Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

  • Thread starter Thread starter MOTHBALL83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MOTHBALL83

Guest
Hi. I am relatively new to the site. Was curious as to what people thought about the Charasmatic Renewal i.e. Speaking in Tongues and Prophecy etc.
 
Where this is done in the context of a Mass it is a liturgical abuse.

Outside of the Mass it is simply junk theology.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Where this is done in the context of a Mass it is a liturgical abuse.

Outside of the Mass it is simply junk theology.
Click to expand...
While I agree completely with this…

🍿

I can imagine your response receiving a lot of flak!
 
I used to attend a Catholic charismatic prayer meeting years ago. It got more and more weird. So I quit. Never been back.

I think “speaking in tongues” is an utterance of syllables, not languages, emotional in origin. Others may disagree. But that has been the conclusion of linguists.

Some of the “prophecies” I heard were faaaaaar out. I didn’t buy 'em.

But neither the Church nor I have any objection if someone finds “charismatic” spirituality appealing. The Church has a big umbrella.

Jim Dandy
 
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:
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]
Click to expand...
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]
Click to expand...
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.
 
DavidFilmer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with the points you are making. I have had this discussion recently with some Charismatic Catholics and Traditional Catholics. The Charismatic Catholics seems to get very defensive over this subject with little or no Apologetics to support it. I brought to their attention what it says in 1 Corinthians 14 (After one of them had mentioned that it is not always done with an interpreter):

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

My point is…why would the Holy Spirit speak through someone if there is no Interpreter around? It makes me think that these people are exhibiting a learned behavior.
 
DavidFilmer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bravo, and I agree with you 110%. I just find it… troubling… that our current Holy Father and his predeccesor both support this movement. I don’t find it troubling as a means of being critical, I mean that perhaps my own opinion and conclusions are wrong. This is what bothers me. That I believe the Charismatic movement has nothing to it (which is not to say the people in it are phonies, I believe they seek God but are lured by these false displays of faith)… well, the Church hasn’t said anything binding on the matter so I am positive we can disagree with the Pope’s opinions (who are probably being diplomatic and, in speaking of the Charismatic Renewal, are not addressing the Pentecostal-cum-Catholic fringe types but just the more happy-clappy Catholic types).
 
MOTHBALL83 said:
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
Click to expand...
This passage is rather unique. It is the only place in all of Scripture where a spiritual “gift” is strictly limited. Don’t you find that a bit odd?

It is also the only passage that mentions interpretation by anyone else. All other references require the person who spoke to ALSO interpret what he spoke.

But this “second party” interpreter is kinda strange. Suppose someone wanted to adhere to this form. How would he do it? A person cannot speak in tongues unless he knows there is an interpreter present. That means someone must be pre-designated as an interpreter - otherwise he must keep quiet, not knowing if there is an interpreter.

Of course, this is not how it is done in Charismatic services, which do not obey either form (self-interpretation or pre-designated interpreter). This is yet another reason why the Charismatic movement is un-Biblical and liturgically abusive.

Everything Paul says about speaking in unknown tongues is meant to discourage and limit the practice. And remember where this practice is discussed - the First Epistle to the Corinthians (and nowhere else).

This Epistle is somewhat unique in Scripture. It is the most disapproving and condemnatory letter in the Bible. Whereas other epistles were predominately instructive or pastoral, this particular epistle was overwhelmingly critical of multiple abuses which were occurring in this particular young church. Nowhere else does any Bishop say anything even approaching, “I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good.” (1Cor 11:17). Paul accuses the Corinthians of “immorality not found even among the pagans” (1Cor 5:1). Paul is absolutely scathing in his assessment of the Corinthians: “My brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh." (1Cor 3:1-3a).

According to Holy Scripture, these “fleshly people,” who were even more immoral than the pagans, and whose counterproductive worship services were “doing more harm than good,” and whose bishop heaped upon them criticism not found anywhere else in Scripture, just happen to be the ONLY people who ever spoke in “unknown tongues.”

Waitaminute - we want to emulate THESE GUYS??? C’mon!

Paul seems to have a grudging tolerance of the practice. He is perhaps heeding the advice of Gamaliel" “if it be of men, it will come to naught, but if it be of God, ye will not be able to overthrow it; lest perhaps ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:39).

And it came to naught. It was not mentioned at all in 2Cor, and the Early Fathers tell us that the practice ceased.

Until some fringe protestants came along, that is, and a band of far-left-wing nuts at Notre Dame (no surprise there) in 1968 (no surprise there, either) infiltrated the Catholic Church and tricked and deceived many well-intentioned but poorly informed and gullible Catholics.

The timing was perfect - this was three years after Vatican II closed, and there was a lot of confusion among the laity. A lot of hooey was proclaimed “in the spirit of Vatican II” - the full English translation was not even available yet, so it was hard to verify or rebuff these claims. It was a fertile time for Satan to plant the inventions and errors of fringe protestants right into the Catholic garden.
Click to expand...
 
NewsTheMan said:
While I agree completely with this…
🍿
I can imagine your response receiving a lot of flak!
Click to expand...
That’s OK - I can do this all day. I’ve got all the facts. I have the Early Church Fathers on my side. I have history on my side. I have the Bible on my side. I have the Magisterium on my side. I have the Communion of Saints on my side. I have reason and logic on my side. Charismatic Catholics don’t have anything but their “feelings.”

I can do this all day. Enjoy the show.
 
NewsTheMan said:
Bravo, and I agree with you 110%. I just find it… troubling… that our current Holy Father and his predeccesor both support this movement.
Click to expand...
Ah, but they don’t (at least certainly not in the context of the OP’s question regarding tongues).

Charismatic Catholicism is of Satan, and thus it is full of subtle lies. One of these is that JP2 and B16 support the movement (and have even spoken in tongues themselves). I read JP2’s biography Witness to Hope - he didn’t mention it.

When you press a Charismatic Catholic to justify these claims, the cracks begin to appear. Representatives of the Charismatic movement have been granted Papal audiences. Yeah, my Methodist father had an audience with JP2. Heretics have had Papal audiences. What else you got?

Popes have spoken favorably of the concept of “Spiritual renewal” and have praised THIS ASPECT of the Charismatics. Umm, no duh.

The “big gun” is the ICCRS (the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services). But the gun is loaded with blanks. Many Catholic Charismatics believe this is an official Vatican Office (because they have been lied to). It is not - it is a lay organization.

However, the original statutes of the origination received Pontifical recognition and an adviser from the Vatican was appointed for them.

OK, still - that seems like pretty strong Vatican support. Until you read the actual statutes which were recognized. There is absolutely nothing in there that I find objectionable in any way. That’s because the ICCRS does not reflect the actual practices of Charismatic Catholicism.

The Satanic influence into Charismatic Catholicism is the practice of speaking in tongues. This practice was the thing that gave birth to the Pentecostal movement in 1901. It is what William Seymour preached at Azusa Street.

You cannot find a Catholic (or any other) Charismatic service that does not include the practice of speaking in tongues - it is (so far) an inseparable component. Yet, you will find no mention of this practice anywhere in the ICRSS statutes or on their website. You could not prove from their website that anyone speaks in unknown tongues or that such a charism even exists.

The ICRSS is a smokescreen - a veneer of orthodoxy that Charismatic Catholics cast over their liturgical abuses.

But reality is where the rubber hits the road. No Pope has ever endorsed what ACTUALLY goes on at a Charismatic Catholic service. No Pope has ever attended such a service.

Sure, Popes have supported what the movement SAYS (and I support it as well). But has any Pope ever actually “supported” what the movement actually PRACTICES?

No. To say otherwise is simply a lie.
 
DavidFilmer said:
That’s OK - I can do this all day. I’ve got all the facts. I have the Early Church Fathers on my side. I have history on my side. I have the Bible on my side. I have the Magisterium on my side. I have the Communion of Saints on my side. I have reason and logic on my side. Charismatic Catholics don’t have anything but their “feelings.”

I can do this all day. Enjoy the show.
Click to expand...
David,

I have never ever understood why I was uncomfortable with this “movement” but thanks for providing the facts. I sure would be interested in whatever material you have. I have tried to become more comfortable with this, but I think it is a grace that I cannot feel at ease with this.

God bless you for posting this.
NewsTheMan said:
While I agree completely with this…

🍿

I can imagine your response receiving a lot of flak!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I am glad that he did post this. I have been wondering on this for awhile.

God bless.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Ah, but they don’t (at least certainly not in the context of the OP’s question regarding tongues).

Charismatic Catholicism is of Satan, and thus it is full of subtle lies. One of these is that JP2 and B16 support the movement (and have even spoken in tongues themselves). I read JP2’s biography Witness to Hope - he didn’t mention it.

When you press a Charismatic Catholic to justify these claims, the cracks begin to appear. Representatives of the Charismatic movement have been granted Papal audiences. Yeah, my Methodist father had an audience with JP2. Heretics have had Papal audiences. What else you got?

Popes have spoken favorably of the concept of “Spiritual renewal” and have praised THIS ASPECT of the Charismatics. Umm, no duh.

The “big gun” is the ICCRS (the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services). But the gun is loaded with blanks. Many Catholic Charismatics believe this is an official Vatican Office (because they have been lied to). It is not - it is a lay organization.

However, the original statutes of the origination received Pontifical recognition and an adviser from the Vatican was appointed for them.

OK, still - that seems like pretty strong Vatican support. Until you read the actual statutes which were recognized. There is absolutely nothing in there that I find objectionable in any way. That’s because the ICCRS does not reflect the actual practices of Charismatic Catholicism.

The Satanic influence into Charismatic Catholicism is the practice of speaking in tongues. This practice was the thing that gave birth to the Pentecostal movement in 1901. It is what William Seymour preached at Azusa Street.

You cannot find a Catholic (or any other) Charismatic service that does not include the practice of speaking in tongues - it is (so far) an inseparable component. Yet, you will find no mention of this practice anywhere in the ICRSS statutes or on their website. You could not prove from their website that anyone speaks in unknown tongues or that such a charism even exists.

The ICRSS is a smokescreen - a veneer of orthodoxy that Charismatic Catholics cast over their liturgical abuses.

But reality is where the rubber hits the road. No Pope has ever endorsed what ACTUALLY goes on at a Charismatic Catholic service. No Pope has ever attended such a service.

Sure, Popes have supported what the movement SAYS (and I support it as well). But has any Pope ever actually “supported” what the movement actually PRACTICES?

No. To say otherwise is simply a lie.
Click to expand...
I don’t get why they are so defensive. I totally believe you about the lie part. I think they lie about it and do whatever it takes to protect that belief.
 
Little_One0307 said:
I have never ever understood why I was uncomfortable with this “movement” but thanks for providing the facts. I sure would be interested in whatever material you have.
Click to expand...
I did my research some years ago, back before the predominance of the Internet. My primary source was an actual book (remember those?) - namely the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements by Burgess & McGee - a 914 page hardcover reference that is an absolute steal at the $1.12 price currently offered as for a “used” volume on Amazon. It is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the development of “Charismatic Christianity.”

This is a protestant (Zondervan) publication intended to support the practice (so protestants have slim recourse to contest the factual aspects of this tome). Thus, I’m sure it is influential to many protestants. But informed Catholics can find much fault with this publication.
 
DavidFilmer said:
I did my research some years ago, back before the predominance of the Internet. My primary source was an actual book (remember those?) - namely the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements by Burgess & McGee - a 914 page hardcover reference that is an absolute steal at the $1.12 price currently offered as for a “used” volume on Amazon. It is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the development of “Charismatic Christianity.”

This is a protestant (Zondervan) publication intended to support the practice (so protestants have slim recourse to contest the factual aspects of this tome). Thus, I’m sure it is influential to many protestants. But informed Catholics can find much fault with this publication.
Click to expand...
David,

I’ll check it out one of these days. All I just know it is quite disconcerting to me.

God bless.
 
DavidFilmer said:
There are two types of “tongues” mentioned in the Bible. The first, described in Acts, are “known tongues.” .
Click to expand...
Ah, the greek word for “tongues” simply means Languages. So, the two types is nonsense.

Also, checking the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “tongues” also means Languages too.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Ah, the greek word for “tongues” simply means Languages. So, the two types is nonsense.
Click to expand...
The “languages” described in Acts and the “languages” described in 1Cor are, indeed, two different things.

In Acts 2, the Apostles were speaking in their own language, but were being heard in the native language of their hearers. These were known languages (ie, languages which were already naturally known by the speakers and hearers). It is like the Star Trek Universal Translator - you could speak to me in German but I hear it in English (whereas Pierre, standing next to me, hears it in French). Acts2 even gives a fairly long list of what these languages were. These are all known languages - they have names (English, German, etc) and people speak them every day:
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
Click to expand...
This great miracle was a sign that the Gospel was for the whole world, and a sign of unity among people (who were divided by language at the Tower of Babel).

This is NOT what is described in 1Cor. These people were speaking in unknown languages - the meaning of which was known only to an interpreter (not because he knew the language being spoken, but by a special act of Grace). This language has no name, and nobody orders dinner using this language (because nobody knows this language - it is unknown).

This “unknown tongues” business is nothing like what happened at Pentecost, but it is the type of thing that goes on in every Charismatic service.
 
I am not a Charismatic, but I am troubled by some of the accusations against
the movement in this thread.
Especially the bold claim that Charismatic Catholicism
is out-and-out Satanic.
I see no reason to come to such a conclusion.
I do think anything, even legitimate movements, can be
subject to abuse and hyper-enthusiasm. I have been to a couple of Charismatic
Marian Conferences in the past twenty years, and on the whole, these were
wonderful and orthodox gatherings, very enlightening, very enriching, and
very upbuilding. There was heavy Franciscan presence, along with Mother Teresa’s
sisters in attendance, along with speaker Sister Briege McKenna, whom I think is
a very lovely and Godly Catholic woman. She happens to believe in Divine Healings occuring even today. I have never heard Sister Briege speak in “tongues,” though.
I did hear one priest at one Marian conference say something like,
“Walla Walla Walla, Shammallooo !!” which made me chuckle. I think that’s kinda forced, if you ask me. But I never saw any of the craziness that goes on among Charismatic protestants, such as the way Benny Hinn will smack someone on the forehead and they’ll fall on the floor, supposed “slain” in the spirit or something.
Like I say, anything can be abused and out of control, but nowhere does Scripture
assert that tongues would cease “as soon as the scripture canon was complete” (as many Baptists and Presbyterians assert), or as soon as the last apostle died, or anything like that. It does say that tongues will cease “when that which is perfect is come.” But I always took that to mean the return of Christ and the eternal state.
God bless all of you.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
I am not a Charismatic, but I am troubled by some of the accusations against
the movement in this thread.
Especially the bold claim that Charismatic Catholicism
is out-and-out Satanic. .
Click to expand...
So am I, and I have reported that post and the poster to the moderators. In a similar thread in the Traditional Catholic forum, the moderator set some ground rules forbidding this kind of language, and reminded all that this movement is a valid movement that is accepted by the Church, therefore posters should be respectful of that. One poster ended up banned, and another suspended because of the disintegrating tone of that thread. To refer to the movement, and it’s adherents in this manner, is uncharitable among other things. The OP can easily find answers to the questions asked by searching existing recent threads, this thread is just bait for the critics and a few haters; I hope the mods close or delete it honestly, as it serves no purpose to the greater forum.
 
ClayPots47 said:
So am I, and I have reported that post and the poster to the moderators. In a similar thread in the Traditional Catholic forum, the moderator set some ground rules forbidding this kind of language, and reminded all that this movement is a valid movement that is accepted by the Church, therefore posters should be respectful of that. One poster ended up banned, and another suspended because of the disintegrating tone of that thread. To refer to the movement, and it’s adherents in this manner, is uncharitable among other things. The OP can easily find answers to the questions asked by searching existing recent threads, this thread is just bait for the critics and a few haters; I hope the mods close or delete it honestly, as it serves no purpose to the greater forum.
Click to expand...
I feel that it is a valid discussion so long as people don’t become derogatory. I also feel you shouldn’t call someone a hater just for starting a thread on a controversial subject. That is the reason why it was brought up…because it is a controversial subject. Don’t you think that when you call me a “hater” that it is the same as when the other guy made the “satanic” remark?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top