Traditionalist and Charismatic

[beng]

@ beng: I found a number of things that Fr. William Most was confusing. First, the difference between spiritual extraordinary graces and consolations, and the charismatic gifts. They are separate.

Fr Most is working from the traditional understanding.You can see some of them on Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (tho Ott uses Latin).

Consolation is not in the category of grace. Consolation is a period where a person is filled with joy. It’s akin to the Honey-moon period for the newly-wed. The opposite is desolation, which akin to “seven years itch” for a married couple.

Charismatic gifts are of two kind, the ordinary and extraordinary. The example of ordinary gifts is teaching (found in the like of St. Thomas, St. Augustine or even Fr. Garigou Langrange), singing (preferably at Church), counseling etc. The extraordinary are the miraculous ones such as healing, tongues, work of miracles.

Scripture tells us to seek these charismatic gifts (read Corinthians), since the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone.Paul wishes everyone to speak in tongues, and to strive eagerly to prophesy.

Because they’re still babes (1Cor 3:1-4)

LG does not say we should not seek these, only that they do not be rashly demanded.

It’s interesting that the word “rash” is not on the official english translation from Vatican site:

Lumen Gentium

1. … Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.
   We need to go to the official Latin. And I’m no Latin expert.

Second, he misunderstands the distinctions St. Paul is making between different sorts of tongues. In the early church, there were some members that would preach a message to the congregation in tongues, and someone would interpret. That’s a specific role that someone would have in the Body, as he’s talking about roles. Obviously interpretation is needed here.

According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Tongues there two kinds of tongues. The one at Pentacost and the one at Corinth. he first is the “superior” kind since people of diverse lingua franca automatically understand what was said. The second is the “inferior” kind because it needs interpretation.

Now, 1Cor 14:27-28 specifically sets some ground rules for tongues session: 1) max number for tongues speakers is three, 2) the speakers must speak in turn (meaning, not simultaneously), 3) if there to be audible tongues session, then there must be interpreter. If there’s no interpreter then those who wish to speak tongues must do it silently.

These scriptural rules are frequently ignored by charismatics.

Third, I’ve really seen charismatics leading the way in Marian devotion. He has many valid objections, all the same.

Yes, even Garabandal and Medjugorge lead to Marian devotion.

I’ve seen many priests defend the work, and I know it’s of great controversy. But here’s St. John Chrysostom:

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.

And St. Justin Martyr:

“If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” - Justin Martyr

Fr. Most was answering Fr. McDonnel’s claim that tongues were routine, not that there wasn’t any tongues in the patristic era.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ beng:

Consolation is not in the category of grace. Consolation is a period where a person is filled with joy. It’s akin to the Honey-moon period for the newly-wed. The opposite is desolation, which akin to “seven years itch” for a married couple.

I was under the impression that a “consolation” was when you were given the opportunity to either “feel” especially the love of God, and have a unique sort of encounter with God, or ecstasies, or visions, locutions, etc. If consolation is a period where a person is filled with joy, then we should always be in a state of consolation. The initial “honey-moon” period isn’t supposed to die off. But God often gives special consolations during that period to draw the soul closer to Him. At least, this seems to be evident in the teaching of St. Alphonsus Ligouri. A desolation is when you do not feel that God is there, do not experience Him in prayer, and generally is a time of spiritual dryness - for instance, a time of cleansing called the “dark night”.

Charismatic gifts are of two kind, the ordinary and extraordinary. The example of ordinary gifts is teaching (found in the like of St. Thomas, St. Augustine or even Fr. Garigou Langrange), singing (preferably at Church), counseling etc. The extraordinary are the miraculous ones such as healing, tongues, work of miracles.

There are a distinction between vocational charismatic gifts (outlined in Romans) such as the charism of being a teacher, pastor, prophet, etc.

Then there are the charismatic gifts outlined in Corinthians, which are given in different measures TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. Some are more extraordinary - like miracles and healing and arguably tongues. I believe there was a debate at the Second Vatican Council about whether tongues or prophecy should be considered extraordinary, since they seemed that they were so commonplace when they were around. This in and of itself is extraordinary, since none of the bishops really debating this had even experienced these things!

St. Paul says that " to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good". The use of the word “manifestation” is important. The Greek term: ἡ φανέρωσις, has the sense of disclosure, announcement. Some authors have a particularly vivid description, noting that the Greek word “suggests a kind of brilliant epiphany, like the sparkling reflection of a crystal ball as it rotates in the light.” St. Paul has chosen a word here in 12:7 which entails a work of the Spirit that should not be considered as only a private or interior work. Rather, it is a work that is publicly manifested through the subsequently enumerated gifts. These gifts have a visible or empirical dimension to them. I would tell you more, but I don’t know Greek. Paul apparently uses such a sense of finality in this, meaning to EACH and EVERY one is given the manifestation of the Spirit - i.e. those charisms he mentioned in the last sentences.

Because they’re still babes (1Cor 3:1-4)

Even so, he tells them to strive to prophesy (1Cor 14:1) and that he would like everyone to speak in tongues but above all to prophesy (1Cor 14:5.) Perhaps because we are all “babes”. This is an interesting theme I have thought on for some time. Remember, we are supposed to be as children or else we shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Remember, out of the mouths of babes God has found perfect praise!

It’s interesting that the word “rash” is not on the official english translation from Vatican site:

I know, I went back and re-translated it. I’ve already posted it above a few times, and I will post it again in the next post, since this is already very long.

According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Tongues there two kinds of tongues. The one at Pentacost and the one at Corinth. he first is the “superior” kind since people of diverse lingua franca automatically understand what was said. The second is the “inferior” kind because it needs interpretation.

Now, 1Cor 14:27-28 specifically sets some ground rules for tongues session: 1) max number for tongues speakers is three, 2) the speakers must speak in turn (meaning, not simultaneously), 3) if there to be audible tongues session, then there must be interpreter. If there’s no interpreter then those who wish to speak tongues must do it silently.

These scriptural rules are frequently ignored by charismatics.

What Paul is referring to is giving a message to the assembly in tongues. This will happen sometimes at charismatic prayer meetings, when a person proclaims something in tongues to the assembly, and another person there interprets it. This is shown because he talks about it being used to instruct others. The Corinthians were abusing this, and Paul is correcting it. This abuse indeed may be found among charismatics. Paul is referring also when he asks “do all speak in tongues?” to that specific role of instructing the people in a tongue. And someone else would have another role of interpreting.

Fr. Most was answering Fr. McDonnel’s claim that tongues were routine, not that there wasn’t any tongues in the patristic era.

Yes, but from many quotes I have seen, for instance from St. Justin Martyr, is that tongues seem to be routine. In slightly later writings of the Fathers (for instance Augustine), they question why people no longer proclaim in tongues when they are baptized or confirmed, which would indicate that previously it was commonplace. I think there are a number of explanations for why this might be, especially complicated historical reasons, ultimately of course it was the will of the Holy Spirit. The fact is that it is once more becoming commonplace. Perhaps my previous comments about spiritual childhood may be of use to wondering why.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ beng:

I went into the original Latin, which reads: Dona autem extraordinaria non sunt temere expetenda www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2lumlat.htm

That word temere is an adverb, and it means “by chance, randomly, without cause, rashly, thoughtlessly”. This is totally dropped from English translation.

So what is this really saying?

Dona = “gifts”, neuter second declension noun, accusative plural.

autem = “but, on the other hand, however”.

extraordinaria = “extraordinary” adjective, modifying “dona”

non sunt = are not

temere = “rashly, thoughtlessly, without cause” adverb

expetenda = “demand, ask for, exact (as a penalty)” third conjugation verb, and it’s a gerund, going with “dona” again.

Alright, so this reads something more like “Extraordinary gifts, however, are not to be rashly demanded.”

Rashly demanded, as a penalty. That would denote something like “I deserve to have this extraordinary gift, and so I demand it!” and rashly seeking it for the sake of power. This may indeed be a mistake made by many charismatics, but I hope it is a mistake I have not made.

 

[gtrenewed]

Originally Posted by Denise1957 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*I’ll stop picking on Charismatics when they stop trying to show that Charismaticism is somehow traditional, or can be reconciled with the Latin Mass and the traditional sacraments. Don’t the Charismatics have a subforum of their own? If not then they should start thier own and leave traditionalists alone. I would have no interest in going to a Charismatic subforum and bothering them. *

Even though Charismatics cannot be reasoned with (which goes with the territory of speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, etc.), I’ll not stop trying to point out that Charismaticism is not traditional. It is a novelty.** Even if popes have given their personal support to it, it’s still a novelty based on Protestantism****.

Denise you never answered my question on how you can call the Charismatic Renewal a novelty when the Pope and others in Catholic leadership do not.

Here is how I look at this debate as a cradle Catholic who lived prior to VatII found Christ in the Charismatic Renewal and found order in finally understanding the Church:

Traditionalism is a spiritual discipline that promotes a return to the Latin and church life prior to VatII.
Charismatic Renewal is a spiritual discipline that promotes a return to the outward manifestations of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in the Body, by lay and clergy.
The Rule of St. Francis is a spiritual discipline.
The Rule of St. Benedict is a spiritual discipline.

The Charismatic Renewal is not Traditionalism just as Franciscan is not Benedictine. All are traditional, though, since they are approved by the Vatican. All can have excesses because people are involved. All have the mass, and the sacraments as foundational worship.

One can be Charismatic and desire the discplines espoused in Traditionalism or Franciscan or Benedictine, just as a traditionalist can. However, the Renewal does not have the same path to Catholic spiritual goals as Traditionalism.

A lot of the debate here is talking past one another but in doing so there are accusations being painted with a broad brush and some are scandalous such as your comment above that I highlighted.

I am looking for understanding. I interpret your posts as someone who distancing your background in protestant pentacostalism and perhaps some bad baggage that came with it by attacking Catholic Charismatics because of some similarity.

I have been in all three, the Latin, Protestant Pentecostalism, and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I have found my Catholic spirituality in the disciplines that the CCR espouse. I could not understand Christ in the Latin. This does not mean that I don’t use some of the prayers etc now that I do understand (as humanly possible) Christ.

We should intensely seek Jesus, open to all the Holy Spirit wants to give us and never accuse part of the Catholic Body as a protestant novelty when those that Christ has approved as leaders approve of it.

 

[Denise1957]

I intended not to post to this thread again, but can’t resist posting a link to this two-minute video of one of Pentacostalism’s finest…Mr. Benny Hinn. Granted, it’s a little extreme. I don’t normally care for heavy metal rock, but it somehow works well with this video.

I think I’ll stick with the Latin Mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI&feature=related

 

[vardaquinn]

@ Denise: this is NOT what the Charismatic Renewal is.

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, let me see, the CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches:“when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, i.e., bathe or burn.

Pope Palagius II ( A,D, 578-590) “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… if slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.”

                                                            Denzinger 246-247

That means, that if you are a formal heretic, and you give your life for Christ, you don’t get a crown.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great ( A.D. 590-604 ) : " Now the Holy Church proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."

Only those joined to the Roman Catholic church offer acceptable worship to Christ. I think this eliminates any other “Christian groups.”

Pope Boniface VIII ( A.D. 1302 ) " There is only one Catholic Church; this we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. For at the time of the Deluge there existed only one Ark, the figure of the one Church. And all things outside this Ark perished."
" Unam Sanctum" Denzinger 468

Pope Leo XIII ( A.D.1878-1903 ) " This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."
Encyclical “Annum Ingressi Sumus”

Pope Pius XI ( A.D. 1922-1939 ) " The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation…Futhermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept , recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitmate successors."
Encyclical " Mortalium Animos "

Notice that Unam Sanctum, Annum Ingressi Sumus, and Mortalium Animos are all part of the ordinary magisterium! THat is, they are official Church documents that authentically teach Catholic faith and morals.

If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with the church. THese kinds of statements are endless, and to deny their plain meaning is to go against the church, not just my interpretation, but what the CHURCH HAS TAUGHT.

Why search in the byways of darkness for a light that the Church of Christ ALONE possesses?

Rev. 22:14-16 : “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”

Looks like the baptized are those alone who are given a right to the city (The Church) and the tree of life (The Cross-Eucharist). Jesus is the one speaking here, tell him to not be so intolerant!

 

[Melchior_1]

I intended not to post to this thread again, but can’t resist posting a link to this two-minute video of one of Pentacostalism’s finest…Mr. Benny Hinn. Granted, it’s a little extreme. I don’t normally care for heavy metal rock, but it somehow works well with this video.

I think I’ll stick with the Latin Mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI&feature=related

You’ve completely ignored everyone’s post in order to find one Protestant minister. That would be like me ignoring your posts and finding someone from the SSPV and saying “see those traditionalists are up to no good!”.

 

[Gregory_I]

You’ve completely ignored everyone’s post in order to find one Protestant minister. That would be like me ignoring your posts and finding someone from the SSPV and saying “see those traditionalists are up to no good!”.

THe point is, the general attitude of Charismatics is restorational, they act like they have brought back something the church has lost.

Sorry, I view the church as entirely whole and complete in herself: Every restorationist movement has been heretical: JW’s, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Calvinism, etc.

Makes me distrust Charismatics.

 

[gtrenewed]

THe point is, the general attitude of Charismatics is restorational, they act like they have brought back something the church has lost.

Sorry, I view the church as entirely whole and complete in herself: Every restorationist movement has been heretical: JW’s, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Calvinism, etc.

Makes me distrust Charismatics.

You’ve got to be kidding

You seriously think the Vatican would approve heresy :tsktsk: That thought makes you more protestant than all those you mentioned.

The church is whole and the gifts of the Holy Spirit never left.

There is a great difference between renewal and restorationist. Just as there is between individuals in error and the whole renewal being in error.

You should be sorry for that is a sorry position.

 

[Gregory_I]

I never said it was heresy. The church cannot teach heresy. I just distrust whole groups of Catholics who think that liberal theology is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are some traditionalists who fall into that camp as well though. Not every Charismatic is a liberal.

But what, at its root, is the foundational NEED for such a movement to exist? What does it imply about the church? The church needs no renewal. Individuals do, but not the church. She is ever ancient, yet ever new in her self.

 

[gtrenewed]

I never said it was heresy. The church cannot teach heresy. I just distrust whole groups of Catholics who think that liberal theology is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are some traditionalists who fall into that camp as well though. Not every Charismatic is a liberal.

But what, at its root, is the foundational NEED for such a movement to exist? What does it imply about the church? The church needs no renewal. Individuals do, but not the church. She is ever ancient, yet ever new in her self.

Without people there is no church. The outpouring was answered prayer by several popes asking for a second pentecost to battle this modern world.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit Himself are foundational, the Renewal just promotes faith to believe in the manifestations of the gifts.

 

[beng]

@ beng:
I was under the impression that a “consolation” was when you were given the opportunity to either “feel” especially the love of God, and have a unique sort of encounter with God, or ecstasies, or visions, locutions, etc. If consolation is a period where a person is filled with joy, then we should always be in a state of consolation. The initial “honey-moon” period isn’t supposed to die off. But God often gives special consolations during that period to draw the soul closer to Him. At least, this seems to be evident in the teaching of St. Alphonsus Ligouri. A desolation is when you do not feel that God is there, do not experience Him in prayer, and generally is a time of spiritual dryness - for instance, a time of cleansing called the “dark night”.

Yes, that’s what I meant (about the consolation). But I disagree that consolation does not die off. In fact, to reach spiritual maturity it would die off and replaced by desolation (see [Purgative, Illuminative, Unitive]). It’s inline with Christ’s passion.

There are those who strife to be in the perpetual state of consolation. Msgr. Ronald Knox talked about this on his book Emotionalism (which I own but haven’t read at all). Protestant are prone to this, especially the Pentacostal type. And since Protestant Pentacostalism is the trigger to Catholic Charismaticism, Catholic Charismaticism shares this tendency.

Now, I’m not suggesting that we strife to be in the state of desolation. Not at all. Since even the saints who were in this period pray fervently for consolation. It’s just that desolation is a natural process in spiritual growth and we should not try to avoid it.

There are a distinction between vocational charismatic gifts (outlined in Romans) such as the charism of being a teacher, pastor, prophet, etc.

Then there are the charismatic gifts outlined in Corinthians, which are given in different measures TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. Some are more extraordinary - like miracles and healing and arguably tongues. I believe there was a debate at the Second Vatican Council about whether tongues or prophecy should be considered extraordinary, since they seemed that they were so commonplace when they were around. This in and of itself is extraordinary, since none of the bishops really debating this had even experienced these things!

I believe that most, if not all, tongues in modern time are fake (especially since they transgress 1Cor 14:27-28). I have the same opinion as St. Gregory Nazianzus that in the course of time extraordinary gifts decreases. Such decrease shows that we’ve become mature in faith, we’re not babes anymore. But I also do not think that extraordinary gifts perishes (the cessationist theory).

St. Paul says that " to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good". The use of the word “manifestation” is important. The Greek term: ἡ φανέρωσις, has the sense of disclosure, announcement. Some authors have a particularly vivid description, noting that the Greek word “suggests a kind of brilliant epiphany, like the sparkling reflection of a crystal ball as it rotates in the light.” St. Paul has chosen a word here in 12:7 which entails a work of the Spirit that should not be considered as only a private or interior work. Rather, it is a work that is publicly manifested through the subsequently enumerated gifts. These gifts have a visible or empirical dimension to them. I would tell you more, but I don’t know Greek. Paul apparently uses such a sense of finality in this, meaning to EACH and EVERY one is given the manifestation of the Spirit - i.e. those charisms he mentioned in the last sentences.

I think that is overstretching the word.

IMO it’s a Protestant-ish exegesis. How’s so? Because it’s inline with their theology that one can know that one are surely saved through certain signs. One of them is “good works.” They teach that good works are the sign that one has saving faith (which saved). Pentecostal developed this doctrine even further by saying that tongues are sign/manifestation that one is baptized by spirit (this goes back to John Wesley’s “sanctification” doctrine [Pentacostalism is an offshoot of Wesley’s Methodism]). The need for some extraordinary vindication of sanctity is great in Protestantism.

Yet gifts like wisdom and knowledge are hardly visible and they are more of an interior kind (as oppose to exterior).

Even so, he tells them to strive to prophesy (1Cor 14:1) and that he would like everyone to speak in tongues but above all to prophesy (1Cor 14:5.) Perhaps because we are all “babes”. This is an interesting theme I have thought on for some time. Remember, we are supposed to be as children or else we shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Remember, out of the mouths of babes God has found perfect praise!

Surely St. Paul doesn’t teach us to be forever babes, never to have solid food but always have milk.

What Paul is referring to is giving a message to the assembly in tongues. This will happen sometimes at charismatic prayer meetings, when a person proclaims something in tongues to the assembly, and another person there interprets it. This is shown because he talks about it being used to instruct others. The Corinthians were abusing this, and Paul is correcting it. This abuse indeed may be found among charismatics. Paul is referring also when he asks “do all speak in tongues?” to that specific role of instructing the people in a tongue. And someone else would have another role of interpreting.

The regulation for tongue,as laid down by St. Paul, is for whenever believers meet and decide to speak tongues if we follow scriptural text (1Cor 14:23).

Continue below

 

[beng]

continue from above

Yes, but from many quotes I have seen, for instance from St. Justin Martyr, is that tongues seem to be routine. In slightly later writings of the Fathers (for instance Augustine), they question why people no longer proclaim in tongues when they are baptized or confirmed, which would indicate that previously it was commonplace. I think there are a number of explanations for why this might be, especially complicated historical reasons, ultimately of course it was the will of the Holy Spirit. The fact is that it is once more becoming commonplace. Perhaps my previous comments about spiritual childhood may be of use to wondering why.

I can’t comment on that. I have no reference to the particular passages unlike Fr. Most who studied them.

@ beng:

I went into the original Latin, which reads: Dona autem extraordinaria non sunt temere expetenda www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v2lumlat.htm

That word temere is an adverb, and it means “by chance, randomly, without cause, rashly, thoughtlessly”. This is totally dropped from English translation.

So what is this really saying?

Dona = “gifts”, neuter second declension noun, accusative plural.

autem = “but, on the other hand, however”.

extraordinaria = “extraordinary” adjective, modifying “dona”

non sunt = are not

temere = “rashly, thoughtlessly, without cause” adverb

expetenda = “demand, ask for, exact (as a penalty)” third conjugation verb, and it’s a gerund, going with “dona” again.

Alright, so this reads something more like “Extraordinary gifts, however, are not to be rashly demanded.”

Rashly demanded, as a penalty. That would denote something like “I deserve to have this extraordinary gift, and so I demand it!” and rashly seeking it for the sake of power. This may indeed be a mistake made by many charismatics, but I hope it is a mistake I have not made.

I agree. we’re suppose to be open to the gifts. Just like how married couple are open to procreation when they have sex (they do not have to strife to have children every time they have sex).

As for myself, I don’t really desire, seek gratiae gratis datae . But I’m open to them.

I desire, seek and strife zealously for gratiae gratum facientes.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Gifts of miracles

The gift of miracles is one of those mentioned by St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (xii, 9, 10), among the extraordinary graces of the Holy Ghost. These have to be distinguished from the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost enumerated by the Prophet Isaias (xi, 2 sq.) and from the fruits of the Spirit given by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (v, 22). The seven gifts and the twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost are always infused with sanctifying grace into the souls of the just. They belong to ordinary sanctity and are within the reach of every Christian. The gifts mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinthians are not necessarily connected with sanctity of life. They are special and extraordinary powers vouchsafed by God only to a few, and primarily for the spiritual good of others rather than of the recipient. In Greek they are called charismata, which name has been adopted by Latin authors- they are also designated in theological technical language as gratiae gratis datae (graces gratuitously given) to distinguish them from gratiae gratum facientes, which means sanctifying grace or any actual grace granted for the salvation of the recipient.

 

[Bigcat71]

@ Denise: this is NOT what the Charismatic Renewal is.

If it is not now, this is exactly what it has the potential of turning into. Pentacostalism did not start like this either. It is however a natural outgrowth of the sheer emotionalism involved.

Sorry.

 

[PiousFriend]

I have some reservations about this sort of thing, because in one sense, yes, there are many different religious orders and some have an emphasis on different types of spiritualities, such as contemplative or active, or service to the poor, or evangelization, or apologetic defense of the truth…and all of them are united and working for the same goal. But the attitude I see here are named “types” of Catholicism which are opposed to and/or working against one another in competition. Doesn’t anyone see the danger inherent in this? I haven’t read through this entire thread yet, but this sort of thing is all over the Catholic Answers message boards. Are we really that divided or is this just a matter of a scant few people with perhaps multiple accounts perpetuating the illusion of gross division in the ranks?
There is no such thing as a “traditionalist” Catholic vs. any other kind of Catholic you could possibly invent. We are CATHOLIC. We submit to the pope, bishops and our parish priests. If you want to set up an identity in OPPOSITION to the rest of the church then at least have the charity to recognize it as sin and repent of it. Yes there are things we’d all like to change but until the Pope and the Bishops change it we MUST submit and obey the authority of our Pope and our Bishops. They will address the errors and the problems and it is our place to submit to them otherwise we will merely perpetuate the problem instead of permitting it to be solved.
Religious orders certainly give one a sense of identity which is in alignment with a saint or an emphasis in Catholic life but they do not divide the Church into opposing camps.

We are not opposing camps. We are one Body. The Eucharist is a sign of our unity. We need to recognize the authority of the Bishops and the Pope and submit to it, regardless of our own personal preferences for this or that. I might add as a warning that every schism and heresy began as a preference for something the Church did not teach or offer. Let’s be careful here, and love one another as would please our Heavenly Father.

 

[vardaquinn]

Looks like the baptized are those alone who are given a right to the city (The Church) and the tree of life (The Cross-Eucharist). Jesus is the one speaking here, tell him to not be so intolerant!

So much for infants who died before baptism… You’re awfully short sighted. As if you can make up God’s mind of who is going to heaven and who isn’t.

Sorry, I view the church as entirely whole and complete in herself

The Church is always in need of renewal and upbuilding. If that wasn’t the case, than we’d all be perfect. The Church is made up of individuals. For instance - St. Francis of Assisi, being told by Our Lord to “rebuild My church”. Vatican II and the Popes and the Magisterium have all affirmed - we need renewal.

The Charismatic Renewal is a renewal of the emphasis on charisms and the role of the Holy Spirit and Pentecost. This emphasis wasn’t really present, and the understanding of charisms was flawed.

Read this. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1998/may/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980530_riflessioni_en.html The Pope explains it rather well.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ beng:

Yes, that’s what I meant (about the consolation). But I disagree that consolation does not die off. In fact, to reach spiritual maturity it would die off and replaced by desolation (see Catholic Encyclopedia: State or Way [Purgative, Illuminative, Unitive]). It’s inline with Christ’s passion.

I totally agree, 100%. But we’re always supposed to be joyful, no matter how dry we are. For instance, St. Therese says this “Also, in spite of this trial which has taken away all my joy, I can nevertheless cry out: “You have given my DELIGHT, O Lord, in ALL your doings.” (Ps. 19:5). For is there a JOY greater than that of suffering out of love for You?”

Consolations isn’t simply a state of joy. Joy is not a feeling or emotion. We might feel this, and that may be a consolation, but it is much deeper than that.

I agree totally with what you say about those who strive to be in a perpetual state of consolation, and the merits of desolations and spiritual dryness.

I believe that most, if not all, tongues in modern time are fake (especially since they transgress 1Cor 14:27-28). I have the same opinion as St. Gregory Nazianzus that in the course of time extraordinary gifts decreases. Such decrease shows that we’ve become mature in faith, we’re not babes anymore.

Well, for whatever reason, it’s back. I have a couple theories about this. Perhaps the Church is realizing that it must become like a little child! But honestly, right now I can’t say that people are very mature in their faith. For some people it may indeed be fake, but by and large I don’t see how it could be fake.

But it’s ridiculous to claim that the Church is so mature in her faith now she doesn’t need to pray in tongues. If that was ever the case, its clearly not the case now.

Because it’s inline with their theology that one can know that one are surely saved through certain signs. One of them is “good works.” They teach that good works are the sign that one has saving faith (which saved). Pentecostal developed this doctrine even further by saying that tongues are sign/manifestation that one is baptized by spirit (this goes back to John Wesley’s “sanctification” doctrine [Pentacostalism is an offshoot of Wesley’s Methodism]). The need for some extraordinary vindication of sanctity is great in Protestantism.

Yet gifts like wisdom and knowledge are hardly visible and they are more of an interior kind (as oppose to exterior).

It’s not saying that. It’s saying that the manifestation of the spirit is given to everyone. You don’t need to be a miracle worker in order to show you’re saved, or have any extraordinary experience. But because you are saved, and you have a mission to go and serve, the Holy Spirit is going to work through you in those ways. Wisdom and knowledge are different from the other sorts of gifts of wisdom and knowledge. A “word of wisdom” is generally when you’re given an insight into a situation, the words to say, what to do, etc. This happens to me frequently in apologetics. A “word of knowledge” is when something is revealed to you supernaturally. Like Padre Pio knowing people’s sins before they confessed them. They’re specifically directed towards service.

I agree. we’re suppose to be open to the gifts. Just like how married couple are open to procreation when they have sex (they do not have to strife to have children every time they have sex).

As for myself, I don’t really desire, seek gratiae gratis datae . But I’m open to them.

I desire, seek and strife zealously for gratiae gratum facientes.

Ok. The point is really that we’re supposed to get out of the Holy Spirit’s way and let Him work. For some people, it really will be in big flashy extraordinary ways, through miracles and healings. For some people, it will be in smaller ways of responding to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. All of us should be open and ready to doing whatever the Holy Spirit wants us to do, ready to become sea-splitting water-walkers if necessary. XD

As for tongues. The Magisterium has affirmed that it is genuine (for instance the United States Bishops in Grace for the New Springtime) and affirmed the charismatic renewal. Since it is Scripturally based, it’s a genuine charism.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ beng: another thing for Paul’s rules about tongues, which aren’t totally specific to praying in tongues (he’s talking mostly about instructing in a tongue), is that it’s not so much a matter of doctrine or morals as a matter of discipline that Church would have the authority to alter. Other times in Corinthians he talks about stuff like the men and women must be separated. Or he mentions in other letters that celibacy was not enforced for all priests (or I suppose bishops). Now, some charismatics still abuse this, and aren’t totally in line with their bishop. But they can really do whatever they want for non-liturgical prayer, so long as it isn’t obviously immoral or preaching heresy. Like the Rosary. It’s a private devotion. There doesn’t have to be any specific rule about praying it. There’s not exactly a “right way” or a “wrong way” to pray the Rosary. In any case, for non-liturgical prayer I think charismatics are free to pray in tongues together. Instructing in tongues is a slightly different matter, and Paul’s rules would apply at least in the name of common sense - it would be ridiculous if a lot of people were instructing the assembly in a tongue, but there was no one there interpreting. But I think Paul, in most of Corinthians, is referring to the early form of liturgical gathering, that is the Mass. At Mass, to pray in tongues at ALL (I mean where it is openly incorporated into the liturgy. You can obviously pray in tongues by yourself, so long as nobody hears you) would need special ecclesiastical permission. I know of several places where the bishop of the diocese has granted special permission for the charismatics to incorporate praying in tongues into their liturgy, in which most of the congregation is praying in tongues, and he has the authority to do this.

Another thing! If Paul wants the Corinthians to pray in tongues because they’re “babes”, how come he says “I give thanks I pray in tongues more than any of you?”. When earlier in the letter he said “when I grew up, I put away childish things?”

 

[SoulSurvivorJMJ]

I can’t think of anything MORE Charismatic than the Tridentine Mass.

The congregation chanting in one voice the prayers of the Mass.

The moments of unified silence, contemplation and meditation. You can really and truly feel the Holy Spirit in those moments of quiet.

Uniting one’s heart and mind with the actions of the priest.

The use of a single tongue that our ancestors have prayed in for centuries.

I can really and truly feel the Holy Spirit working through that form of the Mass. Not that I haven’t attended very beautiful OF Masses, but for me, it isn’t quite the same.