Traditionalist and Charismatic

[vardaquinn]

So the joke about “Is the pope a Catholic?” will have to change as he is now a Protestant

Yeah, read this [mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php) Schismatic Traditionals, but… Best line in here: “Benedict XVI is not even remotely Catholic.”

 

[Denise1957]

Just because it’s a novelty based on Protestantism, does that make it bad? Christianity is only 2000 year old novelty based on Judaism (and the charisms are at least as old as that - older, really, look at the Prophets).

What is Protestantism? Protestantism is the Protest of aspects of the Catholic faith. John Paul II notes that the charismatic dimension of the faith is essential to the nature of the Church. If you protest the charismatic dimension of the faith… well…

Pentecostalism is pretty new in the world of Protestant denominations. And just because its Protestant, does that mean that it’s totally wrong? To claim that is completely irrational.

In any case, the charisms have always been present in the Catholic Church. It’s traditional as anything is traditional in the Catholic Church.

Quote: “Just because it’s a novelty based on Protestantism, does that make it bad?”

You’ve just shown how Charismaticism cannot be reconciled with traditionalism. Traditional Catholicism doesn’t need novelties which are based in Protestantism.

No doubt you will keep pointing out Pope John Paul ll’s endorsement of Charismaticism. Fine. That does not make Charismaticism traditional.

Pentacostalism is not new in the world of Protestant denomintions. John Wesley, who began Methodism, started experimenting with speaking in tongues in the 1700’s, long before Catholics began to experiment with it. I have to hand it to Charismatics for one thing, though. At least I’ve never seen that Charismatics advocate bringing poisonous snakes into their Charismatic Masses. Poisonous snakes were brought in on occasion into the Pentacostal church that my dad was raised in. They were used to “test” the faithful there to see if the Holy Spirit was really working in their lives, and would protect them from getting bit. People died on occasion. They believed that the bringing in of poisonous snakes is justified because of a passage in scripture.

 

[gtrenewed]

Quote: “Just because it’s a novelty based on Protestantism, does that make it bad?”

You’ve just shown how Charismaticism cannot be reconciled with traditionalism. Traditional Catholicism doesn’t need novelties which are based in Protestantism.

No doubt you will keep pointing out Pope John Paul ll’s endorsement of Charismaticism. Fine. That does not make Charismaticism traditional.

Pentacostalism is not new in the world of Protestant denomintions. John Wesley, who began Methodism, started experimenting with speaking in tongues in the 1700’s, long before Catholics began to experiment with it. I have to hand it to Charismatics for one thing, though. At least I’ve never seen that Charismatics advocate bringing poisonous snakes into their Charismatic Masses. Poisonous snakes were brought in on occasion into the Pentacostal church that my dad was raised in. They were used to “test” the faithful there to see if the Holy Spirit was really working in their lives, and would protect them from getting bit. People died on occasion.*** They believed that the bringing in of poisonous snakes is justified because of a passage in scripture***.

But that is just it, they did not have the Catholic Church leadership to guiude them.

 

[Solemn_Sheep]

Just because it’s a novelty based on Protestantism, does that make it bad? Christianity is only 2000 year old novelty based on Judaism (and the charisms are at least as old as that - older, really, look at the Prophets).

Yes but look at the huge difference between the two examples. Christianity has its roots in Judasim and is the fulfillment of it. Protestantism is not the fulfillment of Catholicism by any means and its services should not be practiced within the Catholic Church if they cannot be found within her traditions. The dangers of introducing such practices and services are very serious. You see our practices and traditions by action express our doctrines and our beliefs. If we introduce Protestant services we are going to draw in Christians that have a Protestant outlook on the Sacraments and doctrines of the Church which tends to lead to laxed Catholics and that hurts everyone.

What is Protestantism? Protestantism is the Protest of aspects of the Catholic faith. John Paul II notes that the charismatic dimension of the faith is essential to the nature of the Church. If you protest the charismatic dimension of the faith… well…

Which I dont believe this person is doing, but rather protesting the Protestant spirituality present in the CR.

Pentecostalism is pretty new in the world of Protestant denominations. And just because its Protestant, does that mean that it’s totally wrong? To claim that is completely irrational.

If it cannot be found in the tradition of the Catholic Church then it is not wrong or irrational. What the Protestant Churches have that can be helpful to their relationship with Christ is taken from the Catholic Church and its traditions. Anything new that Protestants invented that cannot be found in tradition of the Cathoilc Chuch has no place in the Catholic Church.

In any case, the charisms have always been present in the Catholic Church. It’s traditional as anything is traditional in the Catholic Church.

Very true.

 

[Denise1957]

I am curious about the highlighted part above. I could understand if you said that the Charismatic Renewal is not for you but if the leader appointed by the Holy Spirit approves of it then it must be Catholic. After all, they are not requiring you to be a part of it.

To cast your opinion above theirs seems to be arrogance. Isn’t there a slight chance that they are right and you are wrong?

While there may be excesses that are seen also in protestants; to say it is based on protestantism is your own brand of protestantism - protesting against what the church has confirmed.

Are we not obliged to say I don’t understand but I will follow my pope as he follows Christ. Do we not assume he will not lead us into heresy? Is that not what the papacy rests on? Is it not a cop out to say ‘only faith and morals’? At that I would argue that the Renewal is about the original deposit of faith, which some followed in excess and had to be corrected.

If they are not requiring or wanting me and others here to be a part of it, then why are they here on the traditional forum?

I believe that excesses will always be part and parcel of Charismaticism because it is essentially based on subjective reasoning and emotion.

 

[john_aurelius]

Yeah, read this [mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_ma(name removed by moderator)age.php) Schismatic Traditionals, but… Best line in here: “Benedict XVI is not even remotely Catholic.”

OMG!!! No wonder my appeals to our papacy didn’t bring any response, I didn’t realise Traditionalists were so rampantly against Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI

I am completely astounded. shocked.

This is the type of propaganda I expect from fundamentalists and SDA’s against the Catholic faith, not from those within it.

 

[vardaquinn]

Alright, so I see SolemnSheep’s point, and Denise is objecting mostly to what she’s seen of the Charismatic Renewal, which probably can’t be greatly reconciled with tradition. Ok. That’s fine then. But you can’t close yourself off to the charisms of the Holy Spirit. We’re all supposed to be “pentecostal” (in that Pentecost is something huge in our lives).

But the charismatic dimension is co-essential to the institutional dimension. With the Pentecostals, they lack the institutional dimension. With some charismatics, they have drifted away from it. With many Catholics, they have drifted away from the charismatic dimension. The two are complementary and are supposed to work together. We submit ourselves to the authority and guidance of the Church, and by doing that submit ourselves further to the Holy Spirit.

Point is - the experience of Pentecost, and the charisms, and the charismatic dimension of the faith IS traditional. That’s how we STARTED. There are supposed to be people speaking in tongues, prophesying, healing, working miracles, and we are all supposed to be submitting ourselves to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We have to open ourselves to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and let Him work through us. This is traditional. This is the original way they did things in the early Church. To turn away from this because of the abuse of this among certain people is not only irrational, but very detrimental to the Church.

 

[vardaquinn]

OMG!!! No wonder my appeals to our papacy didn’t bring any response, I didn’t realise Traditionalists were so rampantly against Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI

I am completely astounded. shocked.

This is the type of propaganda I expect from fundamentalists and SDA’s against the Catholic faith, not from those within it.

Keep in mind that these are schismatics who don’t accept Vatican II and the popes who endorsed it. It’s so incredibly ironic, because they’re biggest objection there is that the Pope is not Catholic because he is reaching out and loving Protestants! And yet, they themselves are Protestants!! And they sound exactly like Fundamentalists!

Yeah, I mean, there’s certainly many dangers with traditionalism. Any extreme is bad. The devil wants you off stage - he doesn’t care if you exit stage left or stage right.

 

[Solemn_Sheep]

Alright, so I see SolemnSheep’s point, and Denise is objecting mostly to what she’s seen of the Charismatic Renewal, which probably can’t be greatly reconciled with tradition. Ok. That’s fine then. But you can’t close yourself off to the charisms of the Holy Spirit. We’re all supposed to be “pentecostal” (in that Pentecost is something huge in our lives).

But the charismatic dimension is co-essential to the institutional dimension. With the Pentecostals, they lack the institutional dimension. With some charismatics, they have drifted away from it. With many Catholics, they have drifted away from the charismatic dimension. The two are complementary and are supposed to work together. We submit ourselves to the authority and guidance of the Church, and by doing that submit ourselves further to the Holy Spirit.

Point is - the experience of Pentecost, and the charisms, and the charismatic dimension of the faith IS traditional. That’s how we STARTED. There are supposed to be people speaking in tongues, prophesying, healing, working miracles, and we are all supposed to be submitting ourselves to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We have to open ourselves to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and let Him work through us. This is traditional. This is the original way they did things in the early Church. To turn away from this because of the abuse of this among certain people is not only irrational, but very detrimental to the Church.

 

[Denise1957]

Alright, so I see SolemnSheep’s point, and Denise is objecting mostly to what she’s seen of the Charismatic Renewal, which probably can’t be greatly reconciled with tradition. Ok. That’s fine then. But you can’t close yourself off to the charisms of the Holy Spirit. We’re all supposed to be “pentecostal” (in that Pentecost is something huge in our lives).

But the charismatic dimension is co-essential to the institutional dimension. With the Pentecostals, they lack the institutional dimension. With some charismatics, they have drifted away from it. With many Catholics, they have drifted away from the charismatic dimension. The two are complementary and are supposed to work together. We submit ourselves to the authority and guidance of the Church, and by doing that submit ourselves further to the Holy Spirit.

Point is - the experience of Pentecost, and the charisms, and the charismatic dimension of the faith IS traditional. That’s how we STARTED. There are supposed to be people speaking in tongues, prophesying, healing, working miracles, and we are all supposed to be submitting ourselves to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We have to open ourselves to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and let Him work through us. This is traditional. This is the original way they did things in the early Church. To turn away from this because of the abuse of this among certain people is not only irrational, but very detrimental to the Church.

So, because we don’t go intentionally seeking the supposed ‘charims’ of the Holy Spirit, then this means that we are cutting ourselves off from the Third Person of the Holy Trinity?
Is this what you mean? If this is what you are trying to say, I will have to respond (yet again), that there’s nothing in Church teaching which says that I need to do this in order to save my soul. Just because you or a pope or bishop have found something in Scripture that speaks to you, this doesn’t mean that it’s Church teaching. Can you understand this?

 

[Denise1957]

OMG!!! No wonder my appeals to our papacy didn’t bring any response, I didn’t realise Traditionalists were so rampantly against Bl John Paul II and Benedict XVI

I am completely astounded. shocked.

This is the type of propaganda I expect from fundamentalists and SDA’s against the Catholic faith, not from those within it.

:banghead:

It’s just so typical of Charismatics and their supporters to accuse those who dislike Charismaticism of being against the Popes, Vatican ll, etc. When all else fails, they bring nutty reasoning this out of the bag.

Sheesh.

 

[john_aurelius]

So, because we don’t go intentionally seeking the supposed ‘charims’ of the Holy Spirit, then this means that we are cutting ourselves off from the Third Person of the Holy Trinity?
Is this what you mean? If this is what you are trying to say, I will have to respond (yet again), that there’s nothing in Church teaching which says that I need to do this in order to save my soul. Just because you or a pope or bishop have found something in Scripture that speaks to you, this doesn’t mean that it’s Church teaching. Can you understand this?

CCC 2003 is church teaching. Do you recognise that?

 

[john_aurelius]

:banghead:

It’s just so typical of Charismatics and their supporters to accuse those who dislike Charismaticism of being against the Popes, Vatican ll, etc. When all else fails, they bring nutty reasoning this out of the bag.

Sheesh.

hey, its not our propaganda, have you read that? How about you? Do you think Vatican II and the Popes are still Catholic?

 

[Denise1957]

CCC 2003 is church teaching. Do you recognise that?

I do recognise 2003. And 2005 has to go along with it to understand it properly.

 

[Denise1957]

hey, its not our propaganda, have you read that? How about you? Do you think Vatican II and the Popes are still Catholic?

Of course I believe they’re Catholic.

 

[john_aurelius]

I do recognise 2003. And 2005 has to go along with it to understand it properly.

sure, I agree that fruit is important, but that means the Holy Spirit** does **give the Charism of tongues as well as other extraordinary graces.

So given this, why are you in such vocal opposition to it?

BTW I’m releived to hear that you don’t think Benedict XVI is a heretic or something.

 

[guanophore]

@Heuchler: Maybe the man who cried out "Forgive me!!!" really had been living in a state of serious sin, and at that point he was given such a grace to understand the depth of the wickedness he had done, and cried out to God begging for mercy and forgiveness! I think God does work like that sometimes, to make us want His mercy so much we're ready to scream for it. It's often that feel like God couldn't possibly forgive them for their wickedness, and desperately cry out for mercy.

This is very true. Peter fell at Jesus feet and cried “Lord! Go away from me, I am a sinful man”.

 For me, I can control when I speak in tongues or not. I just open my mouth and it comes out.

This is the case for me as well. I really don’t see how it is different than kneeling during the consecration. If you don’t yield your body parts to he service of God, the Spirit will not “force” a person to kneel, or make the sign of the cross.

From the limited experience of the Charismatic Renewal I have seen, it does fit in with Scripture. It depends where you go. I know of places where the Renewal is more mature. I know of other places where it really is very immature. Individual humans make mistakes and aren’t perfect. I think the movement itself is going to eventually die out, once its message of experiencing Pentecost and the charismatic gifts are absorbed once more into the Church. In some places its very immature yet. We need to be patient with the faults and imperfections of people.

I think the passages in Corinthians are excellent examples of what happens when there is immaturity.

Just because there are problems with how the message is being told doesn't mean the message itself is flawed.

Otherwise, we should invalidate all that Jesus taught, since Judas did not follow it.

 

[Denise1957]

sure, I agree that fruit is important, but that means the Holy Spirit** does **give the Charism of tongues as well as other extraordinary graces.

So given this, why are you in such vocal opposition to it?

BTW I’m releived to hear that you don’t think Benedict XVI is a heretic or something.

I have never said that the gift of tongues is not ever given out, as well as other extraordinary graces. It’s the intentional seeking out of these things which is not traditional. CCC 2003 makes no mention of intentionally seeking these things out.

BTW, I’ve never said anything even remotely close to accusing Pope Benedict of being a heretic. That’s rediculous.

 

[guanophore]

So, because we don't go intentionally seeking the supposed 'charims' of the Holy Spirit, then this means that we are cutting ourselves off from the Third Person of the Holy Trinity?

No one said that. What it looks like is cutting oneself off from any gifts that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity might wish to manifest in the life of the individual.

By saying “I will NEVER ask for any of those gifts”, instead of “I will receive any and all gifts the HS wishes to manifest in my life” the person becomes closed.

Is this what you mean? If this is what you are trying to say, I will have to respond (yet again), that there’s nothing in Church teaching which says that I need to do this in order to save my soul. Just because you or a pope or bishop have found something in Scripture that speaks to you, this doesn’t mean that it’s Church teaching. Can you understand this?

Yes, I can understand it, but what the NT says is normative for the Church, you are rejecting. Just like the Protestants, you are picking and choosing what you think is “necessary to salvation”. Protestants also have this imagined list of what they call “essentials” and “non-essential”. My bone is that we are not at liberty to define what is essential to our salvation, and what is not. God gets to decide that. So abrogating certain elements of the faith to a category of “unncessary” is an unwarranted hubris for human beings.

God did not give gifts that were not necessary, therefore, if He gave them, they must be important. Who are we to say they are not?

 

[guanophore]

:banghead:

It’s just so typical of Charismatics and their supporters to accuse those who dislike Charismaticism of being against the Popes, Vatican ll, etc. When all else fails, they bring nutty reasoning this out of the bag.

Sheesh.

Did you look at that link? From your posts, I don’t gather you want to be in support of such a perspective, do you?