Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

[guanophore]

This question was brought over from another thread in Traditional where such questions are not well received.

… what if we don’t “seek them out” but just have them? You have a gift of the Spirit. I don’t which one(s) but I know you do. We all do and we have these things through the Wisdom and Grace of God to benefit one another.

I must acknowledge the extremes are pretty far out, but it’s also important not to cut out the heart to get rid of a few warts.

It’s no good to have a gift of healing, if there is no way to offer that to another. The Church hasn’t given us the parameters and structure to use the gifts we have. Healing isn’t just something priests do, and most don’t have that gift, anyway.

The Church has most certainly given parameters and structure, many of which have been ignored by overenthusiastic charismatics.

It is the failure of charismatic Catholics to observe these instructions that has caused concern among our Traditionalist brethren.

I stand by what I said, the Church hasn’t given us the parameters and structure to use the gifts we are given. You can read that doc until next Sunday, won’t change the fact of life in a Parish. IF a person discovers in themselves the gift of healing, how exactly does this person go about offering and practicing that gift?

 

[illusion_buster]

I have not read ALL the submissions on this thread but from what I have read, sense a lot of fear and distrust. I have been deeply involved with the charismatic movement since the 70s and was part of a Covernant community sanctioned by Pope John Paul. Our elders answered directly to the local arch bishop and where under constant communication (just in case anything went amiss) Nothing did! But the experience of 2000 voices singing as one harmonic voice was indiscribable… There was no discord…(I have a musical background). What we believed was that when we spoke in formal ‘english’ prayer… we all knew what we were saying and in that there was a limitation. But when we spoke in tongues… It was the intent and prayer of the Holy Spirit that was being offered to God… Yes! there was incredible feelings… Powerful feelings!.. and so there should be when one comes into the Holy of Holys… We knew we sang together with angels praising and worshiping God. Just like that village in Europe… There is no need to fear the charisms. They are God given… It’s a shame that their use lapsed with the traditional church. It the Church had continued their practice as first directed by the Holy Spirit, I think the church pews throughout the world would be overflowing. It is significant that the Holy Spirit has choosen modern times to re-ignite our trust in Him & His Charisms. Don’t Fear them and please don’t say that these gifts of the Holy Spirit have no place in the mass… That is ludicrous! Our community prayed in tongues after communion as the prayer of thanksgiving… It seemed most appropriate. AND … every time there were constant message interpretations being written down and sent up to the elders at the front… Only the messeges that matched were read out as the true interpretation…and they numbered in the dozens… Again I say, “It is all done in FAITH”

 

[Irish_Polock]

I don’t see how it is absurd to suggest the Holy Spirit requires our cooperation. I thought that was a given. Perhaps not.

It is subjective because you have presumed that someone is being coerced, and it is absurd that the CCR has created an eighth sacrament to resolve this said presumption.

I was not implying most confirmations may be under duress, though that is possible. I don’t know the precise statistics, but I’d be willing to bet a good many confirmandi simply receive the sacrament because their parents made them.

Would you assume that they would not receive the grace and gifts of this sacrament if they had in fact just simply went through the steps without any faith or piety?

But that was not what I was getting at. I was saying the majority of confirmandi receive the sacrament, but do not cooperate with it to really produce the effects that it is supposed to. I mention freedom there to illustrate the immense gift of our own will. This is a matter of will. We must open the door to the Christ who stands knocking. The Holy Spirit uses what He’s given, and He takes nothing more. We should give Him all we’ve got. He shouldn’t have to wait on us, we should wait on Him.

I agree that this lack of cooperation could be true - I am surly guilty of it - but, is “baptism of the Holy Spirit” essential for their cooperation? From my experience, it is not essential, or even necessary.

I am using the yardstick of Scripture, and Church teaching. The 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit. The charisms. Evangelical activity. A deeper prayer life, further frequency of the sacraments… But I do not intend to judge anyone’s relationship with the Holy Spirit beyond my own.

Not all of the charisms that the CCR practices have there roots clearly in scripture, some of them are in fact outside of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium - such as tongues spoken for self-edification, and the gibberish that most Charismatic’s proclaim to be a gift of the Holy Spirit. I would say additionally most prophecy said within the CCR is well outside the prescription that St. Paul has given to us.

This would bring us back to the validity of the charisms that are being promulgated by the CCR. While certainly some of these gifts do have some validity, there are serious errors in saying that the majority of these charism are indeed valid or of the HS. The fact that there is a consensus of ECF’s and the Magisterium, whom both believed that the gift of tongue speech had ceased to be necessary, confirms the churches tradition.

And why do you wonder that those duties enumerated above will cease, when the holy Apostle tells us that even the higher gifts of the Holy Spirit will pass away: and points out that charity alone will abide without end, saying “whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease: whether there be knowledge, it will Come to an end,” but of this he says “Charity never faileth.” For all gifts are given for a time as use and need require, but when the dispensation is ended they will without doubt presently pass away: but love will never be destroyed. For not only does it work usefully in us in this world; but also in that to come, when the burden of bodily needs is cast off, it will continue in far greater vigour and excellence, and will never be weakened by any defect, but by means of its perpetual incorruption will cling to God more intently and earnestly.13 (Sulpitius, Vincent Lerins, Cassian 158)

 

[Irish_Polock]

From the notes concerning Montanus’ prophecy:

237 The fault found by the Church with Montanus’ prophecy was rather because of its form than because of its substance. It was admitted that the prophecies contained much that was true, but the soberer sense of the Church at large objected decidedly to the frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered. That a change had come over the Church in this respect since the apostolic age is perfectly clear. In Paul’s time the speaking with tongues, which involved a similar kind of ecstasy, was very common; so, too, at the time the Didache was written the prophets spoke in an ecstasy (en pneumati, which can mean nothing else; cf. Harnack’s edition, p. 122 sq)… But the early enthusiasm of the Church had largely passed away by the middle of the second century; and though there were still prophets (Justin, for instance, and even Clement of Alexandria knew of them), they were not in general characterized by the same ecstatic and frenzied utterance that marked their predecessors. To say that there were none such at this time would be rash; but it is plain that they had become so decidedly the exception that the revival by the Montanists of the old method on a large scale and in its extremest form could appear to the Church at large only a decided innovation. Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them, but prophecy in this form they were not accustomed to, and did not realize that it was but a revival of the ancient form (cf. the words of our author, who is evidently quite ignorant of that form). That they should be shocked at it is not to be wondered at, and that they should, in that age, when all such manifestations were looked upon as supernatural in their origin, regard these prophets as under the influence of Satan, is no more surprising. There was no other alternative in their minds. Either the prophecies were from God or from Satan; not their content mainly, but the manner in which they were delivered aroused the suspicion of the bishops and other leaders of the Church. Add to that the fact that these prophets claimed supremacy over the constituted Church authorities, claimed that the Church must be guided by the revelations vouchsafed to women and apparently half-crazy enthusiasts and fanatics, and it will be seen at once that there was nothing left for the leaders of the Church but to condemn the movement, and pronounce its prophecy a fraud and a work of the Evil One. That all prophecy should, as a consequence, fall into discredit was natural. Clement (Strom. I. 17) gives the speaking in an ecstasy as one of the marks of a false prophet,—Montanism had evidently brought the Church to distinct consciousness on that point,—while Origen, some decades later, is no longer acquainted with prophets, and denies that they existed even in the time of Celsus (see (Contra Cels.VII. 11). (NPNF2-01 Eusebius 540)

1. Moreover, that sound of a voice was certainly not made indissolubly one with the person of the Father, for so soon as it was uttered it ceased to be. Neither was that form of a dove made indissolubly one with the person of Holy Spirit, for it also, like the bright cloud which covered the Saviour and His three disciples on the mount,1349 or rather like the tongues of flame which once represented the same Holy Spirit, ceased to exist as soon as it had served its purpose as a symbol. (Augustin: Letters 230){Bishop Augustin to Bishop Evodius.}

do we not read that on the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles received the Holy Ghost, by whom they were thenceforward inspired with greater alacrity and resolution to preach the faith and brave dangers for the glory of Christ, there came suddenly a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting, and there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were, of fire? By this it was understood that in the Sacrament of Confirmation the same Spirit is given us, and such strength is imparted as enables us resolutely to encounter and resist our incessant enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. For some time in the beginning of the Church, whenever these Sacraments were administered by the Apostles, the same miraculous effects were witnessed,** and they ceased **only when the faith had acquired maturity and strength. (The Catechism of Trent 2000)

Q. 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?
A. These signs are not continued everywhere at the present time, because now that the Church is fully established and its divine character and power proved in other ways, such signs are no longer necessary.(Baltimore Catechism #3)

 

[Irish_Polock]

It can be deduced, that these gifts - specifically tongues and prophecy - had all but ceased but in a rare few, it would be illogical and presumptuous to assume that ALL of these gifts were “renewed” and somehow increased throughout the laity in 1967, especially, in the way that it had been promulgated within the CCR. While I do feel that the HS has always been with the Church, these extraordinary charisms have not been sought in the past as they are being sought today in the CCR. In fact, when certain Saints experienced these gifts, the Church would normally rejected the idea that they were authentic at first, until they had been firmly tested by the Magisterium,. Also, these Saints were normally not laymen, and they had lived incredibly pious life’s in comparison to the norm of the Church today. The Church can not test these gifts as St. Paul had prescribed us to do, therefore, the majority of these gifts go untested.

So this brings me to the subject of “how these gifts are to be tested authentically” and how we are to know that they are not of the deceiver. Being that this subject is relatively new to me, I will ask those who are within this movement to provide the authentic Catholic teachings. Please keep in mind that Scripture will not be sufficient without the backing of tradition and the Magisterium. Recently I read a that the Holy Father addressed 100ish newly ordained Bishops on the subject of Charisms. I thought it was interesting to note:

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=115368

It seemed like there was a few significant “but”s and “however”s in this address. What do you all think? I wish he had been more specific to what gifts he was speaking of, this is something that I feel needs to be addressed within the CCR to bring it out of the shadow of the deceiver. Tongues, Prophecy, and the ’baptism of the Holy Spirit” to name just a few, need to be CLEARLY addressed and authenticated.

Then how should we live out our vocations as Christians? Without Pentecost? Without the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit? Without being aware of the graces we’ve been given, and not using them? As G.K. Chesterton says: “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”

Gonna check to see if I said we should live our lives as Christians without Pentecost…
…as weird as it might seem, I didn’t say that. These are my words:

I do not feel - what you call - the“baptism of the Holy Spirit” is essential or necessary to live out our vocations as Christians. It has obvious, that many people, sometimes even great Saints, are never given notable consolations in their Faith, much less extraordinary manifestations of the Holy Spirit.

We should strive for theosis as Catholics. Does this include all of the charisms? I don’t think that it does - in fact it does not include any of them. These charisms are not necessary for our justification or salvation. St. Paul taught that the only necessary gifts for our salvation are Faith, Hope and Love…the roots of all these charisms. St. Paul DID NOT tell us to use charisms for our salvation.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not require notable consolations, though it may accompany it. Such consolations, according especially to the Carmelite masters, are generally given to those who are weaker in their faith.

I do not understand. Could you please explain this statement?

St. Paul says the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is given to EVERYONE. The Greek word for this manifestation is φανέρωσις, a specific term denoting a brilliant epiphany, something as obvious as the light of the sun. It is said with a sense of full disclosure and finality. This manifestation is obviously meant to consist in the charismata, which he describes in the previous sentences in 1 Corinthians 12.

While I do agree that these manifestations would include everyone, during the time needed, but I have yet to be convinced that these gifts are still necessary for the formation of the body of Christ. We have authorities in and amongst all of the worlds population. There is no need for a cloven tongue in this age, the edification spoken of was for the Church not the edification of your self.-

These are not all extraordinary, however, though many of them are. Some are “more simple and widely diffused” as the Fathers of Vatican II put it (see Lg 12).

Please cite LG 12 for this exact quote. I do have access to it, but I think it somewhat rude to not give an exact quote for the context. What exact gifts were the “more simple and widely diffused”? We need to be exact here, after all some of these gifts ceased according to the Church.

The Holy Fathers and the bishops would disagree with you. As would 20 centuries of Catholic teaching.

Really? Please direct me towards any citation that might clearly resemble the CCR in the post Apostolic age or thereafter. As I have researched, I have found only one resemblance… and they were declared heretics by our Holy Mother Church. The fact that modern day Popes have been so ambiguous about the movement and its gifts, speaks for itself. Pope John Paul II, whom was a charismatic himself (being spiritually advised by a charismatic tailor in Poland) never spoke definitively on the gifts of the CCR or how they were to be acquired or used.

The novelty of the CCR might be producing fruit, but whether or not these “fruits” are poisons or not… remains to be seen.

 

[lna419]

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.

What is “speaking in tongues?” The Scriptures teach that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit which allows someone to speak in a foreign language that one does not actually know (in Greek, xenolalia). The Scriptures also indicate that the gift of tongues could mean making ecstatic utterances that are intelligible to God and others who have the gift of interpreting tongues (in Greek, glossalalia). This page provides some biblical information about “tongues-speaking.”

Mark 16:17 – right before Jesus ascended into heaven, He prophesied “they will speak in new tongues.”

There are only four instances in the New Testament where people speak in tongues:

1 - Acts 2:3 – when the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve apostles on Pentecost Sunday, they began to speak in tongues. Acts 2:6 says that men from fifteen different nations each heard the apostles speaking in their own language.

2 – Acts 10:44-46 – after Peter preached the gospel, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and they (including the Gentiles) began to speak in tongues.

3 – Acts 19:5-6 – after Paul baptized and confirmed about twelve Ephesians, they spoke with tongues.

4 – 1 Cor. 12-14 – Paul teaches that members of the Corinthian church had the gift of speaking in tongues.

In each instance in the book of Acts, tongue speaking is heard as if it is a foreign language. This gift of the Holy Spirit was for the purpose of spreading the gospel to all peoples of the world. Peter supports this view when he equates the Gentile tongue-speaking with the tongue-speaking at Pentecost (which was heard as foreign languages) when he says “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).

The type of tongues spoken in the Corinthian church is not as clear. The following Scriptures suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was also heard as foreign languages, just like the tongue-speaking in the book of Acts:

Foreign languages

1 Cor. 14:21 – when Paul instructs the Corinthians about speaking in tongues, he quotes from Isaiah 28:11 which is about the “alien tongue” of foreign invaders, which means a foreign language. For Paul to quote Isaiah without any other explanation suggests that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of foreign languages.

In fact, no where in 1 Cor. 12-14 does Paul make any distinction between the tongue-speaking in Acts and the tongue-speaking at Corinth (and this is important because the Ephesians’ tongue-speaking in Acts 19:5-6 chronologically occurred around the same time as the Corinthian tongue-speaking). If there would have been a significant difference between the two (foreign languages versus ecstatic utterances), Paul would have likely acknowledged this distinction as he gave the Corinthians instructions about speaking in tongues.

1 Cor. 14:5 – when Paul says “unless someone interprets,” the word for interprets (in Greek, diermhneuvh) always refers to the interpretation of a foreign language (see John 1:42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2).

Ecstatic utterances

The following Scriptures, however, suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of unintelligible ecstatic utterances, and not foreign languages. For example:

1 Cor. 14:2 – Paul says “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” Describing these utterances as “mysteries” may indicate that such speech was unintelligible. This type of tongue was also spoken to God, and not to men, which means that the tongue did not have to be in any particular language (God would understand the utterances in the Spirit). This may be similar to the divine “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1).

1 Cor. 14:4 – Paul says “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” If the person is speaking a foreign language he cannot understand, then he would not be edifying himself, unless the language would be interpreted for him. But this may be why Paul required someone to interpret the tongues at Corinth (see 1 Cor. 14:13,27-28). This, however, does not absolutely mean the tongues were foreign languages. The gift of interpretation could have been for interpreting unintelligible divine utterances as well.

1 Cor. 14:10-11 – Paul describes the tongues at Corinth as “sound” (in Greek, phonon). While foreign languages are heard as sounds, this seems different from the tongues which were described in the book of Acts as “language” (in Greek, dialektos). However, Luke also describes the tongue-speaking of Acts 2:6 as “sound,” even though it was heard as “language.”

1 Cor. 14:16-17 – Paul says that the tongues at Corinth were spoken to give thanks to God. While speaking the gospel in a foreign language does indeed give thanks to God, this type of speech may be private communication between God and the speaker, which would not require the use of a foreign language.

1 Cor. 14:23 – Paul says that unbelievers who hear the Corinthians speaking in tongues will conclude that they “are mad.” This suggests that the Corinthians were speaking in unintelligible utterances, although outsiders would also be tempted to call those “mad” who were speaking foreign languages they did not know (perhaps implying that they were possessed by demons).

 

[Irish_Polock]

What is “speaking in tongues?” The Scriptures teach that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit which allows someone to speak in a foreign language that one does not actually know (in Greek, xenolalia). The Scriptures also indicate that the gift of tongues could mean making ecstatic utterances that are intelligible to God and others who have the gift of interpreting tongues (in Greek, glossalalia). This page provides some biblical information about “tongues-speaking.”

Mark 16:17 – right before Jesus ascended into heaven, He prophesied “they will speak in new tongues.”

There are only four instances in the New Testament where people speak in tongues:

1 - Acts 2:3 – when the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve apostles on Pentecost Sunday, they began to speak in tongues. Acts 2:6 says that men from fifteen different nations each heard the apostles speaking in their own language.

2 – Acts 10:44-46 – after Peter preached the gospel, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and they (including the Gentiles) began to speak in tongues.

3 – Acts 19:5-6 – after Paul baptized and confirmed about twelve Ephesians, they spoke with tongues.

4 – 1 Cor. 12-14 – Paul teaches that members of the Corinthian church had the gift of speaking in tongues.

In each instance in the book of Acts, tongue speaking is heard as if it is a foreign language. This gift of the Holy Spirit was for the purpose of spreading the gospel to all peoples of the world. Peter supports this view when he equates the Gentile tongue-speaking with the tongue-speaking at Pentecost (which was heard as foreign languages) when he says “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).

The type of tongues spoken in the Corinthian church is not as clear. The following Scriptures suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was also heard as foreign languages, just like the tongue-speaking in the book of Acts:

Foreign languages

1 Cor. 14:21 – when Paul instructs the Corinthians about speaking in tongues, he quotes from Isaiah 28:11 which is about the “alien tongue” of foreign invaders, which means a foreign language. For Paul to quote Isaiah without any other explanation suggests that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of foreign languages.

In fact, no where in 1 Cor. 12-14 does Paul make any distinction between the tongue-speaking in Acts and the tongue-speaking at Corinth (and this is important because the Ephesians’ tongue-speaking in Acts 19:5-6 chronologically occurred around the same time as the Corinthian tongue-speaking). If there would have been a significant difference between the two (foreign languages versus ecstatic utterances), Paul would have likely acknowledged this distinction as he gave the Corinthians instructions about speaking in tongues.

1 Cor. 14:5 – when Paul says “unless someone interprets,” the word for interprets (in Greek, diermhneuvh) always refers to the interpretation of a foreign language (see John 1:42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2).

Ecstatic utterances

The following Scriptures, however, suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of unintelligible ecstatic utterances, and not foreign languages. For example:

1 Cor. 14:2 – Paul says “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” Describing these utterances as “mysteries” may indicate that such speech was unintelligible. This type of tongue was also spoken to God, and not to men, which means that the tongue did not have to be in any particular language (God would understand the utterances in the Spirit). This may be similar to the divine “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1).

1 Cor. 14:4 – Paul says “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” If the person is speaking a foreign language he cannot understand, then he would not be edifying himself, unless the language would be interpreted for him. But this may be why Paul required someone to interpret the tongues at Corinth (see 1 Cor. 14:13,27-28). This, however, does not absolutely mean the tongues were foreign languages. The gift of interpretation could have been for interpreting unintelligible divine utterances as well.

1 Cor. 14:10-11 – Paul describes the tongues at Corinth as “sound” (in Greek, phonon). While foreign languages are heard as sounds, this seems different from the tongues which were described in the book of Acts as “language” (in Greek, dialektos). However, Luke also describes the tongue-speaking of Acts 2:6 as “sound,” even though it was heard as “language.”

1 Cor. 14:16-17 – Paul says that the tongues at Corinth were spoken to give thanks to God. While speaking the gospel in a foreign language does indeed give thanks to God, this type of speech may be private communication between God and the speaker, which would not require the use of a foreign language.

1 Cor. 14:23 – Paul says that unbelievers who hear the Corinthians speaking in tongues will conclude that they “are mad.” This suggests that the Corinthians were speaking in unintelligible utterances, although outsiders would also be tempted to call those “mad” who were speaking foreign languages they did not know (perhaps implying that they were possessed by demons).

Find either any Church Father or Magisterial teachings on these “prayer tongues” then let us know. These “prayer tongues” are an invention from outside our Holy Mother Church. Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium only mention one variety of “tongue speech” and this extraordinary phenomena ceased long ago.

 

[lna419]

Find either any Church Father or Magisterial teachings on these “prayer tongues” then let us know. These “prayer tongues” are an invention from outside our Holy Mother Church. Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium only mention one variety of “tongue speech” and this extraordinary phenomena ceased long ago.

First of all we should learn about the history of the charismatic renewal. heres a link.

ccr.org.uk/ccrstart.htm

dentoncatholic.org/history.html

ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm

archdpdx.org/ccr/popes.html

Here is a statement from Blessed John Paul 2 during his pontificate about the charismatic renewal.

“The emergence of the Renewal following the Second Vatican Council was a particular gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. It was a sign of a desire on the part of many Catholics to live more fully their Baptismal dignity and vocation as adopted sons and daughters of the Father, to know the redeeming power of Christ our Saviour in a more intense experience of individual and group prayer, and to follow the teaching of the Scriptures by reading them in the light of the same Spirit who inspired their writing. Certainly one of the most important results of this spiritual reawakening has been that increased thirst for holiness which is seen in the lives of individuals and in the whole Church.”
Pope John Paul II

Sounds pretty favorable to me. I wouldn’t go against JP2.

 

[Irish_Polock]

First of all we should learn about the history of the charismatic renewal. heres a link.

ccr.org.uk/ccrstart.htm

dentoncatholic.org/history.html

ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm

Here is a statement from Blessed John Paul 2 during his pontificate about the charismatic renewal.

“The emergence of the Renewal following the Second Vatican Council was a particular gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. It was a sign of a desire on the part of many Catholics to live more fully their Baptismal dignity and vocation as adopted sons and daughters of the Father, to know the redeeming power of Christ our Saviour in a more intense experience of individual and group prayer, and to follow the teaching of the Scriptures by reading them in the light of the same Spirit who inspired their writing. Certainly one of the most important results of this spiritual reawakening has been that increased thirst for holiness which is seen in the lives of individuals and in the whole Church.”
Pope John Paul II

Sounds pretty favorable to me. I wouldn’t go against JP2.

Could JPII have had an erroneous position in concerns of the CCR?

I think the history of the CCR has been explained ad nauseam within these CCR threads. But thanks.

 

[Irish_Polock]

I have not read ALL the submissions on this thread but from what I have read, sense a lot of fear and distrust. I have been deeply involved with the charismatic movement since the 70s and was part of a Covernant community sanctioned by Pope John Paul. Our elders answered directly to the local arch bishop and where under constant communication (just in case anything went amiss) Nothing did! But the experience of 2000 voices singing as one harmonic voice was indiscribable… There was no discord…(I have a musical background). What we believed was that when we spoke in formal ‘english’ prayer… we all knew what we were saying and in that there was a limitation. But when we spoke in tongues… It was the intent and prayer of the Holy Spirit that was being offered to God… Yes! there was incredible feelings… Powerful feelings!.. and so there should be when one comes into the Holy of Holys… We knew we sang together with angels praising and worshiping God. Just like that village in Europe… There is no need to fear the charisms. They are God given… It’s a shame that their use lapsed with the traditional church. It the Church had continued their practice as first directed by the Holy Spirit, I think the church pews throughout the world would be overflowing. It is significant that the Holy Spirit has choosen modern times to re-ignite our trust in Him & His Charisms. Don’t Fear them and please don’t say that these gifts of the Holy Spirit have no place in the mass… That is ludicrous! Our community prayed in tongues after communion as the prayer of thanksgiving… It seemed most appropriate. AND … every time there were constant message interpretations being written down and sent up to the elders at the front… Only the messeges that matched were read out as the true interpretation…and they numbered in the dozens… Again I say, “It is all done in FAITH”

And this is exactly what is wrong with the CCR…

 

[Irish_Polock]

This question was brought over from another thread in Traditional where such questions are not well received.

And while I agree with your statement on that particular gift, I also agree with Julia Mae to an extent. Ambiguities run rampant throughout the CCR and they ALL need to be addressed in an ordinary and universal way. The deceiver has taken a homestead within the Church, and the Church needs to take its land back.

 

[vardaquinn]

Find either any Church Father or Magisterial teachings on these “prayer tongues” then let us know. These “prayer tongues” are an invention from outside our Holy Mother Church. Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium only mention one variety of “tongue speech” and this extraordinary phenomena ceased long ago.

Well, yeah, just totally discount the Bible quotes that backed up prayer tongues… when Paul explicitly uses the term “praying in tongues”. And ignore Acts 2, in which the Apostles and Mary are all proclaiming in tongues before they even get out of the upper room. And ignore Acts 19, when what, the Ephesians are preaching the Gospel back to Paul in tongues? What? Or… are praying in tongues because they just received the Holy Spirit. Fact is, just from Scripture alone there is enough evidence for prayer tongues and to claim otherwise totally flies in the face of what the Word of God says.

But you want Church Fathers, so ok.

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. - St. John Chrysostom (from a homily on 1 Corinthinas, which you can find on New Advent).

 

[Irish_Polock]

Well, yeah, just totally discount the Bible quotes that backed up prayer tongues… when Paul explicitly uses the term “praying in tongues”. And ignore Acts 2, in which the Apostles and Mary are all proclaiming in tongues before they even get out of the upper room. And ignore Acts 19, when what, the Ephesians are preaching the Gospel back to Paul in tongues? What? Or… are praying in tongues because they just received the Holy Spirit. Fact is, just from Scripture alone there is enough evidence for prayer tongues and to claim otherwise totally flies in the face of what the Word of God says.

But you want Church Fathers, so ok.

Here he shows that it is in their power to obtain the gift. For, “let him pray,” saith he, i.e., “let him contribute his own part,” since if thou ask diligently, thou writ surely receive. Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongue 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 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 girl 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, “Ill pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the girl 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.”

[6.] He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken. For except this be so, there will also be another confusion. (Chrysostom on 1Cor 3503)

Here he shows that it is in their power to obtain the gift. For, “let him pray,” saith he, i.e., “let him contribute his own part,” since if thou ask diligently, thou wilt surely receive. Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongue 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 (227) , but their understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “If I 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 (228) 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.” [6.] He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken. For except this be so, there will also be another confusion.

227 [From this phrase—a similar one occurs in the next homily—it seems that Chrysostom held the tongue to mean the power of speaking in a language not before acquired. Most modern expositors understand by it an ecstatic utterance, a view which Tertullian alone of the patristic writers held.

228 διανοίᾳ. (NPNF1-12. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians ~ Homily XXXV.)**

This quote you have given me refutes your position…could you try again? I would suggest looking into what Tertullian had taught on the subject. We can go from there.

 

[vardaquinn]

And while I agree with your statement on that particular gift, I also agree with Julia Mae to an extent. Ambiguities run rampant throughout the CCR and they ALL need to be addressed in an ordinary and universal way. The deceiver has taken a homestead within the Church, and the Church needs to take its land back.

I would hardly go around calling the work of the deceiver, if that’s what you were doing. But you’re right, the deceiver has taken a homestead within the Church, and the Church needs to take its land back. I see the Charismatic Renewal as a big step in that direction.

It is subjective because you have presumed that someone is being coerced, and it is absurd that the CCR has created an eighth sacrament to resolve this said presumption.

That wasn’t what I was claiming, but it is true many teens are “coerced” and go through confirmation just because their parents make them. It is not an eighth sacrament, it’s on a whole different level. You’re making a straw man.

Would you assume that they would not receive the grace and gifts of this sacrament if they had in fact just simply went through the steps without any faith or piety?

They do receive the grace and gifts of the sacrament, but they’re not doing anything with it. I know atheists who have been confirmed. They’ve received the grace and gifts of the sacrament, as long as they received the sacrament in the state of grace. But they’re not doing anything with it.

I agree that this lack of cooperation could be true - I am surly guilty of it - but, is “baptism of the Holy Spirit” essential for their cooperation? From my experience, it is not essential, or even necessary.

Essential for conscious cooperation, yes. Definitely. This argument is a misunderstanding of terms, and so the opposition is making a straw man. You don’t understand what baptism in the Spirit is.

Not all of the charisms that the CCR practices have there roots clearly in scripture, some of them are in fact outside of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium - such as tongues spoken for self-edification, and the gibberish that most Charismatic’s proclaim to be a gift of the Holy Spirit. I would say additionally most prophecy said within the CCR is well outside the prescription that St. Paul has given to us.

Sure, St. Thomas Aquinas for instance even adds on to list of St. Paul. It’s not an exhaustive list. Not meant to be. Many practices of the Church aren’t found in Scripture. Show me the Rosary or Eucharistic adoration or any current form of the Mass or a whole bunch of common Catholic practices. Not necessarily a bad thing.

1 Cor. 14:4 - “Whoever speaks in a tongue edifies himself…” That’s pretty blatant… Someone doesn’t know their Scripture!

Nobody is claiming gibberish is a gift of the Holy Spirit, so you’re making a straw man. Tongues isn’t gibberish.

This would bring us back to the validity of the charisms that are being promulgated by the CCR. While certainly some of these gifts do have some validity, there are serious errors in saying that the majority of these charism are indeed valid or of the HS. The fact that there is a consensus of ECF’s and the Magisterium, whom both believed that the gift of tongue speech had ceased to be necessary, confirms the churches tradition.

I don’t think anybody’s claiming tongues is necessary. Neither are the majority of things we do as Catholics. That’s not how we look at things. Another straw man.

It often depends on the individual. Some are fake, I’m sure. Some aren’t.

 

[lna419]

This quote you have given me refutes your position…could you try again? I would suggest looking into what Tertullian had taught on the subject. We can go from there.

Don’t just bring up a church father, tell us what he said or what you believe he said. Remember Tertullian died apart from the church. So some of what he wrote goes against the church.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Don’t just bring up a church father, tell us what he said or what you believe he said. Remember Tertullian died apart from the church. So some of what he wrote goes against the church.

Why did Tertullian die outside of the Church? What were the heresies he was guilty of?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see how it is absurd to suggest the Holy Spirit requires our cooperation. I thought that was a given. Perhaps not.

It is subjective because you have presumed that someone is being coerced, and it is absurd that the CCR has created an eighth sacrament to resolve this said presumption.

Irish, I am afraid you lost me here. I am even wondering if we are reading the same post?

It seems to me that both you and Varda agree that there is no coercion - that the HS requires our cooperation. The HS is not going to act through us against our will.

What presumption of coercion are you talking about here?

I agree, it is absurd to say that the CCR “has created an 8th sacrament”.

I am at a retreat at the Benedictine Monastery this weekend. One of the Brothers told me that giving consent to the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives is like a gas heater. The pilot light is turned on at baptism, but the burners don’t necessarily light until the thermostat is turned up.

Would you assume that they would not receive the grace and gifts of this sacrament if they had in fact just simply went through the steps without any faith or piety?

Of course not. If this were necessary, then no infant baptism would be valid.

However, once a person becomes mature, one is expected to embrace the promises made on their behalf in baptism, and cooperate with the HS so that faith and piety can release the power of the sacraments in their lives.

I agree that this lack of cooperation could be true - I am surly guilty of it - but, is “baptism of the Holy Spirit” essential for their cooperation? From my experience, it is not essential, or even necessary.

I do think the terminology creates problems. Baptism means to dip, or to submerge. For the sacramental power to be fully released in our lives, we need to be “dipped” or “submerged” in the graces they confect. The Charismatic practices create this “dipping” for many of us, just as participating in Eucharist submerges us in the death, burial, and resurrection contained in our baptism.

Not all of the charisms that the CCR practices have there roots *clearly* in scripture, some of them are in fact outside of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium - such as tongues spoken for self-edification,

I think we need to distinguish here between abuses, and approved CCR practices. Of course the abuses will not be supportable with Scripture and Tradition, since they are imporoper uses of gifts (or worse). However, all the authentic gifts are in Scripture, and in Sacred Tradition.

If praying in tongues for one’s own edification was not an Apostolic Teaching, why would it be found in Scripture? Why is it described in the experiences of the mystics?

1 Cor 14:3-4
4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself…

1 Cor 14:5
Now I want you all to speak in tongues…

1 Cor 14:18-19
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Obviously, Paul has strongly forbidden the misuse of this gift in the public assembly, so if everyone can use it, the setting must be private.

and the gibberish that most Charismatic’s proclaim to be a gift of the Holy Spirit.  I would say additionally most prophecy said within the CCR is well outside the prescription that St. Paul has given to us.

Certainly there have been many abuses of these gifts. However, to state that something which is from the HS is from man, or the devil, is blasphemy against the HS. One must be cautious here.

This would bring us back to the validity of the charisms that are being promulgated by the CCR. While certainly some of these gifts do have some validity, there are serious errors in saying that the majority of these charism are indeed valid or of the HS.

I am afraid I am lost again. Why is it a serious error to expect that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to everyone?

The fact that there is a consensus of ECF’s and the Magisterium, whom both believed that the gift of tongue speech had ceased to be necessary, confirms the churches tradition.

Well, I have read this several times, but it is not consistent with the Teaching of the Church. There is no official Church document that states the gifts have ceased (tongues, or any others). On the contrary, there is teaching of the Magesterium that these gifts are to be received with gladness.

The teaching of the Saints and Doctors that we should not run after ecstatic expereinces is certainly valid. We are to seek the Giver, and not the Gifts.

 

[gtrenewed]

Why did Tertullian die outside of the Church? What were the heresies he was guilty of?

I am not replying to this particular post, but to your general anti-CCR bias.

I see that you are still turning a deaf ear and blind eye to what people are telling you.
You can fight it :slapfight:…
and you can try to discredit it :tsktsk: …
and point to every failing of man within the CCR …

but still the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit prevails, partly through the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and Love on your journey

 

[guanophore]

It can be deduced, that these gifts - specifically tongues and prophecy - had all but ceased but in a rare few,

Yes, I make the same deduction. But those rare few, now doctors of the church, are essential testimony to the fact that the gifts had not “died out”.

it would be illogical and presumptuous to assume that ALL of these gifts were “renewed” and somehow increased throughout the laity in 1967, especially, in the way that it had been promulgated within the CCR.

Why is this illogical and presumtuous? I guess that we could say that any answer to prayer is “illogical”, in the sense that it exists on a spiritual plane, rather than a “rational”.

Luke 11:10-13
10 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Is it “presumptuous” to take these words of Jesus seriously?

Do you think it is presumptuous of us to believe that God answered the prayers of the Holy Father to give the church a NEW outpouring of the HS?

While I do feel that the HS has always been with the Church, these extraordinary charisms have not been sought in the past as they are being sought today in the CCR.

If peopel are seeking after extarordinary charisms, then they are out of order. I am sure it does happen, but it is not encouraged or endorsed by the CCR. The purpose of the CCR is to help the faithful discover, discern, and implement the gifts given to them in baptism for the service of the Church.

In fact, when certain Saints experienced these gifts, the Church would normally rejected the idea that they were authentic at first, until they had been firmly tested by the Magisterium,

This is an essential step that has been missed far too often. Part of the problem is that our priests have not been well trained in teaching the faithful how to discover and discern their gifts.

. Also, these Saints were normally not laymen, and they had lived incredibly pious life’s in comparison to the norm of the Church today. The Church can not test these gifts as St. Paul had prescribed us to do, therefore, the majority of these gifts go untested.

The Holy Father has made it quite clear that these gifts can, and should, be tested by the authority in the Apostolic Succession. However, the Letter to the Corinthians makes it clear the the gifts are given to novices and the immature. The goal is to bring them into maturity. A person does not have to be pious or mature to receive a gift.

So this brings me to the subject of “how these gifts are to be tested authentically” and how we are to know that they are not of the deceiver. Being that this subject is relatively new to me, I will ask those who are within this movement to provide the authentic Catholic teachings.

I thought you just said you did not believe these existed?

The Vatican website is not coming up for me right now, so I will have to post the links later.

Please keep in mind that Scripture will not be sufficient without the backing of tradition and the Magisterium.

This will be kinda tough, if you don’t believe what has been prayed, written, and taught on the matter is invalid.

Recently I read a that the Holy Father addressed 100ish newly ordained Bishops on the subject of Charisms. I thought it was interesting to note:

It seemed like there was a few significant “but”s and “however”s in this address. What do you all think? I wish he had been more specific to what gifts he was speaking of, this is something that I feel needs to be addressed within the CCR to bring it out of the shadow of the deceiver. Tongues, Prophecy, and the ’baptism of the Holy Spirit” to name just a few, need to be CLEARLY addressed and authenticated.

Yes, I agree. The documents of Vatican 2 have quite a bit of information on how the clergy are to assist the laity in discerning and implementing their gifts.

What Catholics have, and those in Protestant ecclesial communties do not, it God ordained authority that will prevent the abuse that is running rampant there.

We should strive for theosis as Catholics. Does this include all of the charisms? I don’t think that it does - in fact it does not include any of them. These charisms are not necessary for our justification or salvation. St. Paul taught that the only necessary gifts for our salvation are Faith, Hope and Love…the roots of all these charisms. St. Paul DID NOT tell us to use charisms for our salvation.

This is true. He taught that their purpose was building up the Church, so that the work of the ministry can be accomplished. One can be saved, in baptism, die, and go to heaven without doing any ministry, or service to the Body, or the world.

 

[guanophore]

While I do agree that these manifestations would include everyone, during the time needed, but I have yet to be convinced that these gifts are still necessary for the formation of the body of Christ.

What you are saying is that the Body of Christ needs no more formation?

What if God decides they are needed?

  We have authorities in and amongst all of the worlds population. There is no need for a cloven tongue in this age, the edification spoken of was for the Church not the edification of your self.-

Both things are true.

The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. That means, they will remain until the end of the Church age (He comes again).

  We need to be exact here, after all some of these gifts ceased according to the Church.

No. The Church does not teach that the gifts have ceased. Even though some of them were less common, it has never been taught that they don’t exist.

Really? Please direct me towards any citation that might clearly resemble the CCR in the post Apostolic age or thereafter.

It is a NEW THING! Of course it did not exist. It is an ecclesial movement that has originated in the laity. You won’t find the Catholic Workers, or the Opus Dei in the Apostolic age, either. Knights of Columbus? Movements are not invalid just because they did not exist in the post Apostolic Age.

As I have researched, I have found only one resemblance… and they were declared heretics by our Holy Mother Church.

Indeed, and there are rampant heretical ecclesial communities manifesting significant chaos that is quite reminiscent.

The fact that modern day Popes have been so ambiguous about the movement and its gifts, speaks for itself. Pope John Paul II, whom was a charismatic himself (being spiritually advised by a charismatic tailor in Poland) never spoke definitively on the gifts of the CCR or how they were to be acquired or used.

The popes have commissioned and approved the offices to whom this is delegated, including the National Service Committee. If they did not give definitive approval for these, they would not be permitted in the Church.

The novelty of the CCR might be producing fruit, but whether or not these “fruits” are poisons or not… remains to be seen.

Yes, I agree. But, having been involved since 1979, and seeing the “beginners” with a 40 year track record of faithful service to the Church, now just retiring from their prayer groups and parish duties, I can see the fruit on a daily basis.

And this is exactly what is wrong with the CCR…

I have had a very similar expereince to the one described, many times, so I am eager for you to explain what yousee that is "wrong’.

Could JPII have had an erroneous position in concerns of the CCR?

Well, sure! But if he was, then Benedict has followed him into his error - especially retaining a charismatic chaplain for the Papal household.