Traditionalist and Charismatic

  • Thread starter Thread starter henrikhank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No it really is nothing like that at all, the charismatic movement is a group founded at a certain time, it is not possible for someone to be a member of a movement that did not even exist when they lived.

Perhaps you would like to share with us what makes you think Padre Pio was a member of a movement that did not even exist while he was alive, perhaps you think all saints were charismatic? All miracle workers? Which would just go to show the arrogance of the charismatic movement.
If I may tack on to your post…

Supernatural powers do not act as indisputable proof of sainthood.

Everyone is well aware of the seemingly miraculous magic of Lucifer.

Charismatics, just like any of us, can fall prey to this mistake.
 
Padre Pio died in 1946 the catholic charismatic movement did not even start until 1967, he was not a charismatic, claiming him as such is dishonest.

Mother Angelica in her biography tells us she rejected the charismatic movement because she realized it did not lead people to Christ, pretending that she is still a charismatic is again dishonest.
Did you bother to read the link? A number of saints and holy people exercised charisms, after Pentecost and the Corinthian Church, and before the Charismatic Renewal. The article didn’t say he was a charismatic in the sense of being part of the Charismatic Renewal, but rather that he was charismatic because he exercised many charisms. Which is a FACT.

Are you referring to Raymond Arroyo’s best-selling biography of Mother Angelica? Because that is what the article was quoting from. “. There are also references to her misgivings concerning those who abused certain aspects of the Charismatic Renewal (see especially her own broader statement of concern quoted at p. 134). It’s all there, the positive and the negative. But the undeniable fact is that Mother Angelica herself received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues.” The author of the article stated, “I found no repudiation by Mother Angelica of the truth and importance of her own charismatic experiences. For those who own the book, here are the relevant page references I found to the charismatic movement and to speaking in tongues: pp. 119-20, 121, 123, 133-35, 202. Read and judge for yourself. The lady so rightly celebrated by so many traditional and orthodox Catholics had a significant charismatic experience that her biographer describes as pivotal in her life.”

Since you claim that “Mother Angelica in her biography tells us she rejected the charismatic movement”, please cite your source for your claim, because the article I cited, that references her biography by Raymond Arroyo is disagreeing with you. It says she had some problems with abuse of certain aspects, but she never dismissed it overall.

You claiming that it is dishonest to state that Padre Pio and Mother Angelica is in itself dishonest, because the article show that both had charisms they exercised. And even if they didn’t, you still have three popes who have addressed the Charismatic Renewal in a very positive manner, as well as the fact that the official Papal Household Preacher is the very charismatic Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap.
 
Look on page 135 of the book by Arroyo, its only a short paragraph but its in there, she left the charismtaic movement in 1980 according to the book.

Having charisms does not make one a member of the charismatic movement or in any way show the charismatic movement to be good. That is a deceitful argument.

Thankyou for proving my point about the pride of the charismatic movement though.

The Saints do not belong to the charismatic movement, they belong to the Catholic Church, they were not members of the charismatic movement they are members of the Catholic Church, they do not belong to the charismatic movement, they belong to the Catholic Church and all Catholics.

And unlike the members of the charismatic movement they did not actively seek out the power of the charisms by being “baptized in the spirit”. Which is a huge difference between the saints and charismatic elitists who actively seek and claim to have the secret spiritual knowledge and power much in the manner of the ancient gnostics.

Catholics receive the holy spirit at confirmation, been “baptized in the spirit” is itself protestant, protestants invented it to make up for the fact that they do not have the sacrament of confirmation, it is redundant in the Catholic Faith.

All Catholics share in the Holy Spirit.
 
All Catholics do share in the H.S. from Baptism but we teach a Baptism of the Spirit at Confirmation don’t we?
 
All Catholics do share in the H.S. from Baptism but we teach a Baptism of the Spirit at Confirmation don’t we?
The Most Holy Spirit of God is poured out upon us at Confirmation. 🙂 He makes us Knights of Christ, forever signed and sealed toward the goal of the Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing is more glorious than the stamina infused in the soul, by God, with this holy sacrament.
A convert from Pentecostalism, I still pray in tongues (privately), and thank God for the gift. After joining the Church, I considered myself “Truly Pentecostal”. In fact, when asked why I converted, I often answered “in order to become a better Pentecostal”.
:confused: Pentecost was a unique event that cannot be replicated. The Holy Apostles were given this gift. Look at Acts 1:15-26, and then the event of Pentecost immediately following, in Acts 2:1-4. As with all of the Holy Scriptures, the end of one chapter is not necessarily the book-end of a set of events; indeed, events and descriptions may carry from the end of one and into the beginning of another! Now, look at the last verses of Acts 1: the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas’ vacancy. Immediately thereafter, Acts 2 begins and it says “they were all assembled together” on the 50th day… meaning the Apostles, who had just been described one sentence beforehand - not necessarily the Disciples.

It seems that only the Holy Apostles were given this gift, and when St. Paul writes of it in his letters he is addressing it to clergy and bishops first. Disciples are not particularly mentioned as having this gift. It’s extant for a specific purpose, after all. We’re not all called to be Apostles (bishops and priests), and it seems to me that this “Renewal” is trying to make everyone into one.
Besides, the “ecstatic” is also a facet of the my worship in the TLM, but experienced with more profundity and interiority, because of the depth and beauty of Catholic teaching.
🙂
Yes, at Mass I’m often smiling a broad smile that is impossible to douse or kill. I get so worked up, but I don’t let it get to me. There’s no need to raise up your hands, pretend to fall asleep on the floor, or make a ridiculous attempt to speak gibberish. When that Holy Eucharist is consecrated and God comes substantially into the Bread, my heart is pounding and my forehead is sweating. How much more charismatic can you get?
I have seen people praying in tongues, Resting in the Spirit, prophesying in tongues, interpreting the prophecy tongues, laying on of hands for healing prayer, singing both modern and traditional hymns and praying intercessory prayer.
Do you think you could explain what you actually mean by all that? What does it look like or sound like to observe people “praying in tongues”? Since when does the Bible even go near telling us to pray in tongues? We see, from history, that this gift was used to preach and to convert those with a language barrier. It had nothing to do with private prayer. Praying in tongues sounds like the most ridiculous form of pedantic lecturing, whereas God just wants us to talk the way we are. If you speak English naturally, God wants to hear your prayers in ENGLISH, because He knows you express yourself best in English. The gift of tongues is for the benefit of other men, not for God. God’s practical, you know, despite all the rubbish that gets spread out about Him. 😛 I just associate “praying in tongues” with absolute pious mystical prelest.

Where is the laying-on-of-hands ever shown in the Bible, except perhaps when St. Peter takes the crippled man and the dead virgin by the hand? That humble healing is radically different from having a mock-ordination (for that’s what it is) of putting both hands on someone’s head! Please correct me if I’m wrong… 😦

Just so you know, the Holy Scriptures do not once say that tongues need to be “interpreted”. If you truly have the gift of tongues, both you and the foreigner you’re talking to know exactly what is being said. The Gift of Tongues is meant as a reparation of our situation after the fall of the Tower of Babel. IT IS NOT something you DO; when you have the gift of tongues, you speak English normally and Germans hear German; Italians hear Italian, etc. How can you know if you’re praying in tongues when you’re alone with God? This is God reaching back to us after Babel, in the healing grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and saying “here is your unity of language back: use it wisely this time, my children”. 🙂
And all are part of authentic Charismatic worship, and fully endorsed and accepted by the Church.
The Church endorses ideas, but an almost infinite number of practical consequences can flow forth. Vatican II, for example, demands more lay involvement in the Liturgy, but that can hardly be used as justification for bringing children up around the altar during the Consecration, and a million other silly things that violate the holiness of the event. Notions and theories are endorsed by the Holy See, and very often they’re totally abstract. It’s left to us, in our infinite lay prudence (:rolleyes:) and pastoral responsibility, to implement these ideas. We can fail.
Have you ever been to an actual Catholic Charismatic event and witnessed what you claim? Because I keep running into people in this forum, who have ideas of what they think it is, or have only witnessed Protestant Pentecostal or Protestant Charismatic (such as Assemblies of God). and think that it’s the same thing. It isn’t.
Can you give us any examples from YouTube that show the true, actual, complete Catholic Charismatic Renewal Mass/service? What is the fullness that we have received from this movement? I want to see it.
 
Oh, and here’s an excerpt from the Legend of St. Dominic (written in the 1260’s, mind you):

The Legend of St. Dominic said:
"WHILE travelling from Toulouse to Paris in company with Brother Bertrand de Garrigue, who was the first Provincial of Provence, our holy father spent the night in watching and prayer in the church of our Lady at Roc-Amadour. Next day they came up with a band of pilgrims from Germany, who, hearing them reciting the Psalms and Litanies, joined company with them, and on coming to the next town hospitably entertained them during three days.

One morning St Dominic addressed Brother Bertrand after this fashion: ‘Good brother, I am much troubled in conscience seeing that we are reaping the material good things of these pilgrims without sowing spiritual ones in return, so, if it please you, let us kneel down and ask God to enable us to understand their tongue, that we may preach Jesus Christ to them.’ This they did, and to the bewilderment of the pilgrims they began to speak fluently in German, and as they trudged along together during the next four days, they continued conversing about our Lord Jesus Christ until they came to Orleans. There the Germans, who were on their way to Chartres, parted company with them on the road which led to Paris, after humbly commending themselves to their prayers.

Some time after this our holy father said to Brother Bertrand: ‘Brother, we are now going to enter Paris, and if our brethren here only knew of that miracle which God wrought in us they would repute us to be saints, whereas we are but sinners, and if it got rumoured abroad we should be liable to vanity: wherefore, in virtue of holy obedience I forbid you to mention it to a soul until after my death.’ Nor was it divulged to our brethren until after his death."

It may only be a pious legend, but it was compiled from stories being told only 20-30 years after the death of St. Dominic. 🙂 Look at that great humility…
 
The same people who decry projectors being up on the wall want youtube clips of Masses…which would mean someone would have a camera or cell phone at Mass.

“Where in the Bible does this happen…?” Sounds like ‘Protestant’ talk to me. But I digress! I recall finding somewhere that St. Irenious mentioned the gifts that Paul spoke of being used. And further, why focus on tongues? There’s other gifts (discernment, healing, music, service, teaching misc etc) which are plainly in use within the Church today.

You know, if the traditional movement and charismatic movement are both rooted in the faith, approved by the last two or three Popes, do not conflict with our two Rules of Faith, I fail to see what the big deal is.
 
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. 🤷
“Hello Holy Spirit? Are you available next Sunday? We need to start babling and waive are hands in air like we just don’t care” lol. Sorry about that folks. I’ve been to one charasmatic even when I was in highschool and to be honest it creeped me out seeing all these people shake and fall to the floor. They did this while haing the sacred host exposed.
 
“The Pope says chant is great. Therefore everyone should use chant”.

“The Pope says the charismatic renewal is approved, but that doesn’t matter”.

If you’re going to base some things on what the Pope says, you need to be consistent about it. Saying on one hand “it’s what the Pope likes” as a method of supporting yourself is really only valid if you accept his opinion on other items too.

BXVI’s personal preacher is a charismatic, so clearly our current Pope is fine with it.
 
I’ll be perfectly honest: I want chant because I like chant. I want solemnity because I like solemnity.

Also, I find it interesting that all the biggest proponents of the Charismatic Renewal in this thread are Franciscans or Secular Franciscans. Isn’t that a funny coincidence? OR CONSPIRACY??? :eek:
 
Just so you know, the Holy Scriptures do not once say that tongues need to be “interpreted”. If you truly have the gift of tongues, both you and the foreigner you’re talking to know exactly what is being said.
Below is the most comprehensive scripture on speaking in tongues
1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to people but to God.
This supports prayer in an unknown tongue.

Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,** but I would rather have you prophesy.** The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,[c] unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.****

Interpretation of tongues in bold above.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20 Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21 In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,
says the Lord.”[e]
22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”
Paul obviously is admonishing the church he is writing to about the focus on such things and that they should focus on faith, love and hope.

However, he doesn’t say such gifts of the Spirit are false or invalid. He questions how useful speaking in tongues is if they don’t edify the people. And he is not only talking to disciples/bishops, so the laity exhibited these gifts as well.

I tend to be skeptical of the “gifts of the Spirit” as manifested today.

But I quoted this scripture to show that most beliefs have some basis in scripture. It is a matter of interpretation.
 
Pax et bonum!
We all know the story of the first Pentecost from the Bible. I know that the Apostles looked like drunkards according to the Jews at that time but I think they were wrong. When the Apostles were talking about Jesus they looked like drunk people since Jews do not beleive in Him and they were even using other languages than the classical Jewish languages of that time. JP2 is a very good example of a real charismatic saint. He talked with everyone and whe he visited Sweden he even spoke Swedish. I would also say that this is one thing to remember. But please explain this. I think JP2 was accepting the Charismatic Renewal.
Renewal has always had its place in the CC. Monasticism comes out of this idea as well. If one wants to have a Early Church perspective Tertullian (North Africa 2nd C) who was a lawyer and a bit of a Traditionalist (even back then) supported a Charismatic renewal movement called Montanism which spoke in tongues and prophisied.

I have no problem with either TLM or a Charismatic service/ prayer meeting. It is the word of God man can’t live without, not a particular type of liturgy (EF or Of &C.)
i wouldn’t use the term Renewal for this. maybe it’s more like working with the Holy Ghost rather than a renewal. but maybe i am wrong.
 
I’ll be perfectly honest: I want chant because I like chant. I want solemnity because I like solemnity.

Also, I find it interesting that all the biggest proponents of the Charismatic Renewal in this thread are Franciscans or Secular Franciscans. Isn’t that a funny coincidence? OR CONSPIRACY??? :eek:
Well first, Steubenville is run by Franciscans. Second, Brother JR once posted something about Francis and charismatic-ism, perhaps he could shed some light on that. And thirdly, I would also like to refer you to the Companion’s of the Cross, who are not Franciscan.

And finally, please refer to forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=562259 regarding my recent discernment with Franciscan spirituality and Dominican spirituality. I’m not a member of the SFO, although I identify myself with Franciscan spirituality…for now. But that’s a different story all together.
 
I’ll be perfectly honest: I want chant because I like chant. I want solemnity because I like solemnity.

Also, I find it interesting that all the biggest proponents of the Charismatic Renewal in this thread are Franciscans or Secular Franciscans. Isn’t that a funny coincidence? OR CONSPIRACY??? :eek:
Cuz we’re all a bunch of dirty stinkin’ hippies! 😛
 
Dang! It’s amazing how many, typically Traditionalists, get this all wrong. The charisms belong to the Catholic Church, the Protestants got them from us, just like they got the bible from us. The renewal is not inspired by Pentecostalism, authentic Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church does not even borrow from Pentecostalism, The movement is a renewal of the charisms of the early church, which is why it is called Charismatic Renewal.

And what you personally think about it, is your problem. It is compatible with Catholicism, has had the endorsement and support of 3 popes: Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There are problems with Charismatic Renewal, just as there are problems with Traditionalists, typically due to pride-filled individuals who think they are correct, and everybody should agree with them. If it wasn’t compatible with Catholicism, it would not have had the backing of the Holy Father himself.
You mentioned that Charismatic Renewal doesn’t borrow from Pentacostalism, yet Pentacostalism preceded Charismatic Renewal. John Wesley, among others, experimented with the speaking in tongues in the 1700’s (my great grandfather was a Methodist preacher). So, if the Protestants hadn’t thought of it first, through private interpretation of scripture, would Catholics have afterwards likely started experimenting with speaking in tongues, too?
 
I can’t disagree with that! 😃 How many spiritual Dominicans do you see going through charismatic hoops? Bah! 😛
I know of a few, actually. And depending on where my discernment process leads me I very well become one (of a tritary nature though) 🙂
 
You mentioned that Charismatic Renewal doesn’t borrow from Pentacostalism, yet Pentacostalism preceded Charismatic Renewal. John Wesley, among others, experimented with the speaking in tongues in the 1700’s (my great grandfather was a Methodist preacher). So, if the Protestants hadn’t thought of it first, through private interpretation of scripture, would Catholics have afterwards likely started experimenting with speaking in tongues, too?
If it’s led by the Holy Ghost then yes, Catholics would have embraced it regardless.
 
If it’s led by the Holy Ghost then yes, Catholics would have embraced it regardless.
It’s just my opinion, but I think that Catholics would not have started experimenting with speaking in tongues if the Protestants hadn’t thought of it first. The gift of tongues died out after the Apostolic Age. It was used to initially to help spread the faith. There have been saints, of course, who had this gift, but they are in the minority, and to my knowledge, none of them asked or prayed for this gift - certainly not Padre Pio - just as he did not ask for the stigmata, either. Padre Pio mostly used the gifts that were given him for use in the confessional - where he spent as many as 12 hours a day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top