T
terillmorris
Guest
Do any of you Traditionalists have a problem with the charismatic Mass? As long as it is approved and there are no liturgical abuses? Not asking whether you’s go just asking if you think these Masses are wrong.
- Status
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Well, it sounds to me like a needlessly repetitious redundancy.
How do you get any more charismatic than the Holy Spirit changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?
How do you get any more charismatic than the Holy Spirit changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
The Holy Spirit is not a one trick pony so no needless redundancy.
J
James0235
Guest
I’ll let you know just as soon as I attend a Charismatic Mass that is not full of abuses.
Without any abuses I would think a Charismatic Mass wouldn’t be any different from any other Mass with horrible music - “The Engineer on the glory train is Jesus. Jesus”
James
E
ericcantona71
Guest
Depends on what you mean regarding a Charismatic Mass?
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I will give you my opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that the charismatic movement is from the devil. It is a Protestant movement that began in the early 20th century, before, infortunately, working its way into the Church. No true movement of the Holy Ghost originates in heresy. I believe the “speaking in tongues” is ether fake, or demonic, while being “slain in the spirit” is produced by the devil, and is similar to hypnosis.
Regarding speaking in tongues. A well known apologist who used to work for Catholic answers told an interesting story about his experience of"speaking in tongues". Years earlier, while still a Protestant, he attended a charismatic prayer meeting. At the time he was studying Hebrew and had learned the 23 Psalm (22 Psalm in the Catholic Bible) by heart.
As a test, when it came his time to speak in tongues, he simply said the 23 Psalm in Hebrew. The “interpreter” interpreted his “message” as saying that it was a revelation that all should donate money to the Church so that the Pastor could add a new wing on his house. That’s a true story.
The charismatic movement is simply an emotional substitute for the true faith. It is based, not on the intellect and will, but on the lower nature of feelings and emotions.
Would I attend a charismatic mass? Not a chance.
G
GerardP
Guest
Is there a charismatic missal promulgated by a Pope?
P
palmas85
Guest
No, there is not.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Wow…so I guess you think the birthday of the church was originated in the devil too? Guess what…the charismatic movement started on pentacost. They spoke in tongues then.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
What is passing itself now as “Charismatic”—does not compare to Pentacost.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Maybe…but what I saw was the above statement…
and then here’s the scripture that rebuts it:
*]Acts 2:3
And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
*]Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
*]Acts 10:46
For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
W
Walking_Home
Guest
What type of tongues do current “Charismatics” speak. Actual language or gibberish.
Acts 2:6-11
6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind,** because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. **7 And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? 8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,
11 Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: **we have heard them speak in our own tongues **the wonderful works of God.
Acts 2:6-11
6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind,** because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. **7 And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? 8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,
11 Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: **we have heard them speak in our own tongues **the wonderful works of God.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Dear Walking home,
Please understand I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about the current movement of speaking in tongues. It kind of gives me the creeps.Perhaps most if not all is self-derived.
However, my antennas go up when I hear such carte blanche statements that Pax made.
Who am I to say that someone doesn’t really honestly have the gift today? Saying it is the work of satan? God can give the gift to anyone he chooses, and is not bound by anything.
PAx said " speaking in tongues is fake or demonic". That should be clarified more, because obviously, in Scripture, we see that God has given the gift and it can be of the Holy Spirit. That was my only point. I’m not trying to promote or push a current charismatic movement agenda here.
Please understand I am not necessarily disagreeing with you about the current movement of speaking in tongues. It kind of gives me the creeps.Perhaps most if not all is self-derived.
However, my antennas go up when I hear such carte blanche statements that Pax made.
Who am I to say that someone doesn’t really honestly have the gift today? Saying it is the work of satan? God can give the gift to anyone he chooses, and is not bound by anything.
PAx said " speaking in tongues is fake or demonic". That should be clarified more, because obviously, in Scripture, we see that God has given the gift and it can be of the Holy Spirit. That was my only point. I’m not trying to promote or push a current charismatic movement agenda here.
J
johnnydigit
Guest
i’m not a huge charismatic as far as they are known to “speak in tongues” or anything, but if you haven’t already, i would read some material before spreading such condemning opinions
Gift of Tongues
newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm
Charismata
newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The grace of tongues
newadvent.org/summa/3176.htm
i’m not going to defend abuses or the movement, but your conclusions may sound… uncharitable. obviously the abuses aren’t endorsed, but their central ideals and spirituality are promoted by the Church.
also, committing a few logical fallacies don’t present a strong argument for you either. all i’m suggesting is you learn some facts before presenting your opinions to others as it can be considered gossip and can lead people in the wrong direction, whether it is God’s will to lead them to it or away from it.
F
Fuerza
Guest
This is probably slightly off topic, but I found your post amusing because just before I read it I sat and watched a televangelist speak in tongues as he sold his “Miracle Manna from the Holy Land”.
To get back to the point though, I agree. I once attended a charismatic mass by accident, and even with the presence of my bishop, I had to ask and make sure that I was in a Catholic church.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
“Speaking in tongues” is a gift of the Holy Ghost. But what is speaking in tongues? Speaking in tongues is the gift that is described in Acts. It not only took place then, but has continued throughout the Church age.
What is this gift? The gift of tongues is a special gift that enabled the apostles, and others, to preach the Gospel to the entire world It was an necessary gift due to the number of languages the apostles would encounter. The gift of tongues is a gift that enables a person to speak their own language, while being understood by others in their language; or else when a person is given the ability to speak a foreign language they have never learned.
For example, Ven. Mary of Agreda bilocated to the Indians in east Texas. She, who did not know their language, instructed them in the faith using this gift. When the missionaries arrived, the Indians were fully instructed. She did not know their language, but was able to communicated with them using this gift of tongues.
If you read the book of Act, you will see that the apostles were not speaking unintelligible gibberish. It was just the opposite: They were speaking their own language, but were understood by others in their language. That is the gift of tongues.
But what about 1 Corinthians 14? I’ll let the Catholic encyclopedia answer for me:
L
latinmasslover
Guest
What do you mean by charismatic? Some would say that the Masses offerered by my previous confessor are charismatic (which they weren’t).
Please clarify.
J
johnnydigit
Guest
heh perhaps we should be more specific and not use the term “charismatic”, although that’s what they tend to describe such Masses, yet they also may or may not include a healing or prayer service.
“is it an abuse or violation to speak in the gibberish form of tongues during Mass?”
“is it an abuse or violation to have a healing service after Mass?”
“is it an abuse or violation to have a prayer service (praying over) after Mass?”
“is it an abuse or violation to speak in the gibberish form of tongues during Mass?”
“is it an abuse or violation to have a healing service after Mass?”
“is it an abuse or violation to have a prayer service (praying over) after Mass?”
F
Freshman88
Guest
They appear to be innovations that are based on some absurd idea that the primitive Church was somehow more pure, or more exemplary.
It doesn’t seem to be organic growth - it’s as if they are trying to say the sapling is stronger than the giant oak which it grew into.
Are they legitimate? sure they are - but I’m more concerned about the Church as it has been throughout the last two Millenia, not just 60 a.d. (if this is truly closer to the early church)
It doesn’t seem to be organic growth - it’s as if they are trying to say the sapling is stronger than the giant oak which it grew into.
Are they legitimate? sure they are - but I’m more concerned about the Church as it has been throughout the last two Millenia, not just 60 a.d. (if this is truly closer to the early church)
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
Well… first off liturgical abuses are part of our wounded nature. They can even happen in the extrarodinary rite. Such as celebrating low Mass in under 15 minutes, the priest murmuring sounds not even close to Latin on purpose, or having High Masses where the music is too ornate and long for the liturgy. Such as Bach’s Mass in B minor. (A beautiful peace of sacred music, I might add.) So it is not just to say that liturgical abuses are only found at Charismatic Masses.
With that said, I will note that every single Charismatic Mass I have been to has liturgical abuses. So I will say that I find the movement is more prone for “artistic liturgical liscenses,” aka, abuses.
Next, we look at sacred scripture and authentic early Christian writings and hear about the Charisms of the Holy Spirit. Others have pointed out these scripture passages. However, these Charisms were manifested inorder to aid the infant Church. The gift of tounges was so that the Apostles could teach all nations, not so they could praise God in a more intense manner. Once the Church was settled, there was no longer a need for God to manifests these gifts. This is what the Early Church Fathers say about this. The gift of healing was also able to aid the faith of the early disciples, who were pursecuted, and to help people convert. Once the Church was established, this gift also began to fade. It occasionally returns when it is needed.
So one has to ask themselves is this current movement in line with the historic one of the Church? My opinion is that it is not. What I do see is this movement has caused serious divisions in parishes that have started to embrace it. (Such as teenager not wanting to go to other Masses, because they’re “dull,” yet Jesus is appearing on the altar before them.) My biggest fear is that it will result in a large schism.
With that said, I will note that every single Charismatic Mass I have been to has liturgical abuses. So I will say that I find the movement is more prone for “artistic liturgical liscenses,” aka, abuses.
Next, we look at sacred scripture and authentic early Christian writings and hear about the Charisms of the Holy Spirit. Others have pointed out these scripture passages. However, these Charisms were manifested inorder to aid the infant Church. The gift of tounges was so that the Apostles could teach all nations, not so they could praise God in a more intense manner. Once the Church was settled, there was no longer a need for God to manifests these gifts. This is what the Early Church Fathers say about this. The gift of healing was also able to aid the faith of the early disciples, who were pursecuted, and to help people convert. Once the Church was established, this gift also began to fade. It occasionally returns when it is needed.
So one has to ask themselves is this current movement in line with the historic one of the Church? My opinion is that it is not. What I do see is this movement has caused serious divisions in parishes that have started to embrace it. (Such as teenager not wanting to go to other Masses, because they’re “dull,” yet Jesus is appearing on the altar before them.) My biggest fear is that it will result in a large schism.
- Status