Traditionalist and Charismatic

[DL82]

At the risk of being extremely unpopular, I will point out that on this thread many who are strong adherents to Tradition in the Catholic Church seem to decry the Charismatic Renewal because it insists on ‘innovation’ or ‘emotion’, ‘feeling’, ‘entertainment’.

How many ‘Traditional’ Catholics turn their backs on Catholic Churches where a plain and simple Mass is celebrated in the Ordinary Form in the vernacular, because they like the experience of the incense, plainchant/polyphony, all those fine vestments, all the trappings and rituals and ‘feel’ of reverence which accompanies the Extraordinary Form? How many ‘Traditional’ Catholic Churches introduce levels of ostentatious ritual which would have been unheard-of outside of the great cathedrals on great solemnities in the days before Vatican II? Can those people really claim to be free from the tendency to innovation or emotionalism?

It is perfectly possible to have equal reverence and devotion without the outward show, even at a Mass which is celebrated in a slap-dash fashion by the priest. Both extreme forms of ritual performance and extreme forms of ecstatic experience could be seen as having their risks in this regard. That’s not to say that there isn’t a place for either, just to point out that this clearly isn’t a one-way street.

 

[Melchior_1]

Look, if that article is even remotely like what Charismatic services are like, then can you see why Traditionalist catholics wouldn’t be interested?

The arguments here have a flavour of the CITH and ‘pro-multis’ controversies, with those in
favour of novelty claiming antiquity and authority for it.

I does not follow that, because some Saints experienced ecstacies, that what occurs at Charismatic services is the same: “Some holy men experienced ecstacies, I experienced an ecstacy, therefore what I experienced is holy”.

The jazzing up of our worship, the Protestant influence, the emotionalism are offputting factors.

Ah, but traditionalism appeals to the emotional too. I hear several arguments about “atmosphere” and “sublime”.

I’m assuming you don’t like hymns, classical music, and Requiem Masses? All protestant influences, after all.

 

[guanophore]

When people travel along their spiritual journey without humor and without a smile, that’s not a good sign. That’s another thing to look for. Too much intensity is not good. Teresa of Avila always said, “God preserve me from sour faced saints.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks much for all this info. I have saved it to a file and will work my way through what promises to be excellent reading.

 

[guanophore]

Anyone who reads above link, keep in mind that this article was published in SSPX publication. Hardly an unbiased opinion piece.

Thanks. It is a very biased article, but there are some important points. There really is no reason to have Protestant speakers at a Catholic conference. If Catholics cannot draw on Catholic sources, then we are not ready to have a conference.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

Posting links to personal comments by others that use the very labels that I have said cannot be used, is as if you posted them yourself and will result in a suspension.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

This apostolate exists to support what the Church supports, to lend support to people along their spiritual journey and to learn from each other . . . not to attack, offend and label what we dont’ llike.

 

[AndyP2010]

At the risk of being extremely unpopular, I will point out that on this thread many who are strong adherents to Tradition in the Catholic Church seem to decry the Charismatic Renewal because it insists on ‘innovation’ or ‘emotion’, ‘feeling’, ‘entertainment’.

How many ‘Traditional’ Catholics turn their backs on Catholic Churches where a plain and simple Mass is celebrated in the Ordinary Form in the vernacular, because they like the experience of the incense, plainchant/polyphony, all those fine vestments, all the trappings and rituals and ‘feel’ of reverence which accompanies the Extraordinary Form? How many ‘Traditional’ Catholic Churches introduce levels of ostentatious ritual which would have been unheard-of outside of the great cathedrals on great solemnities in the days before Vatican II? Can those people really claim to be free from the tendency to innovation or emotionalism?

It is perfectly possible to have equal reverence and devotion without the outward show, even at a Mass which is celebrated in a slap-dash fashion by the priest. Both extreme forms of ritual performance and extreme forms of ecstatic experience could be seen as having their risks in this regard. That’s not to say that there isn’t a place for either, just to point out that this clearly isn’t a one-way street.

Ditto, this thought occurred to me the other day.

 

[archangel04]

sigh First of all, we’re ALL supposed to be mystics (that doesn’t mean we all have to have strange mystical phenomena) but we’re ALL supposed to have an even deeper relationship and love for God than Padre Pio had, and an even greater surrender to God’s will. Why do you persist in calling it babbling? It’s a charism of the Holy Spirit! Read about it in the Bible! It’s not babble, it’s praise. Of course it sounds like babble to you. Just as any language you don’t know sounds like babble. Don’t be absurd.

You have your own charisms of the Holy Spirit through baptism and confirmation. Use them. That is clearly God’s will. I don’t see what you could possibly stand to benefit from your closed-off, no emotions, no overt enthusiasm, anti-charismatic approach - and you’re certainly not theologically correct!

We have our Mount Athos’. We have thousands of convents and monasteries throughout the world with real mature saintly holy glow-in-the-dark monks and nuns. I think you yourself need to come to a better understanding of what it means to be part of the Catholic Church, and your role as a lay person - because it sure isn’t just to warm the pews and pay the bills. I’d suggest you start with the documents of Vatican II.

Sigh sounds like babble to me. What I don’t understand is that a lot of people use the argument against Latin asking why would God want you to worship in a language you don’t understand. So I ask you why would God want you to praise him in an unknown language? I gurantee that if I asked the person that just babbled praise to God he/she would not be able to translate it, in face they might just make it up as they go.

 

[vardaquinn]

On the point made that occultists practice things similar to charismatics, I believe G.K. Chesterton has a splendid answer: this no more disproves the reality any more than a counterfeit note disproves the Bank of England.

@ InquisitorMax: it is really not for you to decide whether or not someone’s “ecstasy” is genuine or not. Give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s generally not anyone’s business besides the individual and their confessor/spiritual director. It also does not follow that the ecstasies are NOT genuine.

@ JReducation: Thanks so much for your posts, especially the one about humor.

 

[vardaquinn]

Sigh sounds like babble to me. What I don’t understand is that a lot of people use the argument against Latin asking why would God want you to worship in a language you don’t understand. So I ask you why would God want you to praise him in an unknown language? I gurantee that if I asked the person that just babbled praise to God he/she would not be able to translate it, in face they might just make it up as they go.

I think that’s a fair argument, but I’m really pro-Latin myself. Of course it sounds like babble to you, because you don’t know what’s being said. I go to a bilingual parish, and I hear people “babbling” in Spanish all the time. It sounds just like babble to me, because I don’t know what’s being said.

We don’t need to translate it generally though, because it’s not being given for instruction. If it was, then God would provide a translation.

We have a very physical sort of religion. Bells and smells, etc. We eat God, etc. There’s still too much of an influence on gnostic heresies, which have the idea that the body is bad, and the spirit is good. This is wrong - they are both good, both created by God, and we need to worship God with everything we’ve got. That’s why there’s gestures and things in the Mass - sitting, standing, kneeling, folding hands, raising hands, etc. Tongues I think is God’s way of making physical the praise He has put into our hearts.

 

[guanophore]

Sigh sounds like babble to me. What I don’t understand is that a lot of people use the argument against Latin asking why would God want you to worship in a language you don’t understand. So I ask you why would God want you to praise him in an unknown language? I gurantee that if I asked the person that just babbled praise to God he/she would not be able to translate it, in face they might just make it up as they go.

Both are important. As St. Paul writes, “I will pray with the mind, and I will pray with the Spirit also”. When one is praying in tongues “the mind is unfruitful”. There are some forms of prayer where this is preferable. Contemplative prayer is another form, though generally silent, where the mind is to be “unfruitful”.

 

[JReducation]

Sigh sounds like babble to me. What I don’t understand is that a lot of people use the argument against Latin asking why would God want you to worship in a language you don’t understand. So I ask you why would God want you to praise him in an unknown language? I guarantee that if I asked the person that just babbled praise to God he/she would not be able to translate it, in face they might just make it up as they go.

I think that’s a fair argument, but I’m really pro-Latin myself. Of course it sounds like babble to you, because you don’t know what’s being said. I go to a bilingual parish, and I hear people “babbling” in Spanish all the time. It sounds just like babble to me, because I don’t know what’s being said.

Actually, it is not a fair argument. It is an established teaching in Mystical Theology that there is such a thing as the gift of tongues and that it is given for use in private prayer. The Church defines private prayer any prayer that is not the mass or the Divine Office. Even the rosary is private prayer, whether you have one person or one million praying it. The masters on prayer have discussed this at great length. I set out a few titles in a previous post that we use in our first-year of Mystical Theology, which by the way is a four-year program after you have finished a four-year Master’s in Theology. The point that I’m making is that this is not an easy area and there are no short answers. We have to be aware of that. No one can give a short and concise answer to these questions on a forum.

If anyone wants substantive answers based on Catholic Mystical Theology, one has to begin to read. But don’t read blogs. They’re usually full of nonsense. Read theology, philosophy, psychology of human development and Christian psychology.

The issue about Latin does not apply here, because Latin is the language of liturgy. Liturgy is public prayer. God does want you to understand so that you may participate in the mass. We know that participation takes many forms. I know that many of you don’t like to hear from us who are priests and religious, but unfortunately, we’re to stay. So, I will refer to the many forms of the Roman Liturgy in the different religious communities, which are not the same as the different rites in the Latin Church. A rite is different from a form. We have three religious orders that have their own rites: Dominican, Carmelite and Carthusian. Then we have several forms of the one Roman Rite: Franciscan, Benedictine, Ignatian, Augustinian and I believe the other is Passionist. Each of these forms and rites has different modalities of participation.

The issue is that participation is a requirement for liturgy. One does not attend a mass. One participates in a mass, even if one is silently following along, hopefully you’re attentive to and aware of what is happening.

The argument for the use of the vernacular is based on the fact that participation is required and that the Church intends for the participants to have shared meaning through language. This is not the case in mystical prayer. There is no need for shared meaning. God is not interested in having you understand. God is interested in speaking to your soul, not your intellect. For this reason, Mystical Theology always speaks of prayer and religious experience in terms of an intimate relationship between the soul and God. The mind and body are part of the total person, but it is in the soul where God speaks and is spoken to in private prayer.

Many mystics have converge both, private and public prayer. This is not an easy thing to do and usually requires a special grace from God. It’s not something that we can force God to make happen.

Having said all of this, in both examples, the religious experience of the Charismatic and the religious experience of the Traditionalist there is always the possibility of human interference. The psyche can be doing the driving and we may think it’s the Spirit. Many visions and locutions are purely psychological; but on the surface they look exactly like those had by people like St. Faustina. Even St. Faustina was to undergo a long series of psychiatric evaluations before the Church authorities accepted that this was a truly religious experience. She was not talking in tongues. She said that she saw Jesus. Well the children at Fatima said they saw the Blessed Mother. St. Francis said he saw Christ Crucified, why couldn’t Faustina see Jesus? The Church reserves judgment until she rules out human intervention.

Reserving judgment is one thing. Condemnation and ridiculing is another. The latter is unnecessary and reflects arrogance. It’s as if the person doing the speaking believed himself or herself to be an authority on these matters. Trust me, after many years of studying this stuff, there are very few authorities. Every time we answer one question, another question arises.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[vardaquinn]

@JReducation: well said!

I was simply thinking it was a fair point to question why an individual who prays in tongues would at the same time dislike Latin (since for both you don’t know what is being said).

 

[JReducation]

I’ve always found the subject of prayer a fascinating one. Now, I regret that I did not major in prayer when I earned by degree. Instead, I majored in Franciscan-Carmelite Asceticism. At the time, everyone was writing on prayer and we had to pick an area that was not being discussed. Anyway, that was a long time ago. However, we did take many courses on prayer, the dynamics of prayer, the anatomy of the soul, the effects of prayer and the stages of prayer. At that time, the Pentecostal Movement, as it was then called, was very new to Catholics and it was highly suspect, but not for the reasons that have been posted here.

Unbelievably, the biggest concern was that it did not appear to be Trinitarian enough. I have to repeat, appeared. That’s the operative word. Pope Paul VI did not deal with it very much. He was a lawyer by training and a diplomat. Like every pope, he brought his gifts to the table. He was very engaged in rewriting the Code of Canon Law, a task that was completed by his successor. In 1978, Bl. John Paul becomes pope. He is an expert in Mystical and Ascetical Theology. He had a keen interest in exceptional religious experiences. He had been studying the Carmelite Mystics for years. He emulated them in many ways. Bl. John Paul took an interest in the movement. It opened the door for theologians to look at it more closely.

The Franciscan Friars of the Third Order Regular (TOR) and the Capuchin Franciscans (OFM Cap) took a great interest in it, because this form of prayer was very much a part of ancient Franciscan spirituality. It had never become organized, as were the rosary and other forms of private prayer. It certainly never became institutionalized; in other words, it did not become the official form of Franciscan prayer. However, it was in Franciscan history.

Early Franciscan historians report that Francis was given to swoon, a modern term for an old human experience. He had no control over it. Theologians say that he engaged in Prayer of Praise, more than any other spiritual master and mystic in Christian history. He wrote many Laudas that were meant to be sung or recited. He wrote them in Latin, French or Italian. Though he was Italian, French was his mother tongue. His French prayers of praise are written in better grammar than those written in Latin and Italian.

Francis had used Prayer of Praise and was known to have moments when no one understood, not even he. There were other moments when the prayers were in the languages of the time. My guess is that those prayers in the vernacular were meant to be shared. Latin was still a vernacular language then. That does not make them public prayers. However, they have shared meaning. When you examine them, they make profound theological statements. In fact, in one of his prayers of praise, he makes a statement about the Blessed Mother and the Church that had never been made, but which became the subject of study for years to come. He called her “The Virgin made Church.”

On the other side, those prayers that even Francis could not translate were the result of a communion between the soul and the Spirit. These were not meant to be understood by Francis or anyone else. They were the groaning of which the Scriptures speak when God graces the soul with a glimpse of his glory.

Even though we had not institutionalized this form of prayer, it was not new to Catholicism. In fact, it predates Protestantism. It is very likely that it predates Francis of Assisi. Some writings by the Desert Fathers and Mothers suggest such experiences. My guess is that it became very popular among the Evangelical Christians, because they stripped worship down to the basics, prayer and scripture, while other Christian traditions preserved sacraments, liturgy and ritual. Over the centuries, there developed a suspicion on both sides, not just between Catholics and Protestants, but also between Evangelicals and other Christians.

 

[JReducation]

It is Blessed John Paul, with the help of these two Franciscan obediences who tried to reconcile what we had as private prayer and prayer of praise. Guided by Bl. John Paul’s faith in what then Father Ratzinger had written for Vatican II, they looked for that which is good. It was not without challenges. They had to weed out the temptation to give priority to this form of prayer over liturgy, which is the highest form of public praise, because Protestant Evangelical Christians did not have liturgy, nor did they have public prayer. As they pulled away from Lutheranism, they abolished public prayer. Praying in public replaced public prayer. That error had to be corrected. There was nothing wrong with the prayer of praise, whether it was in private or in public. However, it had to be understood that it is not public prayer. Catholics who were nurtured by this form of prayer had to grasp that this was not a replacement for liturgy. However, it could co-exist along side. This was easier for the Third Order Friars and Capuchin Friars than any other religious order, because they never had a tradition of “formal” liturgy. Notice the quotation marks.

St. Francis had re-introduced what would later become the Tridentine Mass. Re-introduced, because it was a form that had been shelved. That’s another story. However, as the Franciscan family grew, it subdivided into independent communities called Obediences. Briefly, they follow the same rule. On those matters that are not covered in the rule, they are free to write statutes to fit the situation. Liturgy was one of them. Francis was very clear on what he did not want. He did not want Gregorian Chant. He did not want choirs for praying the Divine Office. He did not want scholas. He did not want unnecessary barriars and distinctions between the ordained and the non-ordained in the mass or the Divine Office. He was very brief in what he wanted. The mass was to be celebrated with great interior solemnity, while keeping it simple on the outside. The mass was so sacred that not even the ordained friar could presume to have a right to celebrate it on a whim. Those friars who were not priests were to participate in the celebration of the mass and the Divine Office; therefore, as much vernacular as was allowed, should be used so that no friar would feel imposed on to learn more than basic Latin. The Latin requirement was minimal. That did not mean that you couldn’t learn it. It just meant that you did not have to master it, as did a Dominican. Many Franciscan doctors were fluent in it.

With this historical background, the friars started to celebrate mass during Charismatic events. They had no reason not to do so, because they were not tied to the rigid rules of the Roman Missal. The Franciscan Missal had a little more flexibility. This flexibility lasted until the old Franciscan Missal was suppressed and the new Roman-Franciscan missal replaced it. This missal is more rigid and requires that the mass be more similar to that found in the Roman Missal, allowing from some customs to remain. That’s how this whole thing developed at Franciscan University and was brought to the Vatican by the Capuchins. For centuries, the rule is that the papal spiritual director and preacher must be a Capuchin Franciscan brother. The history and theology round this form of prayer is complex and can’t be fully exposed and appreciated on a forum. We would need a theologian whose area of expertise is prayer. I’m not that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JohnSFO]

The Charismatic Renewal has been around for over 40 years as a movement but has existed historically through individuals and even saints - especially when it comes to the gift of healing - and historically is steeped in the oldest tradition of our Catholic Faith: Pentecost. Charismatics and Traditionalists definitely express themselves differently, but are faithful and hold true to the tenets of the faith.

In 1975 Pope Paul VI greeted ten thousand Catholic charismatics from all over the world at the ninth international conference of the Renewal, “The Church and the world need more than ever that ‘the miracle of Pentecost should continue in history’ . . . How could this ‘spiritual renewal’ not be ‘good fortune’ for the Church and the world?”