Traditionalist and Charismatic

[TrueLight]

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

Ha ha. The Tridentine mass is the first mass I attended ever, and it did more than budge me from my Protestant church.

But going back to the Charismatic… If I want to attend a Pentecostal service, I know where to attend one.

**Edited: **By the way, when we, the charismatic, Protestant churches heard about the Catholic renewal, we praised God that the Catholic church was coming to its senses and was b moving away from the darkness. In other words, we were thankful that the Catholic church was becoming more protestant.

 

[john_aurelius]

Ha ha. The Tridentine mass is the first mass I attended ever, and it did more than budge me from my Protestant church.

But going back to the Charismatic… If I want to attend a Pentecostal service, I know where to attend one.

**Edited: **By the way, when we, the charismatic, Protestant churches heard about the Catholic renewal, we praised God that the Catholic church was coming to its senses and was b moving away from the darkness. In other words, we were thankful that the Catholic church was becoming more protestant.

Great, The Holy Spirit introduced you to Catholicism through an unusual route, but for you this isn’t tradition but something new. I grew up singing Latin and at the time it turned me off. I went from Palestrina, Mozart, Vittoria to a Pentecostal church with guitars and drums coz that fitted with my personal sub-culture much better.

Years later, I admit that the Latin was indeed beautiful but I still wouldn’t want it to be the main form of Catholic worship again.

As for being more Protestant, the OF is indeed much more Protestant if you think of it like that. The Priest faces the congregation, speaks in English, we even sing Protestant hymns (Amazing Grace et al) I like these newer forms of worship, and as it happens the majority of the CC agree with me.

I prefer Charismatic theology to the unbiblical theology I found in Pentecostalism, however, one doesn’t automatically receive the gift of tongues, it is only one gift among several that the H.S. can give.

All these things are part of the Holy Spirits guidance of the CC, as he promised so I don’t think Traditionalists should murmur too loudly unless they want to be as scismatic as the Protestants were.

 

[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.

The points of contact are still the same

 

[TrueLight]

Great, The Holy Spirit introduced you to Catholicism through an unusual route, but for you this isn’t tradition but something new. I grew up singing Latin and at the time it turned me off. I went from Palestrina, Mozart, Vittoria to a Pentecostal church with guitars and drums coz that fitted with my personal sub-culture much better.

Years later, I admit that the Latin was indeed beautiful but I still wouldn’t want it to be the main form of Catholic worship again.

As for being more Protestant, the OF is indeed much more Protestant if you think of it like that. The Priest faces the congregation, speaks in English, we even sing Protestant hymns (Amazing Grace et al) I like these newer forms of worship, and as it happens the majority of the CC agree with me.

I prefer Charismatic theology to the unbiblical theology I found in Pentecostalism, however, one doesn’t automatically receive the gift of tongues, it is only one gift among several that the H.S. can give.

All these things are part of the Holy Spirits guidance of the CC, as he promised so I don’t think Traditionalists should murmur too loudly unless they want to be as scismatic as the Protestants were.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Can it be that in a way, the charismatic movement is new to you too (although I know it has been a while),and that’s why you find it so attractive?

 

[Melchior_1]

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.

Are you saying that I have less Truth than you do? I’m less Catholic than you are?

 

[JaMc]

I don’t think anyone, with a straight face, can honestly deny that a more than a fair chunk of the “Charismatic” Mass is modelled after pentacostal protestant worship.

However, like I mentioned before, it must also be remembered that, in rejecting the sacraments, the protestants concocted various man-made practices in an attempt to “fill the void.” IF and only if, the “Charismatic” Mass is conducted so as to make sure that the “sacramental substitutes” are avoided, then this combination under the Chinese Menu known as the Missal of Paul VI is, of course, perfectly valid and licit. But, is that always the case? Is, for example, being “slain in the Spirit” an attempt to fill the void left after this group Protestants decided to abandon the Sacrament of Confirmation, in which one receives the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Is the gibberish from those “speaking in tongues” the (very real) languages spoken by the multitudes as mentioned in scripture? Therein lies the potential for some very serious problems.

 

[john_aurelius]

I’m a Charismatic by default, i prayed that I would receive the gift of tongues back in 1996 and received it. I was not taught nor instructed as I have also heard happen in Pentecostal churches.

I still speak in tongues but only between myself and God as the local CC doesn’t have anyone to interpret as far as I’m aware of.

I also still attend High Mass but only on special occassions such as Christmas and Good Friday, Easter.

There shouldn’t be any reason in my mind (and I think in the collective mind of the magisterium) why both movements cannot worship Christ together so long as its done in a spirit of love. Just like in Corinth, again, the evidence and use of Charismata were unsettling then so the need for 1 Cor 13 and the body of Christ analogy.

 

[john_aurelius]

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. **

So why does the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity give these gifts?

 

[ClayPots47]

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”.

a) Since you can quote the page, why can’t you quote what is written there? It’s not like the readers of this thread have the book (I don’t). The article I quoted disagrees with you. You made the claim, quote the paragraph, word for word, from page 135.

b) What is a deceitful argument, is claiming something that was neither said nor implied. At no time did I state that having charisms made one a member of the movement. There are people who have exhibited charisms that never set foot in a charismatic prayer meeting, Mass, event, etc.

c) Your welcome, thank you for proving the pride of the Traditionalist movement. BTW, just because members of the movement get puffed up with pride, does not invalidate the movement. Movements, like the Church as a whole, is made up of imperfect, sinful, prideful, people. Which is why we all needed and still need, a Savior.

d( There’s that dishonesty you keep throwing out, too bad a lot of it is coming from you. No one ever claimed that the saints belong to the Charismatic movement. And Charismatics belong to the Catholic Church and all Catholics, just as the Saints and Traditionalists do.

e) The purpose of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not to actively seek out the power of the charisms. Read on…

"The Baptism in the Spirit is not a sacrament, but it is related to a sacrament, to several sacraments in fact – to the sacraments of Christian initiation…In addition to the renewal of the grace of baptism, the Baptism in the Spirit is also a confirmation of one’s own baptism, a deliberate “yes” to it, to its fruit and its commitments, and as such it is also similar to Confirmation too. Confirmation being the sacrament that develops, confirms, and brings to completion the work of baptism. From it, too, comes that desire for greater involvement in the apostolic and missionary dimension of the Church that is usually noted in those who receive the Baptism in the Spirit. They feel more inclined to cooperate with the building up of the Church, to put themselves at her service in various ministries both clerical and lay, to witness for Christ – to do all those things that recall the happening of Pentecost and which are actuated in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

The Baptism of the Spirit is not the only occasion known within the Church for this reviving of the sacraments of initiation. There is, for example, the renewal of the baptismal promises in the Easter vigil, and there are the spiritual exercises, and the religious professions, sometimes called a “second baptism.” and at the sacrament level there is Confirmation.

It is also not difficult to discover in the lives of the saints, the presence of a spontaneous effusion, especially on the occasion of their conversion. The difference with the Baptism in the Spirit, however, is that it is open to all the people of God, small and great, and not only to those privileged ones who do the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises or make a religious profession. " Baptism in the Holy Spirit Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap. Preacher to Papal Household, chosen by John Paul II and retained by Benedict XVI.

 

[ClayPots47]

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.

Charismatic elitists are no more Catholic than Sedevanctists Traditionalists are, People want to dismiss Charismatics based on the Pentecostalism errors of a few, just like people want to dismiss Traditionalists based on the behavior of Sedevantists, Catholics should not be tossing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. There is no reason why the two movements cannot co-exists, some Catholics are happily immersed in both.

f) Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa disagrees with you that " been baptized in the spirit" is itself protestant", he’s just the Preacher to Papal Household. Pope Paul VI. John Paul II and Benedict XVI will disagree with you as well, as they have been in favor of the Charismatic Renewal. Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic sense, is not the same as Protestant Penetecostals. and Charismatics (such as Assemblies of God).

g) Protestands don’t have confirmation? Better tell the Anglicans, many Anglicans view Confirmation as a sacrament. Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran consider it a rite, it is seen as a mature statement of faith by an already baptised person. For lack of a better name, the term Baptism of the Holy Spirit, was borrowed from Pentecostals and Assemblies of God; but it is completely different experience in the Catholic sense.

h) Your silence regarding the Popes; Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. and the statements they have made in favor of the Charismatic Renewal, and the addresses they made to Charismatics, is noted. Cat got your tongue? No comment regarding Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap. Preacher to Papal Household, chosen by John Paul II and retained by Benedict XVI? You think the Holy Father would choose a Catholic Charismatic priest to be the Preacher to Papal Household if they didn’t recognize the validity of the movement, and the fruits it has borne within the Church? You probably didn’t even bother to read the links to the statement made by these holy men. You just want to keep spouting one-sided misinformation, and then claim others are being “dishonest”, when you are spouting much of the dishonesty, while failing to backup your dishonest claims with sources. I stand by what I wrote, and provided sources to back it up. I’ll be happy to read your sources for your claims. Why is it every time I see a negative comment regarding the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. it is blatant misinformation coming from Traditionalists? I have never heard a Catholic Charismatic denigrate Traditionalists, some are Traditionalists as well. And since you love the word “dishonest” so much, it is dishonest to claim that a Catholic movement fully endorsed by three popes, is ‘protestant’. Yeah… The Holy Fathers must all be wrong about that, right? Seems to me there is a lot of pride in the Traditionalists camp; perhaps they should start yanking the plank out of their own eyes instead of pointing out the splinters in the eyes if the Charismatics. After all, both are members of the One Holy Catholic Church.

 

[Chen_Zhen]

Are you saying that I have less Truth than you do? I’m less Catholic than you are?

No, where did I say that I have more truth than you?
Did I claim to be for either side?
Are you simply trying to provoke an argument?
If so you are wasting your time.

Traditionalists and Charismatics are Catholic inasmuch as they follow the precepts of the Church, keep the Commandments of God, and practice the faith as handed down to us, etc.

Why should I believe that the way a “traditionalist” or “charismatic” practices is the true way?
I don’t, I look for truth.

The point in my previous post is that many “traditionalists” rashly judge “charismatics” and overlook the fact that these people who have been labeled as such perform many charitable, pious works and may indeed possess the virtue of charity just as any other Baptized Catholic. The traditionalists are in turn rashly judged by many “charismatics” Their charismatic gifts mean nothing if they have not charity, and the traditionalists and charismatics need to learn to see the good in each other, follow the TRUE faith and this will mend one of many divisions in the church.

 

[ClayPots47]

“I’m not assuming that traditional Catholics are disobedient to the Pope and are borderline schismatic, I know they are”.

Pretty easy to generalize, eh?

No one is saying what you’re saying. I reverted back to Catholicism at Steubinville thanks to the Eucharist and Reconciliation. I know the Sacraments are treated as the center of the Faith in the charismatic renewal, as they should be. And as a charismatic Catholic that is what I teach. Because you’re not the only Catechist who roams this sub-section of the board (I’ve been doing it for three or four years now, myself).

 

[Melchior_1]

No, where did I say that I have more truth than you?
Did I claim to be for either side?
Are you simply trying to provoke an argument?
If so you are wasting your time.

Traditionalists and Charismatics are Catholic inasmuch as they follow the precepts of the Church, keep the Commandments of God, and practice the faith as handed down to us, etc.

Why should I believe that the way a “traditionalist” or “charismatic” practices is the true way?
I don’t, I look for truth.

The point in my previous post is that many “traditionalists” rashly judge “charismatics” and overlook the fact that these people who have been labeled as such perform many charitable, pious works and may indeed possess the virtue of charity just as any other Baptized Catholic. The traditionalists are in turn rashly judged by many “charismatics” Their charismatic gifts mean nothing if they have not charity, and the traditionalists and charismatics need to learn to see the good in each other, follow the TRUE faith and this will mend one of many divisions in the church.

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.*

The bolded, to me, indicated that you thought that to be further in the Truth you need to be less Charismatic. If that is not what you meant, then my apologies

 

[At_Trent]

No, where did I say that I have more truth than you?
Did I claim to be for either side?
Are you simply trying to provoke an argument?
If so you are wasting your time.

Traditionalists and Charismatics are Catholic inasmuch as they follow the precepts of the Church, keep the Commandments of God, and practice the faith as handed down to us, etc.

Why should I believe that the way a “traditionalist” or “charismatic” practices is the true way?
I don’t, I look for truth.

The point in my previous post is that many “traditionalists” rashly judge “charismatics” and overlook the fact that these people who have been labeled as such perform many charitable, pious works and may indeed possess the virtue of charity just as any other Baptized Catholic. The traditionalists are in turn rashly judged by many “charismatics” Their charismatic gifts mean nothing if they have not charity, and the traditionalists and charismatics need to learn to see the good in each other, follow the TRUE faith and this will mend one of many divisions in the church.

You are right. No matter what we cling to, if we don’t love everyone… and that means every person we meet no matter their spirituality or lack of it… then we are going through the motions at best.

Good post friend,
God bless

 

[Denise1957]

a) Since you can quote the page, why can’t you quote what is written there? It’s not like the readers of this thread have the book (I don’t). The article I quoted disagrees with you. You made the claim, quote the paragraph, word for word, from page 135.

b) What is a deceitful argument, is claiming something that was neither said nor implied. At no time did I state that having charisms made one a member of the movement. There are people who have exhibited charisms that never set foot in a charismatic prayer meeting, Mass, event, etc.

c) Your welcome, thank you for proving the pride of the Traditionalist movement. BTW, just because members of the movement get puffed up with pride, does not invalidate the movement. Movements, like the Church as a whole, is made up of imperfect, sinful, prideful, people. Which is why we all needed and still need, a Savior.

d( There’s that dishonesty you keep throwing out, too bad a lot of it is coming from you. No one ever claimed that the saints belong to the Charismatic movement. And Charismatics belong to the Catholic Church and all Catholics, just as the Saints and Traditionalists do.

e) The purpose of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not to actively seek out the power of the charisms. Read on…

"The Baptism in the Spirit is not a sacrament, but it is related to a sacrament, to several sacraments in fact – to the sacraments of Christian initiation…In addition to the renewal of the grace of baptism, the Baptism in the Spirit is also a confirmation of one’s own baptism, a deliberate “yes” to it, to its fruit and its commitments, and as such it is also similar to Confirmation too. Confirmation being the sacrament that develops, confirms, and brings to completion the work of baptism. From it, too, comes that desire for greater involvement in the apostolic and missionary dimension of the Church that is usually noted in those who receive the Baptism in the Spirit. They feel more inclined to cooperate with the building up of the Church, to put themselves at her service in various ministries both clerical and lay, to witness for Christ – to do all those things that recall the happening of Pentecost and which are actuated in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

The Baptism of the Spirit is not the only occasion known within the Church for this reviving of the sacraments of initiation. There is, for example, the renewal of the baptismal promises in the Easter vigil, and there are the spiritual exercises, and the religious professions, sometimes called a “second baptism.” and at the sacrament level there is Confirmation.

It is also not difficult to discover in the lives of the saints, the presence of a spontaneous effusion, especially on the occasion of their conversion. The difference with the Baptism in the Spirit, however, is that it is open to all the people of God, small and great, and not only to those privileged ones who do the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises or make a religious profession. " Baptism in the Holy Spirit Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap. Preacher to Papal Household, chosen by John Paul II and retained by Benedict XVI.

Quote:

“The difference with baptism in the Spirit, however, is that it is open to all the people of God, small and great, and not only to those privileged ones who do the Ignatian Spiritual exercises or make a religious profession.”

Could you please explain what this ‘baptism in the spirit’ means, exactly? My understanding is that we can only be baptized once. And only once. Also, can you explain what you mean by baptism in the spirit being open to all the people of God?

 

[Melchior_1]

You are right. No matter what we cling to, if we don’t love everyone… and that means every person we meet no matter their spirituality or lack of it… then we are going through the motions at best.

Good post friend,
God bless

Agreed.

“The greatest of these is Charity”.

 

[At_Trent]

Agreed.

“The greatest of these is Charity”.

That’s the verse I was thinking of

 

[SunshineZA]

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.

Please folks, may I remind all of our Catholic prayer: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

The precious Holy Spirit is still the same today as He was in the beginning and shall be so always He may choose to fall on whomever He wishes, However He wishes. Unless we ourselves are led by The Holy Spirit by what we are saying, let us not grieve Him with references made without His assistance. Let us not grieve Him.

 

[Denise1957]

Please folks, may I remind all of our Catholic prayer: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

The precious Holy Spirit is still the same today as He was in the beginning and shall be so always He may choose to fall on whomever He wishes, However He wishes. Unless we ourselves are led by The Holy Spirit by what we are saying, let us not grieve Him with references made without His assistance. Let us not grieve Him.

Is it Church teaching that the Holy Ghost chooses to ‘fall’ on whomever He wishes? Or is it more that by way of our baptism and confirmation that the Holy Ghost is working in our lives? Is it Church teaching that we must have the added phenomena of the gift of tongues, etc., in order to show His working in our lives? I’m confident that He does work in my life, without the added drama.

In regards to traditionalism and Charismaticism, one of the differences I see is that there is nothing in the Latin Mass that will frighten a small child. You see, when as a child I went with my grandmother to a Pentacostal Sunday church service, I very frightened when my grandmother suddenly fell to the floor and began shaking her head. I thought she was dying. I was not given any warning that this would happen. Then she got up and sat down as if nothing unusual happened. Then she asked if I would like to try this, and I said no. Thank goodness she never again took me to one of these things. I would have fought kicking and screaming to keep from going there again.

 

[Melchior_1]

In regards to traditionalism and Charismaticism, one of the differences I see is that there is nothing in the Latin Mass that will frighten a small child. You see, when as a child I went with my grandmother to a Pentacostal Sunday church service, I very frightened when my grandmother suddenly fell to the floor and began shaking her head. I thought she was dying. I was not given any warning that this would happen. Then she got up and sat down as if nothing unusual happened. Then she asked if I would like to try this, and I said no. Thank goodness she never again took me to one of these things. I would have fought kicking and screaming to keep from going there again.

I have aquaphobia, largely because I don’t know how to swim. Some of this stems from trauma as a kid. Does this make bodies of water larger than six feet deep less valid?

There’s lots of things that could startle a small child in a Latin Mass. Booming organs, unknown language, muttering prayers, large statues. People wearing veils. Incense (which also can smell funny). Lots of potentially scary things.