we have already been baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but many people spend years “quenching the Spirit”. So, this is just an act and a prayer which says to God, “I’m ready to receive whatever you want for me”. As scripture says, we “should eagerly desire the greater gifts”.

As an aside, I wholeheartedly agree that the form of the Mass is not to be violated in any way. That is a matter of obedience. This is another test of the fruit. If one is disobedient to the Church, it is not the Spirit who is leading them.

 

[Irish_Polock]

DavidFilmer has made a strong case against the CCR. Great job DavidFilmer.

God be with you all.