Traditionalist and Charismatic

[InquisitorMax]

I think that a valid point has been made in this area, though. Those who level this accusation toward the Charismatic experience often have a vested interest in avoiding emotions. Emotions are not as subject to control as the other parts of ourselves involved in spiritual practice. When one allows oneself to experience emotions, results may occur that are uncomfortable and unwanted (such as crying or laughing). If one remains closed off against environments and practices where this can happen, on can retain a restraint upon their emotions.

There was phrase I heard years ago that made be, mentally, flee in the opposite direction to the Charismatic movement: ‘The gift of tears’. Don’t know if that’s one of the ‘gifts’, but talk about an excuse to self-indulge, if it is.

What’s the ratio of men to women in this movement?

Just because you feel something is holy doesn’t mean it is. I have lots of fine and vicious feelings every day. You can have peak experiences and still go on to be a spiritual menace to yourself and the people around you.

Marketing men know the value of evoking an emotional response. It’s pure gold. Makes the punters keep coming back for another ‘fix’.

Try being emotionally continent. Get your feelings under control. Who is the master here: Your immortal soul or your feeeeeelings?

This sort of stuff is common in New Age movements: give people some kind of high, make them feel better about themselves, collect the cheques.

 

[Bigcat71]

Let’s highlight a distinction that’s been made many times here. This is between the charismatic gifts, and living in the spirituality of Pentecost and the Charismatic Renewal. The Charismatic Renewal is a new movement that the Magisterium has acclaimed as the work of the Holy Spirit which seeks to foster and “renew” the understanding and use of these charisms through a profound experience of the reality of Pentecost (often called “baptism in the Holy Spirit”).

The Magisterium has certainly called the Charismatic Renewal as a legitimate working of the Holy Spirit. They have not said that all Catholics are supposed to join this movement. What they have said, and what has been said throughout the tradition of the Church (in Scripture, in writings of the Church Fathers, in theological works of doctors of the church, in catechisms, encyclicals, and the writings of bishops and popes) is that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the charisms mentioned in Corinthians 12, among other charisms, and the experience of the reality of Pentecost is part of the normal Chrisitian life, and the grace of Pentecost and those gifts of Pentecost, and the experience of Pentecost as it was experienced by the Apostles, is part of the normal Christian life.

Everyone is supposed to be “charismatic”, because as Bl. John Paul II says the charismatic dimension of the faith is co-essential with the institutional to the very nature of the Church. This does not mean everyone necessarily has to join the Charismatic Movement. But you can say “The Catechism says nothing about me having to join a charismatic movement!!!”, and therefore think that you’re off the hook and don’t need to go near any of that speaking in tongues stuff, or prophecy, or whatever charisms the Holy Spirit wishes to give you.
Does this make sense?

**In examining the Charismatic Renewal, as well as Protestant communities, compare them first to the Apostles and early Christians (see Acts of the Apostles). Or rather, compare the Apostles and early Christians to modern charismatic and pentecostal communities. **

**I think many “traddies” have a major Pharisee complex **(if charismatics seem like Protestants, or arguably early Christians, traditionals seem like the Pharisees in the Gospels). Many seem to pious to be impious, and to impious to be pious. This is a problem. I may come to many of the same conclusions with them about things like the liturgy, but I think the basis of many of their conclusions is quite flawed. I think this article illustrates rather well (and humorously) the divisions in the Church today as clearly caused by the devil. badcatholicblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/crookedhart-emails-re-death-by.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FZlvDi+%28BadCatholic%29 Ultimately, I think there is much more of a danger in being a “traddie” then in being a “charismatic”, even though what both claim to be shouldn’t be opposed in the slightest.

I have compared the Charismatic Renewal as well as the various Protestant sects to the various Churches in early Christianity.And yes, I can see great undeniable similarities.

Unfortunately, I would not want to be part of any those groups. Let me explain.

The early Church, far from being the pristine pure place that many claim it was ,was in actuality a searing hotbed of heresies, fractured communities and completely incompatible forms of worship. Until the Roman Church was able to reign all of these disparate groups together, Christianity as a unified Church actually seemed doomed.

Each group claimed it had the right answer and that they and they alone were following in the footsteps of the Apostles. Just like many of the members of the Charismatic movement today apparently believe. These different groups all believed in different things, sometimes very minor things, which separated them from the truth, just as the multitude and constantly expanding number of protestants sects do today.

The heresies that existed in those days, the days of purity, and the days apparently longed for for by both the protestants and the Charismatic Renewal movement, were too numerous to list or in a short space to even mention. Heck the whole reason for the Letters to the Corinthians or in all of the Pauline Epistles,was to address errors that had arisen in the Church.

And for any group, to claim that they are essentially the same as the Apostles, and living in the same way and exxperiencing the same things, is I think, sheer arrogance.

As far as, how did you call us, traddies, being Pharisees, perhaps. Pharisees believed in living strictly according to the Law as laid down by Moses in all of it’s froms and created oral and written laws to achieve that. They were not as commonly assumed, professional hypocrites. Jesus’ rejection of them, was, I believe a way of saying that the old covenant and laws were passing away and the new covenant coming into force, thus fulfilling the old. So if by calling us Pharisees you are saying we are holding onto the Traditions and Laws as laid down by the Church over the past 1700 years or so since the Roman Church took charge, then yes we could be called Pharisees I guess. But at least, we are following what the Church has taught for centuries. If we choose not to follow, believe in or give support to a brand new movement, which claims to have discovered the truth that was missing from the Church for centuries and that appears to us to be misdirected at best and other things at worst,than I feel we are doing nothing wrong.Just my opinion.

Just a quick question. Why do you guys ,members and sympathizers of the Charismatic movement, feel the need to come onto this particular forum to spread your feelings and the glory of them. We really aren’t all that interested and I sincerely doubt you will change many if any of our opinions.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ Denise1957: So far as I know, there is no statement from ALL the bishops and cardinals and the Pope on this. Seeing as that kind of statement would probably result from an ecumenical council, and seeing as the last one was just before the charismatic movement picked up… there probably isn’t one. Then again, there’s probably not statements like that on a whole host of things. There really doesn’t need to be in this case. But I can give you statements from many bishops, cardinals and popes individually. I’ve already given many of them.

Many bishops and cardinals have been involved with the movement. A big one was Cardinal Leo Josef Suenens, one of the key architects of Vatican II, who was a big leader in the charismatic movement at the time when Pope Paul VI endorsed it. Many bishops, while not directly involved with it, have allowed and fostered the growth of charismatic communities within their diocese, some having the sort of Gamaliel response: “If it’s not from God, it’ll die out. If it is, then I don’t want to be fighting against God”.

Here: iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr Scroll down, it has a list of quotations and their sources from the Popes.

@ InquisitorMax: hardly any of your comments are relative to the discussion on the Charismatic Renewal. Does the ratio of men to women matter? I have no earthly idea. If some charismatic communities do operate as you describe, then you’re right to condemn them. But that doesn’t mean ALL charismatic communities do. Your response is not at all logical.

@ BigCat71: Yes, of course there was immense division in the early church. But really, a comparison between charismatic spirituality and the spirituality of the Apostles is easily achieved: read the Acts of the Apostles. Read also the writings of early church fathers.

No, Pharisees would be people who keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. If being a Pharisee means keeping to the traditions of the Church, then I would hope all people are Pharisees. I think the criticism of Christ was directed more towards their attitude. He was not criticizing them for keeping the law. Please, by all means, keep to the tradition of the Church - of which the charisms and spirituality of Pentecost expressed by the Charismatic Renewal is certainly a great part.

I feel the need to come on this particular thread to try and stop the divisive conflicts I have witnessed first hand between “traditionals” and “charismatics”, and to promote a proper understanding of what the Charismatic Renewal is, correcting the many misconceptions that people have of it. If you wish to persist in these misconceptions, that is your affair. But I wish to promote truth and proper Catholic teaching, beyond silly prejudices and misunderstandings. If you aren’t interested, then why are you on this thread?

I am not on this thread to promote emotionalism. Don’t be ridiculous.

 

[Denise1957]

@ Denise1957: So far as I know, there is no statement from ALL the bishops and cardinals and the Pope on this. Seeing as that kind of statement would probably result from an ecumenical council, and seeing as the last one was just before the charismatic movement picked up… there probably isn’t one. Then again, there’s probably not statements like that on a whole host of things. There really doesn’t need to be in this case. But I can give you statements from many bishops, cardinals and popes individually. I’ve already given many of them.

Many bishops and cardinals have been involved with the movement. A big one was Cardinal Leo Josef Suenens, one of the key architects of Vatican II, who was a big leader in the charismatic movement at the time when Pope Paul VI endorsed it. Many bishops, while not directly involved with it, have allowed and fostered the growth of charismatic communities within their diocese, some having the sort of Gamaliel response: “If it’s not from God, it’ll die out. If it is, then I don’t want to be fighting against God”.

Here: iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr Scroll down, it has a list of quotations and their sources from the Popes.

@ InquisitorMax: hardly any of your comments are relative to the discussion on the Charismatic Renewal. Does the ratio of men to women matter? I have no earthly idea. If some charismatic communities do operate as you describe, then you’re right to condemn them. But that doesn’t mean ALL charismatic communities do. Your response is not at all logical.

@ BigCat71: Yes, of course there was immense division in the early church. But really, a comparison between charismatic spirituality and the spirituality of the Apostles is easily achieved: read the Acts of the Apostles. Read also the writings of early church fathers.

No, Pharisees would be people who keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. If being a Pharisee means keeping to the traditions of the Church, then I would hope all people are Pharisees. I think the criticism of Christ was directed more towards their attitude. He was not criticizing them for keeping the law. Please, by all means, keep to the tradition of the Church - of which the charisms and spirituality of Pentecost expressed by the Charismatic Renewal is certainly a great part.

I feel the need to come on this particular thread to try and stop the divisive conflicts I have witnessed first hand between “traditionals” and “charismatics”, and to promote a proper understanding of what the Charismatic Renewal is, correcting the many misconceptions that people have of it. If you wish to persist in these misconceptions, that is your affair. But I wish to promote truth and proper Catholic teaching, beyond silly prejudices and misunderstandings. If you aren’t interested, then why are you on this thread?

I am not on this thread to promote emotionalism. Don’t be ridiculous.

Vardaquinn, I understand that you have given statements from bishops, cardinals, and popes. But you also keep saying that the “Magisterium” approves of CR. As the magisterium is the teaching branch of the Catholic Church, I don’t think it’s right or accurate to say that the magisterium supports CR. Not that you’ve intentionally tried to be deceptive. The Catholic Church is complicated. It’s important, though, to understand terms and their meanings.

 

[Bigcat71]

@ Denise1957: So far as I know, there is no statement from ALL the bishops and cardinals and the Pope on this. Seeing as that kind of statement would probably result from an ecumenical council, and seeing as the last one was just before the charismatic movement picked up… there probably isn’t one. Then again, there’s probably not statements like that on a whole host of things. There really doesn’t need to be in this case. But I can give you statements from many bishops, cardinals and popes individually. I’ve already given many of them.

Many bishops and cardinals have been involved with the movement. A big one was Cardinal Leo Josef Suenens, one of the key architects of Vatican II, who was a big leader in the charismatic movement at the time when Pope Paul VI endorsed it. Many bishops, while not directly involved with it, have allowed and fostered the growth of charismatic communities within their diocese, some having the sort of Gamaliel response: “If it’s not from God, it’ll die out. If it is, then I don’t want to be fighting against God”.

Here: iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr Scroll down, it has a list of quotations and their sources from the Popes.

@ InquisitorMax: hardly any of your comments are relative to the discussion on the Charismatic Renewal. Does the ratio of men to women matter? I have no earthly idea. If some charismatic communities do operate as you describe, then you’re right to condemn them. But that doesn’t mean ALL charismatic communities do. Your response is not at all logical.

@ BigCat71: Yes, of course there was immense division in the early church. But really, a comparison between charismatic spirituality and the spirituality of the Apostles is easily achieved: read the Acts of the Apostles. Read also the writings of early church fathers.

No, Pharisees would be people who keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. If being a Pharisee means keeping to the traditions of the Church, then I would hope all people are Pharisees. I think the criticism of Christ was directed more towards their attitude. He was not criticizing them for keeping the law. Please, by all means, keep to the tradition of the Church - of which the charisms and spirituality of Pentecost expressed by the Charismatic Renewal is certainly a great part.

I feel the need to come on this particular thread to try and stop the divisive conflicts I have witnessed first hand between “traditionals” and “charismatics”, and to promote a proper understanding of what the Charismatic Renewal is, correcting the many misconceptions that people have of it. If you wish to persist in these misconceptions, that is your affair. But I wish to promote truth and proper Catholic teaching, beyond silly prejudices and misunderstandings. If you aren’t interested, then why are you on this thread?

I am not on this thread to promote emotionalism. Don’t be ridiculous.

Actually, I have read them, quite extensively at that,wow a traddie that reads. Imagine that:thumbsup: In all honesty,I see no comparison with the Apostles and what they experienced and what the Charismatic Renewal does today. None whatsoever. No matter how much you guys want to claim that it does,it really doesn’t. It all seems extremely self serving if you ask me. Sorry.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. How often that phrase is applied to support or denigrate the actions of one side or another.

Oh, and please, don’t assume that I haven’t read scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers just because I don’t agree with you.

 

[vardaquinn]

@ Denise1957: Fine, at least accept that many members of the Magisterium, including the Pope, endorse the Charismatic Renewal.

@ Bigcat71: Please, don’t be rude. It was not my intention to offend you by criticizing “traddies”. I’m sure you have read the Acts of the Apostles, and the church Fathers. Obviously your experience with the Charismatic Renewal has been a very bad one. My own has been very good, and I must say it is extremely comparative to the Acts of the Apostles and early Christianity’s experience of the Holy Spirit. In fact, having heard nothing at all of any sort of charismatic movement a year ago, and then stumbling across it and being rather shocked, my initial impression of charismatics (before I knew about the speaking in tongues business, or things like that) was that these people are very much like the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles, and are people who are just extremely open to whatever the Holy Spirit wants to do.

In any case, I don’t see why there should be such hostility towards charismatics and I’m very saddened that there’s a division between traditionalists and charismatics.

 

[Chip_Barrett]

I was invited to a Charismatic Mass. I declined because the person who invited me said that " we’ll be speaking in tongues".

I found it odd that something of the sort can be planned and dialed up at will.

 

[Chip_Barrett]

What is the official Catholic doctrine on the Gift of Speaking in Tongues? Thanking you in advance. cb

 

[vardaquinn]

What is the official Catholic doctrine on the Gift of Speaking in Tongues? Thanking you in advance. cb

Unfortunately, I can’t point you to any official Catholic doctrine that has much information beyond that it exists. There is rather a lot of diversity of opinion. What is noted officially is that speaking in tongues is one of the charisms given by the Holy Spirit (for instance, see CCC paragraph 2003). It’s noted far more extensively in Scripture, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

There seems to be several distinctions between “varieties of tongues”. What has been most commonly understood as speaking in tongues is preaching the Gospel in languages that the preacher has never studied. Many theologians have dealt with tongues exclusively as this, including Thomas Aquinas (as far as I know). This is not always understood by the listener, as at gatherings where Paul says that if someone is to instruct in a tongue, an interpretation must be given also. The other form of tongues, even more to be found in scripture than the previous, is praising God in languages you don’t know. I received this special charism about a year ago, when I was being told about the charismatic renewal by two friends. Basically, the Holy Spirit speaks through your mouth with words in languages you don’t know. This is evident in 1 Corinthians 14, and in several places in the Acts of the Apostles. Obviously, for instance when Paul visits Ephesus, and the people their proclaim in tongues, they’re not preaching the Gospel but rather praising God. St. Paul’s examination of the gift of tongues in Corinthians 14 is probably the most official and in depth examination you could find.

Some theologians have seen the gift of praying in tongues (and most of the charisms) as simply phenomena occurring in the early church but which died out when the Gospel had already been preached. I really don’t see how this fits in with Scripture, and it has never been the official teaching of the Church. It was also the teaching of Luther and Calvin. Other theologians have thought otherwise. For instance, read these homilies by St. John Chrysostom newadvent.org/fathers/220135.htm newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm

From the documents of early rites of Christian initiation, it has been seen that receiving the gift of tongues was common at baptism and confirmation in the early Church.

Beyond that, there’s not a whole lot. Most stuff on tongues deals exclusively with the other form of tongues. But clearly, from Scripture, it is not limited to that.

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 says he wishes that all speak in tongues (in the latter form), and that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone. It seems from both the experience of the early Christians and from modern experience that tongues is something that at least for these times is meant to be quite common.

 

[Bigcat71]

@ Denise1957: Fine, at least accept that many members of the Magisterium, including the Pope, endorse the Charismatic Renewal.

@ Bigcat71:** Please, don’t be rude**. It was not my intention to offend you by criticizing “traddies”. I’m sure you have read the Acts of the Apostles, and the church Fathers. Obviously your experience with the Charismatic Renewal has been a very bad one. My own has been very good, and I must say it is extremely comparative to the Acts of the Apostles and early Christianity’s experience of the Holy Spirit. In fact, having heard nothing at all of any sort of charismatic movement a year ago, and then stumbling across it and being rather shocked, my initial impression of charismatics (before I knew about the speaking in tongues business, or things like that) was that these people are very much like the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles, and are people who are just extremely open to whatever the Holy Spirit wants to do.

In any case, **I don’t see why there should be such hostility towards charismatics **and I’m very saddened that there’s a division between traditionalists and charismatics.

One,I wasn’t rude
.
Two I must say I see no evidence of it being comparitive at all to the Acts of the Apostles and early Christianity’s experience of the Holy Spirit

Three,I don’t see why there should be such hostility towards traditionalists.or as you guys prefer to say, traddies.

Hey,maybe we should start referring to members of the movement as Charies:thumbsup:

No. That would be disrespectful. Maybe you guys should try to learn that.

 

[guanophore]

I think, too, that CR does not have canonical status in the Church, as it is essentially a lay movement. If I’m wrong on this point, perhaps someone can show that it does have canonical status.

It is not canonical, but neither is it a lay movement only. It crosses and is contained by many canonical orders and ordained clergy as well as religious. It cannot be compared to a canonical order or vowed living. It is probably closer to a spiritual practice or way of life such as the Brown Scapular.

 

[guanophore]

There was phrase I heard years ago that made be, mentally, flee in the opposite direction to the Charismatic movement: ‘The gift of tears’. Don’t know if that’s one of the ‘gifts’, but talk about an excuse to self-indulge, if it is.

I am glad you said this, because I have been meditating on how avoidance of feelings might be one of the main reasons that people avoid the charismatic gifts.

Yes, the gift of tears is one of the movements of the Holy Spirit. Tears are not necessarily “self indulgent”, but your characterization of them as such says much more about you than it does about the “movement” of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Did you know it is possible to weep for joy? Do you find that “self indulgent” as well?

Gen 29:10-12
11 Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and wept aloud.

Was Jacob self indulgent?

Gen 33:4

4 But Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

Can you honestly read a passage like this one, and not see the emotional release that results experiencing the healing from God?

And Joseph? Gen 45:15
5 And he kissed all his brothers and wept upon them; and after that his brothers talked with him.

Were all the priests, Levites, and heads of houses, old men, all “self indulgent”?

Ezra 3:11-13
12 But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy; 13 so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard afar.

And, let us not forget the shortest verse in the whole Bible:

John 11:35-36
35 Jesus wept.

That self indulgent Son of God! What was He thinking?!

Or maybe weeping, whether for joy or for grief, is part of the normal, healthy, human experience? Maybe the HS wants to make us fully human, and fully alive? Maybe He wants to conform us to Christ, who was fully human, and able and willing to experience the whole range of human emotions.

What’s the ratio of men to women in this movement?

I am not aware of any studies that have been done, but my observations are that they are equivalent to the ratios one sees at daily Mass.

Just because you *feel* something is holy doesn't mean it is.

True, but just because you feel emotions are self indulgent doesn’t mean they are.

I have lots of fine and vicious feelings every day. You can have peak experiences and still go on to be a spiritual menace to yourself and the people around you.

Ok. Well, I am glad you are willing to allow yourself to experience some emotions. Yes, letting your emotions lead your life can make you a menace. Equally true, though, is becoming a menace because your emotions are not healed, and do not function in an Christlike manner. I have never met anyone who never had their feelings hurt, or was not in need of emotional healing.

Marketing men know the value of evoking an emotional response. It’s pure gold. Makes the punters keep coming back for another ‘fix’.

It does. You know why it works? Because GOD created us emotional beings, with emotional needs. Squelching them or abrogating them to “self indulgent” is not the answer.

Try being emotionally continent. Get your feelings under control. Who is the master here: Your immortal soul or your feeeeeelings?

You put me in mind of my father. An emotionally very restricted man who said this often. You are both right. One has to be emotionally continent, and not allow emotions to control one’s life. The immortal soul includes the feelings, though, and they need to be saved right along with the rest of the human person.

I think you make a very good point, though. One of the fears of yielding to the HS is that one might experience the “gift of tears” as “emotional incontinence”.

This sort of stuff is common in New Age movements: give people some kind of high, make them feel better about themselves, collect the cheques.

Yes. It works because humans have emotional needs. God has made provisions to get those emotional needs met through His One Body, the Church.

 

[guanophore]

The early Church, far from being the pristine pure place that many claim it was ,was in actuality a searing hotbed of heresies, fractured communities and completely incompatible forms of worship. Until the Roman Church was able to reign all of these disparate groups together, Christianity as a unified Church actually seemed doomed.

YOu are suffering from a very warped and inaccurate perception of the early church.

Have you ever read the Fathers?

Each group claimed it had the right answer and that they and they alone were following  in the footsteps of the Apostles. Just like many of the members of the Charismatic movement today apparently believe.

YOu apparently do not believe the promises of Christ. He established ONE CHURCH, and in it, there is Unity. Unity occurs when each one embraces the Truth. Jesus established authority in His One Church, and that authority was exercised from DAY ONE until NOW. There has never been a time when He abandoned His Holy Bride to the chaos you describe. That Authority is the same authority to which all charismatic Catholics are subject.

 These  different groups all believed in different things, sometimes very minor things, which separated them from the truth, just as the multitude and constantly expanding number of protestants sects do today.

You make the all salient point. Those who have departed from Truth depart from the One Faith passed down to us by the Apsotles, infallibly preserved in the Church. This Truth, by the way, existed whole and entire before the Roman See was established.

The heresies that existed in those days, the days of purity, and the days apparently longed for for by both the protestants and the Charismatic Renewal movement, were too numerous to list or in a short space to even mention.

Yes, heresies were rampant, but God used them to further purify His church, and those in it.

1 Cor 11:17-19
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Now, if there was no authority, and no organization, then how was it discerned who was genuine?

Heck the whole reason for the Letters to the Corinthians or in all of the Pauline Epistles,was to address errors that had arisen in the Church.

Yes. And they were sent from an authoratative individual to an established Church.

1 Cor 2:2-5
3 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

A community whose faith rested not in the wisdom of men, but the power of God, which was demonstrated by what? The charismatic gifts!

And for any group, to claim that they are essentially the same as the Apostles, and living in the same way and exxperiencing the same things, is I think, sheer arrogance.

I don’t know that I can argue with this. I mean, were any of us there? :dts:

But the divine deposit of faith that has been kept infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit affords us the assurance that our experience of the Holy Spirit is the same as that described in the New Testament.

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

These signs are part of the birthright of the believer. Why have Catholics allowed Protestants to steal our birthright? Because it has been left lying by the side of the road, and they found it.

 

[guanophore]

Pharisees believed in living strictly according to the Law as laid down by Moses in all of it's froms and created oral and written laws to achieve that. They were not as commonly assumed, professional hypocrites. Jesus' rejection of them, was, I believe a way of saying that the old covenant and laws were passing away and the new covenant coming into force, thus fulfilling the old.

I think you missed the mark on this one, BC. Jesus was pretty clear on the professional hypocrite thing.

Yes, the old covenant was being fulfilled, but they could have gotten on board with the new if they wanted.

Acts 6:7
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in
Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

The Levites sure did- or some of them at least (a great many!)

Luke 7:28-30

28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 29(When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

The Pharisees rejected the purpose of God for themselves.

People still do this today. It is God’s will that we live Pentecost. Some reject His purpose for themselves.

So if by calling us Pharisees you are saying we are holding onto the Traditions and Laws as laid down by the Church over the past 1700 years or so since the Roman Church took charge, then yes we could be called Pharisees I guess.

That is commendable, because the same apostles that taught us not to quench the Spirit also taught that we are to hold fast to the traditions. But no, that is not it. There is no contradiction between living a Spirit filled life, and holding fast to the traditions.

But at least, we are following what the Church has taught for centuries. If we choose not to follow, believe in or give support to a brand new movement, which claims to have discovered the truth that was missing from the Church for centuries and that appears to us to be misdirected at best and other things at worst,than I feel we are doing nothing wrong.Just my opinion.

I agree with you on one point, at least. I have never heard any claim that the charismatic gifts were “missing from the Church for centuries”. On the contrary, my studies have revealed that they have been constantly present. They are missing out of many people’s lives, though.

The Church contains the full deposit of the faith. Not every believer avails themselves of it, though.

Just a quick question. Why do you guys ,members and sympathizers of the Charismatic movement, feel the need to come onto this particular forum to spread your feelings and the glory of them. We really aren’t all that interested and I sincerely doubt you will change many if any of our opinions.

The topic was posted here, and I followed the topic.

You may not realize this, but the average “lurker” rate (readers that don’t post) is about 10:1. If even one person becomes inspired to an on fire walk in the Spirit by reading about it then it will have been worth it.

Besides, we are not here to “spread feelings” (what is this fear that some people have of human emotion?) but to spead our expereince, strength and hope in the Gospel.

 

[guanophore]

Vardaquinn, I understand that you have given statements from bishops, cardinals, and popes. But you also keep saying that the “Magisterium” approves of CR. As the magisterium is the teaching branch of the Catholic Church, I don’t think it’s right or accurate to say that the magisterium supports CR. Not that you’ve intentionally tried to be deceptive. The Catholic Church is complicated. It’s important, though, to understand terms and their meanings.

Denise, do you consider the Catechism to be a reliable source of Magesterial Teaching? Pope JPII called it “a sure norm” for the faith.

800 Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.

 

[guanophore]

Oh, and please, don’t assume that I haven’t read scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers just because I don’t agree with you.

It was not the disagreement, but your apparent lack of familiarity with their contents.

 

[guanophore]

What is the official Catholic doctrine on the Gift of Speaking in Tongues? Thanking you in advance. cb

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.

 

[Bigcat71]

YOu are suffering from a very warped and inaccurate perception of the early church.

Have you ever read the Fathers?

YOu apparently do not believe the promises of Christ. He established ONE CHURCH, and in it, there is Unity. Unity occurs when each one embraces the Truth. Jesus established authority in His One Church, and that authority was exercised from DAY ONE until NOW. There has never been a time when He abandoned His Holy Bride to the chaos you describe. That Authority is the same authority to which all charismatic Catholics are subject.

You make the all salient point. Those who have departed from Truth depart from the One Faith passed down to us by the Apsotles, infallibly preserved in the Church. This Truth, by the way, existed whole and entire before the Roman See was established.

Yes, heresies were rampant, but God used them to further purify His church, and those in it.

1 Cor 11:17-19
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Now, if there was no authority, and no organization, then how was it discerned who was genuine?

Yes. And they were sent from an authoratative individual to an established Church.

1 Cor 2:2-5
3 And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

A community whose faith rested not in the wisdom of men, but the power of God, which was demonstrated by what? The charismatic gifts!

I don’t know that I can argue with this. I mean, were any of us there? :dts:

But the divine deposit of faith that has been kept infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit affords us the assurance that our experience of the Holy Spirit is the same as that described in the New Testament.

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

These signs are part of the birthright of the believer. Why have Catholics allowed Protestants to steal our birthright? Because it has been left lying by the side of the road, and they found it.

You are absolutely hilarious. Yes, I have read the Fathers and I have studied history.Have you? It doesn’t appear so.

As for quoting scripture to prove your points and interpretations, I think you should leave that to the various protestants.They have developed a keen way to do it that few if any Catholics have ever mastered. But that does make sense in that the Catholic Church, unlike the Protestants,never believed in sola scriptura and never needed to quote scripture at length to prove or rather to attempt to prove their positions.

If you believe there wasn’t chaos in the days of the early Church you are truly deluded and need to take a course in Church history…

As far as the protestants finding or stealing anything I truly doubt it.I think they made something up and you guys fell for it hook line and sinker…

As far as Christ establishing one Church you are truly correct, he did. Man on the other hand established all the others, such as the protestants with whom you apparently find such favor as well as all of the other heretical groups that have existed over the years…

 

[Bigcat71]

It was not the disagreement, but your apparent lack of familiarity with their contents.

I amquite familiar with the contents. I just don’t share in your interpretation of them in relationto the charismatic movement.

 

[guanophore]

You are absolutely hilarious. Yes, I have read the Fathers and I have studied history.Have you? It doesn’t appear so.

As for quoting scripture to prove your points and interpretations, I think you should leave that to the various protestants.They have developed a keen way to do it that few if any Catholics have ever mastered.

If you really have read the Fathers, then you will know that they were among those that mastered it.

But that does make sense in that the Catholic Church, unlike the Protestants,never believed in sola scriptura and never needed to quote scripture at length to prove or rather to attempt to prove their positions.

And, if you had read the history of the early heresies, you would know that this is also false.

If you believe there wasn't chaos in the days of the early Church you are truly deluded and need to take a course in Church history..

The Holy Bride of Christ, Bigcat, cannot, and does not, exist in “chaos”. Chaos is found only in those who depart from her. She cannot err because her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. These divine elements prevent her from “chaos”.

She is Holy, and One.

As far as the protestants finding or stealing anything I truly doubt it.I think they made something up and you guys fell for it hook line and sinker..

Opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone seems to have one.

But faithful charismatic Catholics embrace the Teachings of the Church, which include the charisms.

 Man on the other hand established  all the others,  such as the protestants with whom you apparently find such favor as well as all of the other heretical groups that have existed over the years..

How did I find favor with Protestants? You might be shocked to learn that I have been told by even liberal Catholics that I should label my affiliation as “rad trad” because my beliefs are so radically traditional. Protestant ecclesial communities, though used by God to bring people to Himself, all suffer from loss of parts of the divine deposit of faith (which has never been in chaos).