Traditionalist and Charismatic

[gtrenewed]

gtrenewed wrote:

“Ectasy (sp?) (of which being slain in the Spirit is a subset) is a term to describe what happens when we encounter the Trinity in a profound, overwhelming manner.” /unquote

Could you please provide definitive Church teaching which shows that being slain in the spirit is a subset of ecstasy?

Quote:

“Those who have experienced ectasy (ecstasy) can easily tell from the writings. Those that have not will not.” /unquote

So you believe that only those who believe that they share these same experiences that the saints have are qualified to say what they are?

Quote:

“Everything comes by faith.” /unquote

And yet, gtrenewed, the Church teaches that there is something important that precedes faith, right?

More correctly, “But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1Cor 13:13 and “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him.” Heb 11:6

Let me ask you, is an atheist able to explain the conversion experience of a christian? Isn’t a christian the only one able to explain it? Certainly one that is against or doubtful of the experience are not qualified. Having said that, the majesterium led by the pope are ordained by God to rule on such things and have
validated such experiences and the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church.

There are many aspects of our faith that are not spelled out word for word. Scripture records that when Jesus spoke the guards fell down as dead men and St. John fell down as a dead man when Jesus appeared to Him. That is where the term comes from, slain - being dead and in the Spirit - encountering the Holy Spirit which is the same as encountering Jesus or the Father. The church acknowledges the Charismatic Renewal of which this is part.

 

[gtrenewed]

Well, I think that you have helped to confirm my idea about what the differences are (or may be) between Traditional Catholics and Charismatics. I won’t assume, though, that all Charismatics are so different than Traditionalists in this manner.

I’m not sure what you mean that I confirmed? Spell it out precisely what I confirmed for I think you are mistaken.

What is the difference between a franciscan and a traditionalist? or a Benedictine?

My point is that I use all of what you mentioned at the appropriate time but I also am in the Charismatic Renewal which is one way within the Catholic Church.

A Franciscan follows certain rules as does a Benedictine but we are all Catholic. You are incorrectly applying labels but what you think is normal way of being Catholic was different but the same in the first church - they prayed, they had mass, eucharist, the apostles teaching, sacraments, and the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[vardaquinn]

1. Yes, being slain in the spirit would fall under the category of supernatural consolations and extraordinary sensation experiences that most “mainstream” spiritual writers have defined. It’s just a form of ecstasy in which God acts upon the body as well as the soul for whatever His purpose. What do you want specifically by “church teaching”? It’s more Biblical than say… bilocation or levitation… How’s that? What does it really matter as far as you are concerned?
2. The first Pentecost was absolutely Charismatic. The first thing they did was the whole “babbling thing” (praying in tongues and extolling the mighty works of God). What I mean by charismatic especially is the use of “charismata”, which are defined by St. Paul in 12-14 Corinthians. They had the gifts of tongues, they went around healing people, praying over them. Being slain in the spirit is not a sign of being charismatic. I consider myself charismatic and I have never been slain in the Spirit. I know others who associate themselves closely with the Charismatic Renewal, and have not been slain in the spirit. The Charismatic Renewal is a revival of the emphasis and exercise of the charismatic gifts, in direct response of the Holy Spirit to Vatican II. But, if you want to be “traditional”, be charismatic. Technically speaking, the first action of the newly born Church was to speak in tongues.

I would also never, under any circumstances, surrender my will to a spirit. Who knows what might come in or what your own subconscious might throw up?

No offense, but… that’s kind of what the whole meaning of life is… to surrender your will to “a spirit” meaning God. And conforming with God’s will… That’s what Pentecost is all about. If you’re against this, well…

1. gtrenewed said: As for praying for these encounters, Scripture tells us to seek the Lord with all our being, spirit, soul, and body. Scripture tells us that if we seek we shall find. So we are seeking to encounter the Lord and sometimes it is so intense that we are in ectasy and sometimes we fall down.

Yes, but we don’t always receive such intense sensational experiences. Just look at the beautiful life of St. Therese. In fact, St. John Vianney pointed out that it is through spiritual aridity and dryness and lack of consolations (suffering) that we can really know that God loves us. The focus should be on Jesus. We can encounter His love and His grace without “feeling” any different. That’s something very great about being Catholic - we don’t have to have spiritual experience backed up by emotional or physical experience!

1. Most of the other charismatics I know are also “traditional” in that they follow traditional devotions of the Church. Most of them pray the Divine Office, as I do myself. They pray the Rosary everyday, they go to Eucharistic Adoration (of course), and otherwise participate fully in the traditional popular devotions among Western Spirituality. In my experience, charismatics tend more towards doing traditional devotions such as these. If this really is not the case, that’s unfortunate.
2. There shouldn’t be any conflict between being traditional and charismatic. The charisms and charismatic spirituality are extremely traditional, and to the point where “traditionalists” oppose this is really un-traditional. And it shows that it’s an extreme - all extremes are inherently contradictory, really. I think most traddies just glimpse some aspects of the Charismatic Renewal, and there’s a huge misunderstanding of what it really is - and the fault is on both sides. People are human, and make mistakes, and do stupid things. These two things are not opposing camps, and neither should they even be different legitimate styles of doing things. This will sound shocking, but I think it’s because people are confusing their terms.
3. Let’s define some terms, here. What do you mean by “traditional” and what do you mean by “charismatic”.

There’s too much misunderstanding going on, so let’s try and work this out rationally, ok?

 

[gtrenewed]

1. gtrenewed said: As for praying for these encounters, Scripture tells us to seek the Lord with all our being, spirit, soul, and body. Scripture tells us that if we seek we shall find. So we are seeking to encounter the Lord and sometimes it is so intense that we are in ectasy and sometimes we fall down.

Yes, but we don’t always receive such intense sensational experiences. Just look at the beautiful life of St. Therese. In fact, St. John Vianney pointed out that it is through spiritual aridity and dryness and lack of consolations (suffering) that we can really know that God loves us. The focus should be on Jesus. We can encounter His love and His grace without “feeling” any different. That’s something very great about being Catholic - we don’t have to have spiritual experience backed up by emotional or physical experience!

That is why I said - sometimes - ;

It is Scripture that tells us to seek the Lord with our whole being and if we seek in faith we shall find.

They would never have known aridity if they had not been overwhelmed at some point.

Our faith is a journey - sometimes on the mountaintop and sometimes in the valley.

You cannot deny the mountaintop experience nor the valley experience.

God is Spirit. We must worship Him in Spirit and Truth. That is being Catholic. That is having spiritual encounters that are felt; like receiving the Eucharist or participating in the liturgy. You should never limit or put God in a box.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ gtrenewed:

Ok, but God does not give such spiritual ecstasies like being slain in the spirit to everyone! In the end, you’re closer to God in the “valley experiences” if you persevere, then you are in the “mountain experiences”. Blessed are those who believe, but have not seen, right?

In fact, you shouldn’t limit God to sensational experiences like these. Not in any way to oppose them, but they aren’t the height of things. Yes, we are supposed to seek God with our whole being, but that doesn’t mean we’ll receive extraordinary sensational experiences like these. St. John of the Cross in particular warns us to be very wary of all sensational experiences, and not to seek them. Even to reject them, unless you are certain they are from God. Certainly I don’t think being slain in the spirit is demonic, but I do think that we shouldn’t give much focus or attention to being slain in the spirit. If it happens, great. But it’s certainly no sign of personal holiness.

 

[gtrenewed]

@ gtrenewed:

Ok, but God does not give such spiritual ecstasies like being slain in the spirit to everyone! In the end, you’re closer to God in the “valley experiences” if you persevere, then you are in the “mountain experiences”. Blessed are those who believe, but have not seen, right?

In fact, you shouldn’t limit God to sensational experiences like these. Not in any way to oppose them, but they aren’t the height of things. Yes, we are supposed to seek God with our whole being, but that doesn’t mean we’ll receive extraordinary sensational experiences like these. St. John of the Cross in particular warns us to be very wary of all sensational experiences, and not to seek them. Even to reject them, unless you are certain they are from God. Certainly I don’t think being slain in the spirit is demonic, but I do think that we shouldn’t give much focus or attention to being slain in the spirit. If it happens, great. But it’s certainly no sign of personal holiness.

You give and right away take. Have a nice piece of chocolate my child but first I am going to lecture on all the evils of chocolate. You have never tasted chocolate yourself but lecture anyone wanting chocolate all about the bad. Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God, we must believe that He is and that He is the rewarder of those that seek Him. You are right to question those that seem to exhibit the wrong behavior but not with a pre-disposed judgement. Remember your reaction to a situation may be wrong and they are not wrong. Love of the brethren should be our guiding standard.

What you are mistaken about is that it has to do with personal holiness - as if only the very good are rewarded by an encounter with the living God. In my experience, it is just the opposite so no one may boast. Scripture says the goodness of God leads to repentence. When Paul had his first encounter with Jesus was it due to his devotion to Jesus and clean living? It is not a reward, it is a calling by the will of God. An encounter is not always touchy-feely but can be a very strong rebuke.

Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is the deposit of our inheritance in the kingdom of God. It also says that if we ask Him for a fish, He will not give us a serpent. And if we have faith we can say to the mountain, be removed. After Jesus tells us what is available to us, He says to love Him by obeying His Words. This is very different from the old covenant where the rules comes first. Jesus healed and provided power first, then says now, follow me in love.

We can approach God focusing on our sin, on what we are not; or we can approach realizing that He has made a way to follow Him in spite of our sin with gifts. To me that is the difference between the two. However, in my experience also, a Charismatic Catholic will blend the traditional ways with the Charismatic way. Remember Paul taught the gifts first and then had to correct the way they were using them.

It is very difficult to feel worthy of what God gives us until we mature enough to realize that it is about the worthiness of Jesus and not our worthiness. We are given what we need when we ask for our good and the good of the brethren and the good of the world. That is the danger of trying emulate anothers Christian walk or to hold up one person and say this is the way to follow God. To say we should never seek and to reject the encounter with God I am certain is a warning taken out of context.

 

[vardaquinn]

You give and right away take. Have a nice piece of chocolate my child but first I am going to lecture on all the evils of chocolate. You have never tasted chocolate yourself but lecture anyone wanting chocolate all about the bad. Scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God, we must believe that He is and that He is the rewarder of those that seek Him. You are right to question those that seem to exhibit the wrong behavior but not with a pre-disposed judgement. Remember your reaction to a situation may be wrong and they are not wrong. Love of the brethren should be our guiding standard.

What you are mistaken about is that it has to do with personal holiness - as if only the very good are rewarded by an encounter with the living God. In my experience, it is just the opposite so no one may boast. Scripture says the goodness of God leads to repentence. When Paul had his first encounter with Jesus was it due to his devotion to Jesus and clean living? It is not a reward, it is a calling by the will of God. An encounter is not always touchy-feely but can be a very strong rebuke.

Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is the deposit of our inheritance in the kingdom of God. It also says that if we ask Him for a fish, He will not give us a serpent. And if we have faith we can say to the mountain, be removed. After Jesus tells us what is available to us, He says to love Him by obeying His Words. This is very different from the old covenant where the rules comes first. Jesus healed and provided power first, then says now, follow me in love.

We can approach God focusing on our sin, on what we are not; or we can approach realizing that He has made a way to follow Him in spite of our sin with gifts. To me that is the difference between the two. However, in my experience also, a Charismatic Catholic will blend the traditional ways with the Charismatic way. Remember Paul taught the gifts first and then had to correct the way they were using them.

It is very difficult to feel worthy of what God gives us until we mature enough to realize that it is about the worthiness of Jesus and not our worthiness. We are given what we need when we ask for our good and the good of the brethren and the good of the world. That is the danger of trying emulate anothers Christian walk or to hold up one person and say this is the way to follow God. To say we should never seek and to reject the encounter with God I am certain is a warning taken out of context.

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. Virtually everything you said, I agree with. Yes, God does give supernatural experiences like being slain in the spirit especially to people who need them most. I’m not complaining about being slain in the spirit - I have issue with the mentality that I see some people have (on both sides of this issue) confusing it with a spiritual charism. It is not, and it is not something you should seek or pray for.

 

[gtrenewed]

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. Virtually everything you said, I agree with. Yes, God does give supernatural experiences like being slain in the spirit especially to people who need them most. I’m not complaining about being slain in the spirit - I have issue with the mentality that I see some people have (on both sides of this issue) confusing it with a spiritual charism. It is not, and it is not something you should seek or pray for.

Yeah, I guess I did, sorry

However, I disagree that we should not pray for it. I agree that if it happens it happens. And if it doesn’t our faith is built in some other way.

In one way I can agree with you, if we are seeking just for a “spiritual high” then our motive is not right. But to seek a deep encounter with the Lord is like the sick wanting to encounter Jesus for healing. Praying for it out of faith, like the woman with the issue of blood, a deep healing can happen.

Many times it is the Holy Spirit prompting us to pray for it, since He knows what we need, and sometimes it just happens as someone lays hands upon us to pray, that is sometimes.

 

[InquisitorMax]

To whom do you surrender for God is Spirit. When you receive communion who do you think it is? When you pray, how do you know your prayer is going to God? I suspect because you believe the Gospel. Well, part of that Gospel are the nine gifts of the Spirit. …

Your reasoning is poor. The first sentence doesn’t make much sense. The second, yes I know Who it is. The third, I hope it is.

We are Christians, therefore, the Charismatic Renewal is OK?

Here’s a counter-proposition: That it’s a pretty big leap from the descent of the Holy Spirit in 33AD to the pentecostalism of the 20th Century, with nothing in between, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. That it’s questionable that the two phenomena are related at all, given the effects and the behaviour of those affected.

Here’s a starter question for 10 points:

Which of the following Masses are Catholic and which are Protestant?
youtube.com/results?search_query=charismatic+mass&aq=f

 

[vardaquinn]

Yeah, I guess I did, sorry

However, I disagree that we should not pray for it. I agree that if it happens it happens. And if it doesn’t our faith is built in some other way.

In one way I can agree with you, if we are seeking just for a “spiritual high” then our motive is not right. But to seek a deep encounter with the Lord is like the sick wanting to encounter Jesus for healing. Praying for it out of faith, like the woman with the issue of blood, a deep healing can happen.

Many times it is the Holy Spirit prompting us to pray for it, since He knows what we need, and sometimes it just happens as someone lays hands upon us to pray, that is sometimes.

Ok. But being slain in the spirit is an extraordinary way of encountering God - not the ordinary way. We should pray generally to have a deep encounter with God, and of course we will then - but not always in the way we think, like, or expect. We shouldn’t earnestly seek sensational experiences like that - but it is true, God often uses them for our good. I think we’ve got a general agreement though.

Your reasoning is poor. The first sentence doesn’t make much sense. The second, yes I know Who it is. The third, I hope it is.

The whole point of the spiritual life is surrender to God - who is a Spirit.

Here’s a counter-proposition: That it’s a pretty big leap from the descent of the Holy Spirit in 33AD to the pentecostalism of the 20th Century, with nothing in between, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. That it’s questionable that the two phenomena are related at all, given the effects and the behaviour of those affected.

Uh, read a book on Church history… If you’re saying what I assume your saying - that the charisms and actions of pentecostals and charismatics are unique to the early church and the 20th century, then yeah you really need to read a history book.

I mean… The Pentecostal way of doing things itself isn’t even really new… There were many heretical and orthodox groups running around throughout history doing stuff like this. Heretical groups, like the Quietists (unless I’m getting mixed up), and orthodox groups like the early Fransiscans and the Dominicans… Yes, with the whole babbling and slain in the spirit thing. Or read an account of the building of a cathedral! Miracles of healing happened all the time! Um, yeah, just read the life of St. Francis of Assisi, or St. Dominic, or St. Vincent Ferrer, or St. Catherine of Siena, or… pretty much you name it. The Church has always been, and always will be, charismatic. The Magisterium continues to affirm this, read the many quotes I have listed above.

Yeah, please I mean no offense, but really to suggest that the charismatic “phenomena” is something unique to the 20th century is totally ridiculous, and the Church itself would disagree.

How can you call The Catholic Charismatic renewal incompatible with Catholicism, when the Magisterium says otherwise? That’s a complete contradiction.

Which of the following Masses are Catholic and which are Protestant?
youtube.com/results?search_query=charismatic+mass&aq=f

Uh… all of the “Masses” are Catholic, and none of them are Protestant. Protestants don’t have Masses. Only Catholics do. From what I saw of those, they’re still valid Masses, even if they have liturgical abuse.

Anyway, why is it that anything from the Protestants is foreign to Catholicism? After all, anything good about their religions are derived from us! That’s not exactly a very ecumenical attitude, and we’re not going to get very far into bringing them back to the Church thinking like that.

 

[InquisitorMax]

There are non-Catholic masses:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29

If a Catholic Mass is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and a commemoration of the Last Supper of Christ on Earth, then hullaballo and dancing is entirely appropriate. Not.

The theatrics begin to overshadow the event. I suppose it’s an extension of ‘Have a mass anywhere’ which seemed to be popular in the 70’s/80’s: “We’d better jazz up our worship, otherwise a) People might apostasise and b) If we become more like Protestants, they might join us.”

Is it working, yet?

The only big conversion I recall is the Ordinariate by Pope Benedict. And that was of Protestants seeking greater rigour.

There have been, of course, saintly people who have had spiritual powers as a byproduct of their spiritual advancement. Charismatics look to me like they are deliberately seeking out phenomena. Which is spiritually dangerous.

Then there’s the 'I’d better ape the others" angle, which people do in any social group.

Also, if you read about bogus private revelations, you’ll find plenty of phenomena. It’s there if you want it. It’s just not, in itself, Godly.

 

[TrueLight]

Your reasoning is poor. The first sentence doesn’t make much sense. The second, yes I know Who it is. The third, I hope it is.

We are Christians, therefore, the Charismatic Renewal is OK?

Here’s a counter-proposition: That it’s a pretty big leap from the descent of the Holy Spirit in 33AD to the pentecostalism of the 20th Century, with nothing in between, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. That it’s questionable that the two phenomena are related at all, given the effects and the behaviour of those affected.

Here’s a starter question for 10 points:

Which of the following Masses are Catholic and which are Protestant?
youtube.com/results?search_query=charismatic+mass&aq=f

Clapping along and dancing to this one

Reminds me of my old non-denominational days. Protestant all the way.

sigh… nostalgia

I would feel right at home.

If one can do this kind of service, one can go to a charismatic Protestant service. And as I’ve said before, Protestants have been doing this type of service for longer and can do it better.

Easy way for a Catholic to be led away from the Church.

Want to be slain in the spirit? Eventually your youth will will end up in this Pentecostal youth camp. They do it better.

 

[vardaquinn]

There are non-Catholic masses:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29

If a Catholic Mass is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and a commemoration of the Last Supper of Christ on Earth, then hullaballo and dancing is entirely appropriate. Not.

The theatrics begin to overshadow the event. I suppose it’s an extension of ‘Have a mass anywhere’ which seemed to be popular in the 70’s/80’s: “We’d better jazz up our worship, otherwise a) People might apostasise and b) If we become more like Protestants, they might join us.”

Is it working, yet?

The only big conversion I recall is the Ordinariate by Pope Benedict. And that was of Protestants seeking greater rigour.

There have been, of course, saintly people who have had spiritual powers as a byproduct of their spiritual advancement. Charismatics look to me like they are deliberately seeking out phenomena. Which is spiritually dangerous.

Then there’s the 'I’d better ape the others" angle, which people do in any social group.

Also, if you read about bogus private revelations, you’ll find plenty of phenomena. It’s there if you want it. It’s just not, in itself, Godly.

Sure, I totally agree - the dancing and hullaballo is entirely inappropriate.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t work that way though. He doesn’t say “impress me” and then give out spiritual gifts to people. They’re GIFTS. They’re not earned. These aren’t for just really really holy people. Because they’re not awards, they’re tools! They help you - and more particularly, the people around you, become holier. Charismatics do deliberately seek out the charismatic gifts, AS WE’RE SUPPOSED TO. St. Paul says earnestly seek the greatest spiritual gifts, especially that you might prophesy! Of course this is spiritually dangerous to a certain extent. The whole thing is spiritually dangerous! Whatever you do, the devil is going to use everything you’ve got against you. And in fact, the holier you become, the harder he’s going to work.

As Bl. John Paul II affirms in his book “Sources of Renewal The Implementation of Vatican II”: *The epistles of St. Paul, among other sources, tell us of charisms in the early Church. Vatican II recalls this teaching of the Apostle and applies it to the Church’s daily life. In the people of God, both the hierarchy and the laity share in charismatic gifts that enable them to perform ‘different works and offices’ for the good of mankind and of all Christians.
*

This is one of the huge important aspects of Vatican II, particularly with its emphasis on the universal call to holiness. We’re all supposed to be saints, and become spiritually advanced.

The thing is, you’re confusing two different things - extraordinary phenomena (like being slain in the spirit, levitation, visions etc.) and spiritual charisms (tongues, prophecy, healing, words of wisdom and knowledge, faith, miracles, etc.). We’re supposed to seek out and exercise the charisms for the upbuilding of the Church. Which desperately needs it.

The Church has acclaimed that this is a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit, and it is a huge chance for the Church. This is a very powerful weapon in the hands of the Church, especially in regards to the new evangelization. The charismatic movement will only serve its purpose when the whole Church is once again charismatic, “pentecostal” (in the real sense of the word). If this is not compatible with a traditionalist outlook (which it really is), then hang traditionalism because traditionalism is not compatible with the Catholic Church. We’re at war, and the Church has enough problems as it is without it being complicated by such horrible disunity.

This is not a question of personal style or preference or taste.

 

[Denise1957]

There are non-Catholic masses:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29

If a Catholic Mass is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and a commemoration of the Last Supper of Christ on Earth, then hullaballo and dancing is entirely appropriate. Not.

The theatrics begin to overshadow the event. I suppose it’s an extension of ‘Have a mass anywhere’ which seemed to be popular in the 70’s/80’s: “We’d better jazz up our worship, otherwise a) People might apostasise and b) If we become more like Protestants, they might join us.”

Is it working, yet?

The only big conversion I recall is the Ordinariate by Pope Benedict. And that was of Protestants seeking greater rigour.

There have been, of course, saintly people who have had spiritual powers as a byproduct of their spiritual advancement. Charismatics look to me like they are deliberately seeking out phenomena. Which is spiritually dangerous.

Then there’s the 'I’d better ape the others" angle, which people do in any social group.

Also, if you read about bogus private revelations, you’ll find plenty of phenomena. It’s there if you want it. It’s just not, in itself, Godly.

I agree that saintly people experienced powers as a by-product and that they did not deliberately seek out phenomena. The seeking out of phenomena is indeed spiritually dangerous. It’s the craving of phenomena or spiritual experiences that the Gnostics also seek out, though of course I do not accuse Charismatics of being Gnostic, though both groups do share this one aspect.

It’s interesting, too, that Charismatics will continually point out that Bl. Pope John Paul ll gave his support to Charismaticism. But this does not, I don’t think anyway, compel us, as Catholics, to support it as well. I don’t doubt this pope’s personal holiness, but he wasn’t perfect. He seemed to think the best of everyone and everything, and there was sometimes a lack of prudence in his judgement.

 

[vardaquinn]

I agree that saintly people experienced powers as a by-product and that they did not deliberately seek out phenomena. The seeking out of phenomena is indeed spiritually dangerous. It’s the craving of phenomena or spiritual experiences that the Gnostics also seek out, though of course I do not accuse Charismatics of being Gnostic, though both groups do share this one aspect.

Once again, you misunderstand the distinction between extraordinary phenomena and spiritual charisms. And indeed, we’re all supposed to be saintly people.

That Bl. Pope John Paul ll gave his support to Charismaticism does not, I don’t think anyway, compel us, as Catholics, to support it as well. I don’t doubt this pope’s personal holiness, but he wasn’t perfect. He seemed to think the best of everyone and everything, and there was sometimes a lack of prudence in his judgement.

A lot of traddies think that. Like when he kissed the Koran, and his respect for Islam. He’s the sort of fellow who is so balanced and in the middle, that both the left and the right characterize him as being either too “left” or too “right”.

The current Pope also supports “Charismaticism”, as did Pope Paul VI, and…

Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa - the Pope’s hand-picked personal homilist​

Peter Kreeft - Master apologist and popular Catholic author​

Scott Hahn - One of the most influential Catholics today​

Mother Angelica - The strongest presence on Catholic cable (EWTN)​

Fr. Benedict Groeschel - The second strongest presence on Catholic cable (EWTN)​

Ralph Martin, Fr. Francis Martin, Fr. John Bertolucci, Sr. Ann Shields, Fr. George Martin, Karl Keating, Fr. Michael Scanlan, Fr. Larry Richards, Fr. John Riccardo—heavy-hitters.​

Fr. Thomas Green - A famous spiritual director​

Pretty much if you dig around you’ll find many of the vibrant leaders of the Catholic Church today are charismatic.

More than John Paul II simply approving “charismaticism”, he himself was charismatic. He affirmed many times that this renewal in the spirit has always been a part of his own spirituality, and he is very familiar with those gifts that are experienced among charismatics.

Read what he says: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980530_riflessioni_en.html

John Paul II even established an office at the Vatican, ICCRS (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services).

 

[vardaquinn]

In fact, why don’t you read what the United States Bishops have to say about it? catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/nonattributed/US_Bishops_001.html

You know, I think I’m just going to stick with what the Magisterium says…

 

[Denise1957]

Once again, you misunderstand the distinction between extraordinary phenomena and spiritual charisms. And indeed, we’re all supposed to be saintly people.

A lot of traddies think that. Like when he kissed the Koran, and his respect for Islam. He’s the sort of fellow who is so balanced and in the middle, that both the left and the right characterize him as being either too “left” or too “right”.

The current Pope also supports “Charismaticism”, as did Pope Paul VI, and…

Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa - the Pope’s hand-picked personal homilist​

Peter Kreeft - Master apologist and popular Catholic author​

Scott Hahn - One of the most influential Catholics today​

Mother Angelica - The strongest presence on Catholic cable (EWTN)​

Fr. Benedict Groeschel - The second strongest presence on Catholic cable (EWTN)​

Ralph Martin, Fr. Francis Martin, Fr. John Bertolucci, Sr. Ann Shields, Fr. George Martin, Karl Keating, Fr. Michael Scanlan, Fr. Larry Richards, Fr. John Riccardo—heavy-hitters.​

Fr. Thomas Green - A famous spiritual director​

Pretty much if you dig around you’ll find many of the vibrant leaders of the Catholic Church today are charismatic.

More than John Paul II simply approving “charismaticism”, he himself was charismatic. He affirmed many times that this renewal in the spirit has always been a part of his own spirituality, and he is very familiar with those gifts that are experienced among charismatics.

Read what he says: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980530_riflessioni_en.html

John Paul II even established an office at the Vatican, ICCRS (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services).

I don’t see anything in the vatican document that shows that Bl. Pope John Paul ll was a Charismatic. I already know that he gave his support to this movement. I also don’t doubt that there are a few ‘vibrant’ Catholics who consider themselves leaders. Fine. I still do not support Charismaticism, and never will. There isn’t anything ‘Traditional’ about Charismaticism, no matter how hard you and others to try to persuade traditionalists that it is traditional. It is not, and never will be.

 

[graceandglory]

Pax et bonum!
What is the relationship between Traditionalism and Charismatic Renewal-ism?

My take:

Traditionalism: “I want all that the liturgy has to offer.”

Charismatic: “I want all the the Spirit has to offer (in accordance with Scripture and Tradition)”

I don’t see how it needs to be a one or the other thing.
Liturgy is for the Mass.
Charismatic “stuff” is for a different place.

One can be both; but there’s a time and place for things do be done properly. I Corinthians 14

 

[vardaquinn]

I don’t see anything in the vatican document that shows that Bl. Pope John Paul ll was a Charismatic. I already know that he gave his support to this movement. I also don’t doubt that there are a few ‘vibrant’ Catholics who consider themselves leaders. Fine. I still do not support Charismaticism, and never will. There isn’t anything ‘Traditional’ about Charismaticism, no matter how hard you and others to try to persuade traditionalists that it is traditional. It is not, and never will be.

You can read accounts of meetings between Ralph Martin and John Paul II in “Hungry for God”, in which he prayed in tongues with Ralph Martin and other charismatics, and claimed that he prayed in tongues regularly.

That document says this:

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

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

The issue is a matter of definitions - you think being charismatic is limited to liturgical abuses and Mass and being slain in the spirit and babbling. Which is not at all what it is, only the very fringes of it.

We know that the very first Catholics were charismatic: meaning, they received and used the extraordinary charisms, and lived out a full surrender to the Holy Spirit. And yes, they all prayed in tongues (at least as is implied from Scripture). So therefore, to make the charisms in Corinthians a part of your life, and to experience Pentecost in your daily life, is very traditional - as traditional as it gets. As Pope Benedict XVI says: "What the New Testament describes, with reference to the charisms, as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit is no longer merely an ancient, past history: this history is becoming a burning reality today. " (in the Ratzinger Report). That smells strongly of reviving ancient traditions… Read this, amazon.com/gp/product/0814650090/sr=8-2/qid=1306772239/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1306772239&sr=8-2&seller= which explores the ancient Rites of Christian Initiation, which were very charismatic.

If by traditional, you just want things to get back to the way they were earlier, before the craziness after Vatican II and you oppose “charismaticism” - you’re not at all traditional, but really very much of a “modernist”, seeking the way things were done in modern times (like in the 40s). So then you’re not a traditionalist at all. And if that’s what you mean as traditionalism, well then you’re right - there’s not really very much that “traditional” (or “modern”, really) about the charismatic movement.

But them, if I can’t convince you that you’d be more traditional if you were charismatic, well…

@ graceandglory: Thank you very much, well put.

 

[Denise1957]

My take:

Traditionalism: “I want all that the liturgy has to offer.”

Charismatic: “I want all the the Spirit has to offer (in accordance with Scripture and Tradition)”

I don’t see how it needs to be a one or the other thing.
Liturgy is for the Mass.
Charismatic “stuff” is for a different place.

One can be both; but there’s a time and place for things do be done properly. I Corinthians 14

"Traditional’ Catholics attend the Latin Mass. There is nothing in the Latin Mass which supports or encourages the Charismatic movement. Traditional fraternities of priests do not support Charismaticism. You may find an exception to this if you dig long enough. And if it’s one thing that Charismatics are good at, it’s trying to dig and dig to find proof to justify their arguements. We traditionalists, on the other hand, have many centuries of proof that to show the good fruit of traditionalism. Most of the canonized saints on the calendar were nurtured by the Latin Mass. How many who have been leaders in the Charismatic movement are canonized saints?