Traditionalist and Charismatic

[Melchior_1]

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.

You don’t ask for specific Gifts, you ask for Gifts period. Whatever God gives you to build up the Body, that’s what you get. To some, tongues. To others, prophecy. To still others, wisdom. You get what you’re given and you do what you can.

You say on one hand that tongues died out during the Apostolic Age, yet you turn around and then say that some have had it afterward. Those two don’t exactly line up together.

And again, why is everyone focusing on tongues when there’s all sorts of other gifts in use by several people within the Church today>

Still haven’t heard anyone come up with a good reason why if this is sooooo bad, how come Benedict’s personal preacher is a member of the movement.

 

[ExLibris]

“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.

Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors:

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church

Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos:

That unity can arise only from one teaching authority, one law of belief, and one faith of Christians. But we do know that from such a state of affairs it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or “indifferentism,” and to the error of the modernists, who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, that it changes according to the varying necessities of time and place and the varying tendencies of the mind; that it is not contained in an immutable tradition, but can be altered to suit the needs of human life.

 

[Denise1957]

You don’t ask for specific Gifts, you ask for Gifts period. Whatever God gives you to build up the Body, that’s what you get. To some, tongues. To others, prophecy. To still others, wisdom. You get what you’re given and you do what you can.

You say on one hand that tongues died out during the Apostolic Age, yet you turn around and then say that some have had it afterward. Those two don’t exactly line up together.

And again, why is everyone focusing on tongues when there’s all sorts of other gifts in use by several people within the Church today>

Still haven’t heard anyone come up with a good reason why if this is sooooo bad, how come Benedict’s personal preacher is a member of the movement.

The gift of tongues was prevalent in the early Church, mainly in order to help spread the faith. The faithful in Corinth are an example of those who regularly spoke in tongues, but they went a little overboard and thus St. Paul had to write to them. This gift was still bestowed on some after the Apostolic Age, but none asked for or went seeking this gift. That’s the difference that I see with those who are known to have had this gift since the Apostolic Age, and those who actively seek after it in the Charismatic movement.

 

[Melchior_1]

Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors:

Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos:

That’s swell, they’re talking about Protestants. Meanwhile, the charismatic Catholics are, you know, Catholic. So it doesn’t apply to them because they’re still Catholic. Unless you’re calling the Pope’s preacher not Catholic.

Are you telling me I’m not Catholic either? Or that I’m “less Catholic than you?”

And using your logic, you better get rid of the hymns, Mozart, Bach, and other assorted items that came form Protestants or written by Protestants. CS Lewis as got to go too. And the whole Anglican Use business needs to shove off as well.

There’s something of note…the Anglican Use. Would traditional Catholics object to it, knowing that it is purely made based off of a splinter group that left Rome then came back centuries later?

 

[ajpirc]

Sorry to butt-in here, but this thread is also about traditionalists (like me). Could we start talking about our different views on traditionalists? Sorry to interrupt your discussion.

 

[Sarika]

And using your logic, you better get rid of the hymns, Mozart, Bach, and other assorted items that came form Protestants or written by Protestants.

---

Mozart was Catholic. Bach was Lutheran, but took pains to include Catholic elements in his Masses.

 

[Sarika]

The gift of tongues was prevalent in the early Church, mainly in order to help spread the faith. The faithful in Corinth are an example of those who regularly spoke in tongues, but they went a little overboard and thus St. Paul had to write to them. This gift was still bestowed on some after the Apostolic Age, but none asked for or went seeking this gift. That’s the difference that I see with those who are known to have had this gift since the Apostolic Age, and those who actively seek after it in the Charismatic movement.

Amen to all of this, especially “none asked for or went seeking this gift”. Or at least they weren’t supposed to…St Paul warned of that, and told them to seek the higher gifts instead…namely love.

 

[At_Trent]

“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.

Just wait. Soon they will be bringing a basket of copperheads

 

[At_Trent]

“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.

The charismatic fad is approved, Chant has been promoted and is so deeply ingrained in the history of the Church, it will remain long after the charismatic fad dies out.

 

[Melchior_1]

The charismatic fad is approved, Chant has been promoted and is so deeply ingrained in the history of the Church, it will remain long after the charismatic fad dies out.

I’m sure lots of traditional practices were deemed as fads at the time.

 

[ajpirc]

The charismatic fad is approved, Chant has been promoted and is so deeply ingrained in the history of the Church, it will remain long after the charismatic fad dies out.

Amen, amen I say to you. Gregorian chant has flourished in the Church for 1500 years, and may its beauty flourish for 2000 more years.

 

[Iotaunum]

I want to give my opinion on the Charismatic movement and its relationship, or lack thereof, with traditional Catholicism:

There seems to be two opposing sides on this thread. I am of the position that the Charismatic movement is not traditionally Catholic nor part of Catholic tradition. I believe, according to my research, that the Charismatic movement was truly born among those who separated themselves from the Catholic Church and generally rejected the efficacy of the Sacraments. Even the more conservative protestant denominations reject this movement as something foreign to the Gospel.

What is now called the “Charismatic movement” has a traceable beginning in the 60’s - at least in terms of Catholic participation. If we look back throughout Church history (Catholic History) we find no such practices among the Popes, doctors of the Church or Saints. At no time do we find such practices endorsed by the Church. Now those who disagree with me will often claim that this practice was apostolic in origin and fell out of use/was forgot about/suppressed during latter years (almost 2000!) and was revived in the 60’s. Well I would respond by saying that no such movement /practices of the sort are found among the Church Fathers and the earliest Church documents. Whatsmore, this movement is not a revival/renewal since it never existed, nor was endorsed by the Church. This movement was highjacked from Pentecostalism in the 60’s by a few more liberal Catholics. Even the Charismatic supporters themselves admit that it was “revived” in the 60’s.

Now, to support their arguments for the authenticity of the movement, people often mention Pentecost and the gifts received by the Apostles and some of the saints. However these too show nothing but contrast between traditional Catholicism and the Charismatic movement.

Speaking in tongues is not given by God lightly. Now when the Apostles preached a sermon, the Holy Ghost aided them so that each person in the crowd heard it in his own tongue. Also, many of the saints preached to others in different countries, who heard the words in their own language also. This is a true demonstration of the remarkably rare miraculous aid given to the Apostles and some saints for their missions and the spread of the Gospel to all nations. It obviously consists of being able to speak and be understood by others in their own tongue. Other manifestations of speaking in tongues have been associated with the demonic and preternatural. Monsignor Ronald Knox commented that: “To speak in tongues you had never learned was and is a recognized symptom in alleged cases of diabolic possession."

Now the so-called gift of tongues seen in the Charismatic movement stands in stark contrast to the genuine gift. I have seen Charismatic events/masses/celebrations. I have video footage of priests talking literally gibberish while standing at the altar and laymen making noises which 50 years ago would have seen them admitted as an inmate to a lunatic asylum. This is not a joke, nor is it just “bad examples” I am seeing. It is across the board (and no, I do not have to have attended every single one to make this claim). The language is no “tongue” at all and infact is generally unable to be translated. It serves no purpose, for there are not native gibberish speakers whom the Holy Ghost would be trying to reach. Also, it seems they feel that the Holy Ghost speaks through many people at once, and the nonsense which comes out of their mouths is shouted over one another. It is a useless nonsensical waste of time which serves the Church and the Holy Ghost no purpose that I know of. I do not think that the majority of the time it is even demonic in origin, for the demons are usually want to make themselves understood and can speak in a real language with relative competence. Had someone at one of these meetings stood up and spoke for a while in Arabic or Greek without having known or having learned the language, then we could say they spoke in tongues - but we do not conclude that is was the Holy ghost, since it would be peculiar indeed for the Holy Ghost to inspire someone to do this in a country which does not understand the language.

The “resting in the Spirit’, ‘slain in the Spirit’ or 'overpowering of the Spirit - terms Cardinal Suenens used in one of his books, is likewise unreconcilable with traditional Catholicism. It is simply unknown and not practiced by the saints. It usually consists of falling backwards while engaged in a prayer or healing service - according to Card. Suenens and the footage I have seen. Its purpose has yet to be explained. For me, it seems a ridiculous phenomenon which goes hand in hand with the so-called gift of tongues. I seen one video where the candidate could not so easily be “slain by the spirit” as willingly as the others, only to witness the one imparting the gift to return and use more force to “encourage” them to accept the gift. I genuinely see nothing Catholic about this, nor did I ever hear of the saints or apostles making people fall to the ground, except when they were, by the power of God, struck dead in punishment.

I do not mean to offend anyone who is involved with this movement, but I really do not think it compatible with Catholicism. Now I don’t care if Mother Theresa or anyone else did a Charismatic dance while being slain and speaking in tongues simultaneously (I would never accuse her of doing such) I find no grounds for reconciling it with Catholicism. Also, I think those who try and use saints such as Padre Pio as example of saints who would approve of the movement need to read more about these saints and their writings. I can imagine Padre Pios reaction to seeing some of these events. Anyway - that’s my opinion, don’t bite my head off!

 

[Melchior_1]

If we look back throughout Church history (Catholic History) we find no such practices among the Popes, doctors of the Church or Saints. At no time do we find such practices endorsed by the Church.

Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God. For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. For if any one take away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God.

• St. Irenaeus.

And I found an interesting post from Brother JR looking through some archives;

*The gifts of the Holy Spirit: speaking in tongues, prophesy, etc are real. They have been with us since the foundation of the Church. There is nothing in Catholic theology opposed this idea. There are actually stories of saints that suggest that they had such gifts, possibly other people too who have never been canonized. There is no reason to believe that they are not granted by the Holy Spirit.

The problem in the Protestant tradition and among some Catholics too is that the appreciation for the external gifts is often so intense, that there is a loss of appreciation for the rest that should also be part of the spiritual life: sacraments, Liturgy of the Hours, and contemplative prayer.

There was a long period in the history of the Church when these gifts were not paid much attention, because of a fear of superstition creeping in. This is always possible with anything in the spiritual life, but especially with signs and wonders that are more external. But these gifts have always been around.

If one studies Mystical Theology, one finds many examples of these gifts present in our history. You have people like Padre Pio who read souls, this is one form of prophesy. St. Francis spoke in tongue when he prayed. Some reports suggest the Pope John Paul II also prayed in tongues. People say that they heard murmurrings of something that sounded like language when he prayed. Healing as always been present among us.

This is not as new or as Protestant as people may think. It simply was something that was not talked about very much. Again, these are external signs of God’s presence. The spiritual life must always seek to go deeper into contemplation. But they certainly are a good place to begin as long as one keeps things in proper perspective.

We should not try to ban these things, but rather try to blend it with the rest of our spiritual life. If one has a gift, let him use it. If he does not have it, let him not try to force it. This was the teaching of St. Francis on these gifts. Fancis taught this to the brothers as early as 1209, long before the birth of Evangelical Protestantism as we know it. The rule in Mystical Theology, for judging the veracity of these gifts, is the measure of charity on the part of the person with the gift. All of God’s gifts are meant to produce works of charity.

A gift that does not produce works of charity is not a gift, but a fabrication, whether it’s speaking in tongues or contemplation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF *

 

[ajpirc]

I want to give my opinion on the Charismatic movement and its relationship, or lack thereof, with traditional Catholicism:

There seems to be two opposing sides on this thread. I am of the position that the Charismatic movement is not traditionally Catholic nor part of Catholic tradition. I believe, according to my research, that the Charismatic movement was truly born among those who separated themselves from the Catholic Church and generally rejected the efficacy of the Sacraments. Even the more conservative protestant denominations reject this movement as something foreign to the Gospel.

What is now called the “Charismatic movement” has a traceable beginning in the 60’s - at least in terms of Catholic participation. If we look back throughout Church history (Catholic History) we find no such practices among the Popes, doctors of the Church or Saints. At no time do we find such practices endorsed by the Church. Now those who disagree with me will often claim that this practice was apostolic in origin and fell out of use/was forgot about/suppressed during latter years (almost 2000!) and was revived in the 60’s. Well I would respond by saying that no such movement /practices of the sort are found among the Church Fathers and the earliest Church documents. Whatsmore, this movement is not a revival/renewal since it never existed, nor was endorsed by the Church. This movement was highjacked from Pentecostalism in the 60’s by a few more liberal Catholics. Even the Charismatic supporters themselves admit that it was “revived” in the 60’s.

Now, to support their arguments for the authenticity of the movement, people often mention Pentecost and the gifts received by the Apostles and some of the saints. However these too show nothing but contrast between traditional Catholicism and the Charismatic movement.

Speaking in tongues is not given by God lightly. Now when the Apostles preached a sermon, the Holy Ghost aided them so that each person in the crowd heard it in his own tongue. Also, many of the saints preached to others in different countries, who heard the words in their own language also. This is a true demonstration of the remarkably rare miraculous aid given to the Apostles and some saints for their missions and the spread of the Gospel to all nations. It obviously consists of being able to speak and be understood by others in their own tongue. Other manifestations of speaking in tongues have been associated with the demonic and preternatural. Monsignor Ronald Knox commented that: “To speak in tongues you had never learned was and is a recognized symptom in alleged cases of diabolic possession."

Now the so-called gift of tongues seen in the Charismatic movement stands in stark contrast to the genuine gift. I have seen Charismatic events/masses/celebrations. I have video footage of priests talking literally gibberish while standing at the altar and laymen making noises which 50 years ago would have seen them admitted as an inmate to a lunatic asylum. This is not a joke, nor is it just “bad examples” I am seeing. It is across the board (and no, I do not have to have attended every single one to make this claim). The language is no “tongue” at all and infact is generally unable to be translated. It serves no purpose, for there are not native gibberish speakers whom the Holy Ghost would be trying to reach. Also, it seems they feel that the Holy Ghost speaks through many people at once, and the nonsense which comes out of their mouths is shouted over one another. It is a useless nonsensical waste of time which serves the Church and the Holy Ghost no purpose that I know of. I do not think that the majority of the time it is even demonic in origin, for the demons are usually want to make themselves understood and can speak in a real language with relative competence. Had someone at one of these meetings stood up and spoke for a while in Arabic or Greek without having known or having learned the language, then we could say they spoke in tongues - but we do not conclude that is was the Holy ghost, since it would be peculiar indeed for the Holy Ghost to inspire someone to do this in a country which does not understand the language.

The “resting in the Spirit’, ‘slain in the Spirit’ or 'overpowering of the Spirit - terms Cardinal Suenens used in one of his books, is likewise unreconcilable with traditional Catholicism. It is simply unknown and not practiced by the saints. It usually consists of falling backwards while engaged in a prayer or healing service - according to Card. Suenens and the footage I have seen. Its purpose has yet to be explained. For me, it seems a ridiculous phenomenon which goes hand in hand with the so-called gift of tongues. I seen one video where the candidate could not so easily be “slain by the spirit” as willingly as the others, only to witness the one imparting the gift to return and use more force to “encourage” them to accept the gift. I genuinely see nothing Catholic about this, nor did I ever hear of the saints or apostles making people fall to the ground, except when they were, by the power of God, struck dead in punishment.

I do not mean to offend anyone who is involved with this movement, but I really do not think it compatible with Catholicism. Now I don’t care if Mother Theresa or anyone else did a Charismatic dance while being slain and speaking in tongues simultaneously (I would never accuse her of doing such) I find no grounds for reconciling it with Catholicism. Also, I think those who try and use saints such as Padre Pio as example of saints who would approve of the movement need to read more about these saints and their writings. I can imagine Padre Pios reaction to seeing some of these events. Anyway - that’s my opinion, don’t bite my head off!

WOW!!! I totally agree.

 

[ajpirc]

I want to give my opinion on the Charismatic movement and its relationship, or lack thereof, with traditional Catholicism:

There seems to be two opposing sides on this thread. I am of the position that the Charismatic movement is not traditionally Catholic nor part of Catholic tradition. I believe, according to my research, that the Charismatic movement was truly born among those who separated themselves from the Catholic Church and generally rejected the efficacy of the Sacraments. Even the more conservative protestant denominations reject this movement as something foreign to the Gospel.

What is now called the “Charismatic movement” has a traceable beginning in the 60’s - at least in terms of Catholic participation. If we look back throughout Church history (Catholic History) we find no such practices among the Popes, doctors of the Church or Saints. At no time do we find such practices endorsed by the Church. Now those who disagree with me will often claim that this practice was apostolic in origin and fell out of use/was forgot about/suppressed during latter years (almost 2000!) and was revived in the 60’s. Well I would respond by saying that no such movement /practices of the sort are found among the Church Fathers and the earliest Church documents. Whatsmore, this movement is not a revival/renewal since it never existed, nor was endorsed by the Church. This movement was highjacked from Pentecostalism in the 60’s by a few more liberal Catholics. Even the Charismatic supporters themselves admit that it was “revived” in the 60’s.

Now, to support their arguments for the authenticity of the movement, people often mention Pentecost and the gifts received by the Apostles and some of the saints. However these too show nothing but contrast between traditional Catholicism and the Charismatic movement.

Speaking in tongues is not given by God lightly. Now when the Apostles preached a sermon, the Holy Ghost aided them so that each person in the crowd heard it in his own tongue. Also, many of the saints preached to others in different countries, who heard the words in their own language also. This is a true demonstration of the remarkably rare miraculous aid given to the Apostles and some saints for their missions and the spread of the Gospel to all nations. It obviously consists of being able to speak and be understood by others in their own tongue. Other manifestations of speaking in tongues have been associated with the demonic and preternatural. Monsignor Ronald Knox commented that: “To speak in tongues you had never learned was and is a recognized symptom in alleged cases of diabolic possession."

Now the so-called gift of tongues seen in the Charismatic movement stands in stark contrast to the genuine gift. I have seen Charismatic events/masses/celebrations. I have video footage of priests talking literally gibberish while standing at the altar and laymen making noises which 50 years ago would have seen them admitted as an inmate to a lunatic asylum. This is not a joke, nor is it just “bad examples” I am seeing. It is across the board (and no, I do not have to have attended every single one to make this claim). The language is no “tongue” at all and infact is generally unable to be translated. It serves no purpose, for there are not native gibberish speakers whom the Holy Ghost would be trying to reach. Also, it seems they feel that the Holy Ghost speaks through many people at once, and the nonsense which comes out of their mouths is shouted over one another. It is a useless nonsensical waste of time which serves the Church and the Holy Ghost no purpose that I know of. I do not think that the majority of the time it is even demonic in origin, for the demons are usually want to make themselves understood and can speak in a real language with relative competence. Had someone at one of these meetings stood up and spoke for a while in Arabic or Greek without having known or having learned the language, then we could say they spoke in tongues - but we do not conclude that is was the Holy ghost, since it would be peculiar indeed for the Holy Ghost to inspire someone to do this in a country which does not understand the language.

The “resting in the Spirit’, ‘slain in the Spirit’ or 'overpowering of the Spirit - terms Cardinal Suenens used in one of his books, is likewise unreconcilable with traditional Catholicism. It is simply unknown and not practiced by the saints. It usually consists of falling backwards while engaged in a prayer or healing service - according to Card. Suenens and the footage I have seen. Its purpose has yet to be explained. For me, it seems a ridiculous phenomenon which goes hand in hand with the so-called gift of tongues. I seen one video where the candidate could not so easily be “slain by the spirit” as willingly as the others, only to witness the one imparting the gift to return and use more force to “encourage” them to accept the gift. I genuinely see nothing Catholic about this, nor did I ever hear of the saints or apostles making people fall to the ground, except when they were, by the power of God, struck dead in punishment.

I do not mean to offend anyone who is involved with this movement, but I really do not think it compatible with Catholicism. Now I don’t care if Mother Theresa or anyone else did a Charismatic dance while being slain and speaking in tongues simultaneously (I would never accuse her of doing such) I find no grounds for reconciling it with Catholicism. Also, I think those who try and use saints such as Padre Pio as example of saints who would approve of the movement need to read more about these saints and their writings. I can imagine Padre Pios reaction to seeing some of these events. Anyway - that’s my opinion, don’t bite my head off!

Totally agree. Read post 17.

 

[john_aurelius]

What a shame there is such a barrier between these two movements, but I guess its not too suprising seeing how we tend to ostracise those different from ourselves.

The Traditionalists should recognise that they are no longer the mainstream of Catholicism, the EF is extraordinary, and many people that follow that path are no longer in communion with the Pope (such as the SSPX) and have invalid sacraments such as confession.

Charismatics pray in tongues that are generally not ‘real’ tongues. some have suggested that this invalidates them as Peter was understood by those present. Yet the gifts that Charismatics advocate are found in 1 Cor 12-14 and needs an interpretation to be edifying (1 Cor 14:13) so it cannot be the same thing as Peter.

Futher, singing in the Spirit as opposed to the mind (1 C 14:15) is unheard of in Acts and had no place in the evangelisation Peter was performing.

I agree that a Charismatic should be able to control themselves and the liturgy of Charismatics ought to do more to do things in order (14:26-27)

This was so off putting for many Corinthians Paul had to write the world’s best known poem in praise of love (1 Cor 13)

Both movements ought to practise this most of all, love one another as I have loved you…:hug1:

 

[TrueLight]

The Traditionalists should recognise that they are no longer the mainstream of Catholicism, the EF is extraordinary,

I pray one day there will be a change in nomenclature.

 

[john_aurelius]

All the changes were brought about by guidance from conciliar movements (Vatican II) and by the papal office and is the reality of the CC.

I bet if it had still been the Tridentine form you wouldn’t have budged from your previous Protestant churches.

Its OK now, coz Latin can never be the mainstream again so people who want it can, but only in small doses.

There is a reason for naming it Extraordinary, The magisterium really wanted to increase the love of Christ and attendance and involvment in the Mass by the congregation.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Latin as a language, and the Mass in Latin is fine, for those who understand it. A bit like tongues, it needs interpretation to edify the church.

Educated people can often become snobbish, a position against the love Christ came to preach and we should practise…

 

[Chen_Zhen]

The Charismatic movement is not compatible with Traditional Catholicism. The focus of worship needs to be centered on the use of the intellect and will. Reason in the light of faith. True, emotions play a role in the life and worship of a Christian, but they are not to be the focus of the determinate of reality.
The Charismatic movement, while claimed to be related to the inception of the Church is actually not and is a relatively new fabrication based on protestant principles and worship.

This being said: Charismatic persons must be treated with respect as any member of the Mystical Body of Christ. We can never know the state of our own soul or another soul. There are Charismatic people who, while not being on the same page liturgically or spiritually are doing good works and genuinely seeking truth. They are to be loved and led to the Truth and love of Christ as any other soul.

Pray for them. Many of them have great attitudes and as they are further united to the truth and less “charismatic”, they will be a tremendous asset because of their zeal.

 

[john_aurelius]

The point of contact between both groups is Christ incarnate and suffering, now triumphant and interceeding on our behalf, the Holy Spirit, the LORD the giver of life and those gifts, fruit &c that we all receive at Baptism and confirmation, and certainly Mary (Mater Dei) who is the Mother of all in her church.

You are making the assumption that Charismatics don’t join in Mass like every other Catholic, adore the host and feed on Christ like every Catholic, receive absolution from the priest just like every Catholic.

As a linguist, I love Latin, just not as much as my LORD and my God.