Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

[rugger4christ]

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with** the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5)

The difference between the baptism with water and baptism with the Holy spirit is very clear here, as with many other places in the bible

Another passage makes this clear once again, although I think Acts 1:4-5 is pretty clear.

"Acts 19

Paul in Ephesus

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues** and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all." (Acts 19:1-7)

Here it is clear that there is baptism with water which is for repentance which they had received. Then there is baptism with the spirit where they received the holy spirit which was done WITHOUT water. The fruit of this baptism was speaking in tongues(languages they did not themselves know), and prophesied.(prophecy means to speak for another, in the case of the bible it means to speak for God, it does not mean to speak of the future although what God wants to say might be able the future)

There are more passages I can get if you like. One interesting example is where the gentiles receive the baptism in the spirit even before they receive the baptism with water, and afterward it is decided that if they received the holy spirit then they should be allowed the baptism in water(gentiles were not viewed as being able to be christians until this point).****

 

[Irish_Polock]

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with** the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5)

The difference between the baptism with water and baptism with the Holy spirit is very clear here, as with many other places in the bible

Another passage makes this clear once again, although I think Acts 1:4-5 is pretty clear.

"Acts 19

Paul in Ephesus

1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues** and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all." (Acts 19:1-7)

Here it is clear that there is baptism with water which is for repentance which they had received. Then there is baptism with the spirit where they received the holy spirit which was done WITHOUT water. The fruit of this baptism was speaking in tongues(languages they did not themselves know), and prophesied.(prophecy means to speak for another, in the case of the bible it means to speak for God, it does not mean to speak of the future although what God wants to say might be able the future)

There are more passages I can get if you like. One interesting example is where the gentiles receive the baptism in the spirit even before they receive the baptism with water, and afterward it is decided that if they received the holy spirit then they should be allowed the baptism in water(gentiles were not viewed as being able to be christians until this point).****

This is funny, even St, Thomas had an opinion on this:

1. Further, it is written (Ac 19,1-5) that “Paul . . . found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism.” Wherefore “they were” again “baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: ‘the’] Lord Jesus Christ.” Hence it seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they did not know of the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on Joel 2:28 and in an epistle (lxix De Viro unius uxoris), and likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto). But some were baptized with John’s baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity. Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ’s baptism. (Summa Theologica III Qu.38 a.6)

Problematic imho.

 

[rugger4christ]

This is funny, even St, Thomas had an opinion on this:

1. Further, it is written (Ac 19,1-5) that “Paul . . . found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism.” Wherefore “they were” again “baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: ‘the’] Lord Jesus Christ.” Hence it seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they did not know of the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on Joel 2:28 and in an epistle (lxix De Viro unius uxoris), and likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto). But some were baptized with John’s baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity. Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ’s baptism. (Summa Theologica III Qu.38 a.6)

Problematic imho.

Firstly this is not what the scripture says, it never says they were baptized again. Secondly its heretical, the church teaches there is only one baptism with water and the church also teaches you can receive it outside the catholic church which is why we do not re-baptize protestants who convert. If you are baptized with water in the name of the father son and holy spirit then you have received the sacrament indeed.

Sacred scripture if God’s holy living word, trying to change it is the same thing as putting words into God’s mouth, a dangerous place indeed.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Firstly this is not what the scripture says, it never says they were baptized again. Secondly its heretical, the church teaches there is only one baptism with water and the church also teaches you can receive it outside the catholic church which is why we do not re-baptize protestants who convert. If you are baptized with water in the name of the father son and holy spirit then you have received the sacrament indeed.

Sacred scripture if God’s holy living word, trying to change it is the same thing as putting words into God’s mouth, a dangerous place indeed.

You are saying St Thomas was heretical? Interesting. There is no possibility that you might not have the proper understanding?

 

[rugger4christ]

You are saying St Thomas was heretical? Interesting. There is no possibility that you might not have the proper understanding?

What I am saying is the church teaches it is heresy to re-baptize and that only someone not yet baptized with water can be baptized with water.

CCC.
IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM?

1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.

The scriptures do not say they were baptized again, it says they received a different baptism one where they were able to receive the holy spirit through the imposition of hands and because of this they immediately began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Is this what happened at your baptism? Is this what you see happen during easter vigil baptisms with water? Clearly this is something different.

The catholic church holds that the baptism in the spirit and fire is not a sacrament, but rather it is a renewal and unleashing of the grace received at your baptism and confirmation. Fr. Ranerio Cantalamessa has a great teaching on this explaining how it is not a sacrament but how it is closely related to the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.

“Let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us be aware again of our baptism and of our confirmation, sources of grace that are always present.” - Pope Benedict XVI

Is the Pope speaking to unbaptized believers that still need to receive water baptism? No clearly not, he is speaking to the church as only the church are truly our brothers and sisters, fellow adopted children of our Father in heaven, the holy father is speaking to sacramentally baptized catholics, and encouraging them to rediscover the beauty of being baptized in the spirit, then he goes on to explain why - because it allows us to be aware again of our baptism and our confirmation sources of grace that are always present. When the holy spirit comes alive in your life you have access to those ever present graces in a very real and tangible way.

 

[DavidFilmer]

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.

Ah, yes - semantics. Just what do we really mean by the words we say?

You cite John the Baptist, who told his followers, “I baptize you with water, but he [ie, Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8).

There is no question how Charles Parham understood these words. He is the first Christian in all recorded history to speculate that water Baptism and “Spirit Baptism” are two distinctly different events. He challenged his students to find the “outward sign” of this “Spirit Baptism.” They found speaking in unknown tongues.

Charismatic Catholics simply cannot deny that their spirituality traces itself back to Parham (I have connected all the dots in Post #6). If not from Bethel Bible College - then where else? What other version of spiritual history do Carismatic Catholics offer for consideration? Where did the Catholic version of this movement ultimately originate, if not from Parham? I ask for verifiable names and dates (such as I have already provided).

What? Nothing?

Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water AND the Spirit (John 3:5).” The Catholic Church has ALWAYS inferred that these “two types of Baptism” are inseparably linked - you cannot have one without the other.

Under Catholic theology, each and every person who is validly Baptized in water is ALSO validly Baptized in the Holy Spirit. Praying for an additional “Spirit baptism” is not only silly, it is heretical.

If Charismatic Catholics what to use the phrase “Spirit Baptism” (as understood apart from water Baptism) then they have chosen a very loaded phrase. They have chosen a phrase which places them smack-dab in the middle of Parham’s theology, and utterly apart form all established Catholic doctrine.

Claiming our differences are “just semantics” is just lame. Words mean things. Who defines what Charismatic Catholics really mean by this phrase?

 

[vardaquinn]

@ DavidFilmer:

No teaching was brought into the Church from Protestant Pentecostal groups. Rather, a re-emphasis on our own teaching was rediscovered, admittedly in part from Pentecostals. We rediscovered an aspect of our own teaching that had been virtually ignored a long time. This initiative of rediscovery, according to Bl. Pope John Paul II was undertaken primarily by the Second Vatican Council. The Charismatic Renewal is the fruit of the Council. Not the fruit of Pentecostalism.

As yet, I have not seen you cite any from Doctors of the Church that contradicts charismatic theology. I myself have already cited several, and I will continue to. I agree with you. The Doctors of the Church, the Church Fathers are valuable sources of understanding Catholic belief and practice.

For instance, here, what St. Justin Martyr claims: “If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” “For the prophetical gifts remain with us [Christians], even to the present time. And hence you [Jews] ought to understand that [the gifts] formerly among your nation have been transferred to us” (Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 82 [A.D. 155]).

St. Irenaeus, states:
. . . for which cause also his [Christ’s] true disciples having received grace
from him use it in his name for the benefit of the rest of men, even as
each has received the gift from him. For some drive out demons with
certainty and truth, so that often those who have themselves been
cleansed from the evil spirits believe and are in the church, and some
have foreknowledge of things to be, and visions and prophetic speech,
and others cure the sick by the laying on of hands and make them whole
and even as we have said, the dead have been raised and remained with
us for many years. And why should I say more? It is not possible to tell
the number of the gifts which the church throughout the whole world,
having received them from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was
crucified under Pontius Pilate, uses each day for the benefit of the
heathen, deceiving none and making profit from none. For as it received
freely from God, it ministers also freely.

Just as also we hear many brethren in the church who have gifts of
prophecy, and who speak through the Spirit with all manner of tongues,
and who bring the hidden things of men into the clearness for the
common good and expound the mysteries of God. (Against Heresies).

But more important is what the Church itself teaches. Read especially Lumen gentium 12. Which claims that the faithful of every rank are given charisms (citing 1 Corinthinans 12) for the upbuilding of the Church. And other places in the Council documents, and in the CCC.

Read what Bl. Pope John Paul II says here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980530_riflessioni_en.html

Whenever the Spirit intervenes, he leaves people astonished. He brings about events of amazing newness; he radically changes persons and history. This was the unforgettable experience of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council during which, under the guidance of the same Spirit, the Church rediscovered the charismatic dimension as one of her constitutive elements: “It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the people, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank… He makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church” (Lumen gentium, n.12).

The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church’s constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God’s People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church’s charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities.

 

[vardaquinn]

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???

Under Varietates Legitimae No. 45 adoremus.org/VarietatesLegitimae.html, the bishop has the right to incorporate devotional practices into the Sacred Liturgy. He, in the case of something along these lines, is the proper ecclesiastical authority with the power to do that.

For instance, the charismatic parish Christ the King in Ann Arbor, MI, has the ability to incorporate the charismatic elements where they see fit, under the special permission of the Bishop of Lansing. Fransiscan University of Stuenbenville also has that ability, from their local bishop.

These places have every right to incorporate such things as speaking in tongues into their liturgy.

 

[vardaquinn]

@DavidFilmer:

The concept of “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is frequently misunderstood, and I will admit the terminology increases this confusion.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit, according to the Catholic understanding, is not a second Baptism. It is not an “8th Sacrament”. It is something that should occur at confirmation, but isn’t necessary for the sacrament to be effective. It is an experience of Pentecost, an encounter with the Holy Trinity, and being filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. It often does manifest itself in tongues, and you will find much more tradition for that in the early Church. In the early rites of Christian initiation, it was commonly expected that one would speak in tongues and/or prophesy and manifest the charismatic gifts after receiving the Holy Spirit. It is an experience of conversion. It does not necessarily have to be a sensation experience, nor even an instantaneous experience but perhaps a process. It is a necessary experience, if someone is to really grow in their spiritual life. Unless you yourself have experienced the reality of Pentecost in your life, then Christianity doesn’t have much to do with you. I am sure anyone who is genuinely pursuing holiness has or will experience this, and I would not be surprised if you yourself have.

The United States Bishops defined it as this:

In the Sacraments of Initiation we experience the action of the Triune God. As regards the Third Person of the Trinity, in Baptism we become temples of the Holy Spirit; in Eucharist we share in the Body and Blood of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit; in Confirmation we are empowered with the gifts and charisms of the Spirit to be witnesses for Jesus Christ. In this statement, we want not only to affirm the good fruit of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal but also the grace which is at the heart of this Renewal, namely, baptism in the Holy Spirit, or the fuller release of the Holy Spirit, as some would prefer.

As experienced in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal baptism in the Holy Spirit makes Jesus Christ known and loved as Lord and Savior, establishes or reestablishes an immediacy of relationship with all those persons of the Trinity, and through inner transformation affects the whole of the Christian’s life. There is new life and a new conscious awareness of God’s power and presence. It is a grace experience which touches every dimension of the Church’s life: worship, preaching, teaching, ministry, evangelism, prayer and spirituality, service and community. Because of this, it is our conviction that baptism in the Holy Spirit, understood as the reawakening in Christian experience of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit given in Christian initiation, and manifested in a broad range of charisms, including those closely associated with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, is part of the normal Christian life. (Grace For the New Springtime)

You will find such high ranking Church members as Fr. Raniero Cantalemessa, the preacher to the papal household handpicked by Bl. Pope John Paul II, to have a lot of good information about it.

And Pope Benedict XVI himself says this:
“Today I would like to extend the invitation to all:* let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.” (Pentecost, 2008).

What the Holy Father says there rather succinctly summarizes what this is all about.

 

[vardaquinn]

\

Charismatic Catholics simply cannot deny that their spirituality traces itself back to Parham (I have connected all the dots in Post #6). If not from Bethel Bible College - then where else? What other version of spiritual history do Carismatic Catholics offer for consideration? Where did the Catholic version of this movement ultimately originate, if not from Parham? I ask for verifiable names and dates (such as I have already provided).

What? Nothing?

Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water AND the Spirit (John 3:5).” The Catholic Church has ALWAYS inferred that these “two types of Baptism” are inseparably linked - you cannot have one without the other.

Under Catholic theology, each and every person who is validly Baptized in water is ALSO validly Baptized in the Holy Spirit. Praying for an additional “Spirit baptism” is not only silly, it is heretical.

Try reading the book “Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit”. It examines the historical understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit, particularly in the early church. It looks especially at the writings of Church Fathers and ancient rites of Christian initiation.

If it is heretical, than Pope Benedict and the Bishops are all heretics.

Let me give you an analogy I have seen charismatic often use, which I think may be helpful in understanding things. Let us pretend the soul is a glass. At baptism, milk is poured in. At confirmation, chocolate is added. At some point, the milk and chocolate have to be mixed together to become real chocolate milk. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is the experience which does that. You have to really experience Pentecost yourself, and not just go through the motions, but really have your own Pentecost in order to be a true disciple of Christ. Otherwise, Pentecost was simply an event that happened to some other people, but it has nothing to do with you. Pentecost, being filled with the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of the sacred Trinity, didn’t end with the Apostles. It continues to the present day. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were by no means exhausted in the Upper Room.

 

[grannymh]

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?

The more reasonable explanation is that of history.

As ever, there were abuses of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (St. Paul referred to them in his era) which caused the semi-loss of gifts. As the Church moved away from the Apostolic Age and stable communities were established, other forms of spirituality arose. Still, some of the Pauline list of gifts (also known as the classical list) remained, sometimes under different names.

Unfortunately, I do not have the book with me. There is a thick book which gives the citations for the life in the Holy Spirit etc. which are in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, East and West, and others who lived in the first five or maybe more centuries.

People look back at the dynamic Age of the Apostles in awe and wonder. Recall that Sacred Scripture was finalized and the end of the Apostolic Age was cited. In the eyes of the Christian world, this Age was unique and never would it be repeated. People lost sight of the facts that the Holy Spirit Gifts were universal gifts meant for all time, as long as the Holy Spirit was the Guide of Catholicism. (Gospel of John, Chapter 14)

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.

emphasis mine

I do not mean to be rude. But using the phrase “Speaking in unkown tongues” is usually a sign that the speaker is not completely aware of the real charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit. Mainly this indicates a misconception of the nature of a particular gift and how it is to be practiced. Often this misconception comes from a few Catholics who, like their predecessors in St. Paul’s time, misuse the gifts.

 

[grannymh]

There is no question how Charles Parham understood these words. He is the first Christian in all recorded history to speculate that water Baptism and “Spirit Baptism” are two distinctly different events. He challenged his students to find the “outward sign” of this “Spirit Baptism.” They found speaking in unknown tongues.

I am not sure where you learned about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. The fact is that Catholics do not consider that the gift of praying in tongues is the “outward sign” of the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”. Yes, I know that many people do like to point to “outward signs”, but when it comes to a genuine “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” outward signs are not necessary.

There are many posters here who can do a better explanation of Baptism of the Holy Spirit" than I can. So I will simply say that “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” involves one committing his or her life to Jesus as Lord. This kind of commitment was alongside the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation in the early Church. In a way, it is like the question and answer, “Do you reject Satan…” during the ceremony surrounding today’s celebration of Baptism.

 

[Heuchler]

The problem I have with the charismatic movement is that it is based purely on an emotional and adrenaline rush that comes along with the feeling that God has picked them and that they are special. Most of the gifts that we see today have been around for centuries. The oracle of Delphi would speak gibberish (tongues) and other priestesses would interpret it and find a prophecy within it. The native american shamans would do similar to that. Buddhist monks can work themselves up into a type of spiritual ectasy where they fall out (sleeping in the spirit). It doesn’t seem to be like the gifts that the apostles had. They spoke in all languages at once and could heal others. True occasions that reflect the real gifts are rare and few. But I really, don’t want to offend people but those gifts don’t appear to be from the Holy Spirit.

 

[grannymh]

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?

I do hate to be so nit-picky. But, there is no such animal as a Charismatic Catholic Mass. There is only one Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Yes, I know that people simply love to say Charismatic Catholic Mass or Catholic Charismatic Mass so I guess we will have to live with that.

First of all, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same one you and I attend. Usually, praying in tongues or singing prayers in tongues is substituted in place of some of the regular songs. As for the homily, if someone is interested in a fast Mass, skip one sponsored by Charismatics. The great homilies do not have a time limit. Depending on local regulations, there may be one or two other times during the Mass when praying in tongues is permitted in addition to the regular prayers of the Mass. Charismatics are very respectful during Mass. They are there to deepen their relationship with Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[grannymh]

The problem I have with the charismatic movement is that it is based purely on an emotional and adrenaline rush that comes along with the feeling that God has picked them and that they are special.

I am not sure which charismatic movement you are referring to. There have been several. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is based on Pentecost and the teachings of St. Paul in Acts.

When the Baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place in a proper manner, there can be an internal religious experience whereby the individual experiences the risen Christ in a personal way. This experience results from a certain “release” of the power of the Holy Spirit, usually already present within the person through the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. (Please refer to A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, Msgr. Vincent M. Walsh, page 35) There can be an adrenaline rush of joy as well, depending on one’s personality. There sure can be plenty of emotion when Catholics, who are charismatics, get together in a song fest.

If emotion is the only thing in a charismatic movement, it is probably not a Catholic movement. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is meant to be a renewal of Catholicism.

They spoke in all languages at once and could heal others. True occasions that reflect the real gifts are rare and few. But I really, don’t want to offend people but those gifts don’t appear to be from the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for your kindness toward others.

Without going into a long explanation, the nine classical gifts of the Holy Spirit can be rare depending on geographical location. These gifts can be mimicked and abused so sometimes it is hard to tell if they are genuine. In a Catholic setting, there are usually experienced charismatics who will discern the genuineness of an individual’s experience of a gift. This does not necessarily mean that the person is bad.

There is a separate gift known as the common gift of praying in tongues. Since this is a personal gift in that its intention is help the individual person grow in grace and love, it is usually genuine. Though again, it can be faked by prideful people who like to show off with “outward signs” that they are special.

 

[vardaquinn]

The problem I have with the charismatic movement is that it is based purely on an emotional and adrenaline rush that comes along with the feeling that God has picked them and that they are special. Most of the gifts that we see today have been around for centuries. The oracle of Delphi would speak gibberish (tongues) and other priestesses would interpret it and find a prophecy within it. The native american shamans would do similar to that. Buddhist monks can work themselves up into a type of spiritual ectasy where they fall out (sleeping in the spirit). It doesn’t seem to be like the gifts that the apostles had. They spoke in all languages at once and could heal others. True occasions that reflect the real gifts are rare and few. But I really, don’t want to offend people but those gifts don’t appear to be from the Holy Spirit.

I have heard this argument… so many times…

1. It is absolutely not based on a purely emotional experience. When I speak in tongues, I almost never have any sort of emotional experience. In fact, I hardly “feel” anything. I know several charismatics who rarely have intense emotional experiences.
2. Because Buddhist monks, or the oracle at Delphi, or American shamans may mumble in gibberish means nothing. As Chesterton says: this no more disproves the reality than a counterfeit bank note disproves the Bank of England.
3. Hundreds of saints also got went into spiritual ecstasies and were resting in the Spirit. Your point?
4. What is your evidence for suggesting they spoke in all languages at once? I don’t exactly see that in Scripture. These gifts are not meant to be rare. Read what St. Paul says about them. He says that everyone should have and be using them. EVERYONE.
5. It is not up to you, or to me, to decide what appears to be gifts of the Holy Spirit, and what doesn’t. Thankfully, God has given us a proper authority. The Church teaches. The Sacred Scripture, and documents of the Church lay out what are gifts of the Holy Spirit. Among them is the gift of tongues. Why should there be an issue about this?

 

[vardaquinn]

@ grannymh: Nice, well said! I’ll just add to what you said about the outward signs. No they are not absolutely necessary for the grace to be effective. For instance, shampoo does not have to get all fizzy and make a lot of suds for it to be effective. However, it generally does, and that is the normal clear way of being able to tell it’s working. But all the same Paul is clear: to EACH is given some manifestation of the Spirit for the upbuilding of the Church. The word in Greek he uses here indicates a manifestation that’s supposed to be as obvious as, say, the light of the sun. It should be clear.

Msgr. Walsh’s book is great. brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf It’s available online here. And, incidentally, it does have an imprimatur…

 

[Heuchler]

I am not sure which charismatic movement you are referring to. There have been several. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is based on Pentecost and the teachings of St. Paul in Acts.

When the Baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place in a proper manner, there can be an internal religious experience whereby the individual experiences the risen Christ in a personal way. This experience results from a certain “release” of the power of the Holy Spirit, usually already present within the person through the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. (Please refer to A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church, Msgr. Vincent M. Walsh, page 35) There can be an adrenaline rush of joy as well, depending on one’s personality. There sure can be plenty of emotion when Catholics, who are charismatics, get together in a song fest.

If emotion is the only thing in a charismatic movement, it is probably not a Catholic movement. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is meant to be a renewal of Catholicism.

Thank you for your kindness toward others.

Without going into a long explanation, the nine classical gifts of the Holy Spirit can be rare depending on geographical location. These gifts can be mimicked and abused so sometimes it is hard to tell if they are genuine. In a Catholic setting, there are usually experienced charismatics who will discern the genuineness of an individual’s experience of a gift. This does not necessarily mean that the person is bad.

There is a separate gift known as the common gift of praying in tongues. Since this is a personal gift in that its intention is help the individual person grow in grace and love, it is usually genuine. Though again, it can be faked by prideful people who like to show off with “outward signs” that they are special.

Well, most people don’t fake it on purpose. It is the fact that in everyone their exists a desireto be recognised by the divine that through this desire people can be provoked into doing these things. Where do we hear of the gifts of laughter and sobbing? They have no basis in the Apostles and their gifts. To me this is evidence that unfortunately our minds are more powerful than we think and we can be influenced easily. The main thing that convinces me is the fact that a magician named Derren Brown was able to create a protestant faith healing service and reproduce many of the charismatic elements that are shared between Catholic charismatics and pentacostals. If you would like to view it for yourself it is Derren Brown Miracles for Sale and you can watch the whole thing on youtube.

And Vardaquinn you said

1. Because Buddhist monks, or the oracle at Delphi, or American shamans may mumble in gibberish means nothing. As Chesterton says: this no more disproves the reality than a counterfeit bank note disproves the Bank of England.

To me this points out that there is something psychologically in our brains that wants to reach out to the divine which causes us to subconsciously fake it (by no means do I mean that the oracle or charismatics are purposefully faking it). A better comparison would have been made toward charlatans (like faith healers) who are purposefully, not subconsciously, faking. Essentially, humans are prone to suggestion and therefore if we think being in contact with God means quacking like ducks some people would uncontrollably quack.
You also said,

1. What is your evidence for suggesting they spoke in all languages at once? I don’t exactly see that in Scripture. These gifts are not meant to be rare. Read what St. Paul says about them. He says that everyone should have and be using them. EVERYONE.

When people are in the crowd and say,

‘Surely,’ they said, ‘all these men speaking are Galileans?
8 How does it happen that each of us hears them in his own native language?
9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; people from Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya round Cyrene; residents of Rome-
11 Jews and proselytes alike – Cretans and Arabs, we hear them preaching in our own language about the marvels of God.’
12 Everyone was amazed and perplexed; they asked one another what it all meant.

(Acts 2) This implies that they were all speaking in a universal language that everyone understood (which is why it is referred to as a reversal of what happened at Babel). It is also the complete opposite of the tongues of today which no one understands.
Now you say that everyone should use them, but Paul also says we shouldn’t just yell them out (like what I’ve seen at charismatic retreats) but should do it in an orderly manner. Paul also said I would rather speak five words to instruct others than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

 

[grannymh]

When people are in the crowd and say, (Acts 2) This implies that they were all speaking in a universal language that everyone understood (which is why it is referred to as a reversal of what happened at Babel). It is also the complete opposite of the tongues of today which no one understands.

The singular miracle of language at Pentecost (which you quoted) is not considered one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It does not appear in St. Paul’s list nor is it the common gift of praying in tongues also referred to by St. Paul.

 

[vardaquinn]

And Vardaquinn you said
To me this points out that there is something psychologically in our brains that wants to reach out to the divine which causes us to subconsciously fake it (by no means do I mean that the oracle or charismatics are purposefully faking it). A better comparison would have been made toward charlatans (like faith healers) who are purposefully, not subconsciously, faking. Essentially, humans are prone to suggestion and therefore if we think being in contact with God means quacking like ducks some people would uncontrollably quack.

When people are in the crowd and say, (Acts 2) This implies that they were all speaking in a universal language that everyone understood (which is why it is referred to as a reversal of what happened at Babel). It is also the complete opposite of the tongues of today which no one understands.
Now you say that everyone should use them, but Paul also says we shouldn’t just yell them out (like what I’ve seen at charismatic retreats) but should do it in an orderly manner. Paul also said I would rather speak five words to instruct others than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Charlatans, oracles, and Buddhists monks have nothing to do with it. The fact that people are faking it means there’s something genuine they’re faking. What’s genuine is described in Scripture. That’s what’s happening today in the Charismatic Renewal. They have brought back the charismatic gifts. Thank God!! Read the Acts of the Apostles! The Bible tells us about the gift of tongues. When someone is filled with the Holy Spirit, they often praise God through the power of the Holy Spirit in languages they have never studied. Well, we’re living New Testament Christianity here. Pentecost isn’t over! We should want absolutely everything God has to offer us. He’s very generous! He is not a stingy Savior!

Actually, the Apostles start proclaiming in tongues before they leave the Upper Room. Then they go out, and the people hear them “extolling God” in their own languages. They understand them because the languages they are speaking happen to be the languages of the people there. Of course you don’t understand what charismatics praying in tongues are saying: you don’t know the language! That doesn’t mean it’s gibberish, though.

Sure, not in a disorderly manner. I have been to charismatic events that have done it in a very orderly matter, and it’s very quiet and contemplative.