Traditionalist and Charismatic

[gtrenewed]

I can’t think of anything MORE Charismatic than the Tridentine Mass.

The congregation chanting in one voice the prayers of the Mass.

The moments of unified silence, contemplation and meditation. You can really and truly feel the Holy Spirit in those moments of quiet.

Uniting one’s heart and mind with the actions of the priest.

The use of a single tongue that our ancestors have prayed in for centuries.

I can really and truly feel the Holy Spirit working through that form of the Mass. Not that I haven’t attended very beautiful OF Masses, but for me, it isn’t quite the same.

You are blurring the definition of Charismatic. There has been enough of that on this thread. Here we are talking about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

As for the rest of your post, it is very true that where two or three are gathered in His Name, He is in our midst, I am very happy for you. God Bless

 

[guanophore]

But what, at its root, is the foundational NEED for such a movement to exist?

The charismata are at the discretion of the the HS. I am not sure what place we have to question why He feels something is necessary.

1 Cor 12:11
11 All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

What does it imply about the church? The church needs no renewal. Individuals do, but not the church. She is ever ancient, yet ever new in her self.

The Church functions better when those individuals within her are living the fulness of the christian life.

When one looks at the pathetic state of functioning among Catholic clerics in Europe prior to the Reformation it is clear that reform was badly needed. The council of Trent addressed these issues.

Yes, people always are in need of reform, and those reforms affect the Church. Corruption weakens the Church, and holiness strengthens her.

 

[guanophore]

There are those who strife to be in the perpetual state of consolation. Msgr. Ronald Knox talked about this on his book Emotionalism (which I own but haven’t read at all). Protestant are prone to this, especially the Pentacostal type. And since Protestant Pentacostalism is the trigger to Catholic Charismaticism, Catholic Charismaticism shares this tendency.

Misguided use or understandings of the Gifts of the HS do not invalidate them. I agree, seeking to be in a perpetual state of consolation reflects spiritual immaturity.

I think it is not just the “feel good emotionalism” that seems rampant in certain Protestant sects, though. I think it is a reaction against a paucity of teaching on that consolation for too long a time in the Church. When I was growing up, the message “offer it up” and redeptive suffering was drilled in strongly. There was never any instruction on how to let God console oneself. I think lopesided catechesis can be found everywhere.

It’s just that desolation is a natural process in spiritual growth and we should not try to avoid it.

As are periods of consolation, that need not be avoided either.

Especially when the person avoiding them does so because they are afraid to ask for them, or stubbornly refusing to ask for them.

I believe that most, if not all, tongues in modern time are fake (especially since they transgress 1Cor 14:27-28).

I have no way of measuring this, but I can tell you that there is only one form of tongues that is governed by that rule, and it does not apply to the other varieties.

I have the same opinion as St. Gregory Nazianzus that in the course of time extraordinary gifts decreases. Such decrease shows that we’ve become mature in faith, we’re not babes anymore. But I also do not think that extraordinary gifts perishes (the cessationist theory).

I have wondered if the reason that they seemed to taper off after the first part of the second century was because the believers were maturing, and the church also. Some Protestants, though, teach that they were not needed any more once the Bible was written. But then, they are most often the ones that say Church authority was not needed anymore either.

I think that is overstretching the word.

The Catechism teaches differently. The Church teaches that EACH and EVERY person is given gifts for the service of the Body. Most people never unwrap theirs to find out what they are, or learn how to use them.

IMO it’s a Protestant-ish exegesis. How’s so? Because it’s inline with their theology that one can know that one are surely saved through certain signs.

Maybe you can help me understand your thinking here. I don’t see how receiving the gifts of God equates to OSAS. Baptism is the greatest Gift, and the one in which we are sealed by the HS. Yet, there is no guarantee that anyone baptized will get to heaven. So, if one is using the gifts that one was given in baptism, it seems that they are more likely to get into,a nd stay in a state of grace, but even the most gifted person can still fail to win the race.

The Apostle Paul said:

1 Cor 14:18
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all

but never took his salvation for granted because of it:

1 Cor 9:26-10:1
26 Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; 27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

One of them is “good works.” They teach that good works are the sign that one has saving faith (which saved).

This is consistent with the Apostolic faith.

James 2:18

18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

Saving faith is faith that works.

Pentecostal developed this doctrine even further by saying that tongues are sign/manifestation that one is baptized by spirit (this goes back to John Wesley’s “sanctification” doctrine [Pentacostalism is an offshoot of Wesley’s Methodism]).

It is also well supported by the New Testament.

…like wisdom and knowledge are hardly visible and they are more of an interior kind (as oppose to exterior).

Yes. I was puzzled why confirmation classes focused only on these, and excluded the so called “charismata” all together. They should exist together.

Surely St. Paul doesn't teach us to be forever babes, never to have solid food but always have milk.

Indeed. But since it is so difficult to cut teeth, why not affirm those who are at least getting some milk, and thereby lead them into the more meaty parts of the faith? Paul was clear that the Corinthians were babes in faith. He encourged them to use their gifts (properly), and to grow into meat.

The regulation for tongue,as laid down by St. Paul, is for whenever believers meet and decide to speak tongues if we follow scriptural text (1Cor 14:23).

Yes,but since this is only one variety of tongues, it does not apply in all cases.

 

[vardaquinn]

I can’t think of anything MORE Charismatic than the Tridentine Mass.

The congregation chanting in one voice the prayers of the Mass.

The moments of unified silence, contemplation and meditation. You can really and truly feel the Holy Spirit in those moments of quiet.

Uniting one’s heart and mind with the actions of the priest.

The use of a single tongue that our ancestors have prayed in for centuries.

I can really and truly feel the Holy Spirit working through that form of the Mass. Not that I haven’t attended very beautiful OF Masses, but for me, it isn’t quite the same.

I totally agree. It’s extremely contemplative and beautiful. Someone once said that the best form of praying is when you don’t know you’re praying. That’s a lot like the Tridentine Mass in my experience. You’re at prayer and your whole self is praying even without your full attention.

 

[henrikhank]

Pax et bonum!
When I first started this thread I never thought we would have that man replies and people complaining about each others spirituality.
One reason for starting this thread was that people would actually have respect for each other and see how different spirituality is focusing on the same love of God.
The Charismatic Renewal people are focusing on the first Pentecost and what the Holy Ghost did to the Apostles.
The traditionalists are focusing on the first Pentecost and what the Holy Ghost did to the Apostles.
It seems that the difference is that most Charismatics want to renew the Church and live with the present modern era and that the traditionalists want to go back to something ancient and bring this to the modern world and show that we must go back to something ancient.
Traditionalists are more focused on the perfect liturgy and the Charismatics are more focused on descending of the Holy Ghost and showing us that the church too liturgical.
One charismatic man said that the best thing would be if the Charismatic movement would disappear into the church and become one with the Church.
look at this video with a very charismatic man: youtube.com/watch?v=I_pcxzdGODg&feature=channel_video_title

This talk about Charismatic Renewal-ism and Traditionalism seem to be something very Roman Catholic. It’s not found in other Oriental/Eastern churches.

What do think of this?

 

[vardaquinn]

Pax et bonum!
When I first started this thread I never thought we would have that man replies and people complaining about each others spirituality.
One reason for starting this thread was that people would actually have respect for each other and see how different spirituality is focusing on the same love of God.
The Charismatic Renewal people are focusing on the first Pentecost and what the Holy Ghost did to the Apostles.
The traditionalists are focusing on the first Pentecost and what the Holy Ghost did to the Apostles.
It seems that the difference is that most Charismatics want to renew the Church and live with the present modern era and that the traditionalists want to go back to something ancient and bring this to the modern world and show that we must go back to something ancient.
Traditionalists are more focused on the perfect liturgy and the Charismatics are more focused on descending of the Holy Ghost and showing us that the church too liturgical.
One charismatic man said that the best thing would be if the Charismatic movement would disappear into the church and become one with the Church.
look at this video with a very charismatic man: youtube.com/watch?v=I_pcxzdGODg&feature=channel_video_title

This talk about Charismatic Renewal-ism and Traditionalism seem to be something very Roman Catholic. It’s not found in other Oriental/Eastern churches.

What do think of this?

I think that’s well said. I especially agree with the idea about the charismatic movement disappearing and becoming one with the Church. Dr. Peter Kreeft says the same sort of thing: “The Catholic Church will not be strong until she recaptures the source of her strength that the earliest church found…until the charismatic movement becomes invisible—because all Catholics are charismatics.”

I don’t know if it’s found in other Oriental or Eastern Churches, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was. I think I might know of a few people in one of the Eastern rites involved with the charismatic movement. I actually know of Orthodox people involved with it, but it’s much much smaller compared to Catholicism and Protestantism.

 

[henrikhank]

I think that’s well said. I especially agree with the idea about the charismatic movement disappearing and becoming one with the Church. Dr. Peter Kreeft says the same sort of thing: “The Catholic Church will not be strong until she recaptures the source of her strength that the earliest church found…until the charismatic movement becomes invisible—because all Catholics are charismatics.”

I don’t know if it’s found in other Oriental or Eastern Churches, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was. I think I might know of a few people in one of the Eastern rites involved with the charismatic movement. I actually know of Orthodox people involved with it, but it’s much much smaller compared to Catholicism and Protestantism.

Orthodox?

 

[vardaquinn]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_and_the_Charismatic_Movement One of my friends who is more involved with the charismatic movement than I am I think mentioned he knew members of the Orthodox religions who were involved with charismatics activities.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I never said it was heresy. The church cannot teach heresy. I just distrust whole groups of Catholics who think that liberal theology is the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are some traditionalists who fall into that camp as well though. Not every Charismatic is a liberal.

But what, at its root, is the foundational NEED for such a movement to exist? What does it imply about the church? The church needs no renewal. Individuals do, but not the church. She is ever ancient, yet ever new in her self.

Go figure. liberation theology has been condemned by the Church if I recall. but charismatics are based on liberation theology. just listen when they talk.

 

[vardaquinn]

Go figure. liberation theology has been condemned by the Church if I recall. but charismatics are based on liberation theology. just listen when they talk.

Um…? I don’t see how it has anything to do with liberation theology…

 

[Gregory_I]

He means liberal. I like to quote from a Book approved by the Holy Office in the 19th century entitled: “Liberalism is a Sin.”

What the greatest Catholic polemists and saints have done is assuredly a fair example for even the humblest defenders of the faith. Modern Ultramontanism has never yet surpassed the vigor of their castigation of heresy and heretics. Charity forbids us to do unto another what we would not reasonably have them to do unto ourselves. Mark the adverb reasonably; it includes the entire substance of the question.

The essential difference between ourselves and the Liberals on this subject consists in this, that they look upon the (113) apostles of error as free citizens, simply exercising their full right to think as they please on matters of religion. We, on the contrary, see in them the declared enemies of the faith which we are obligated to defend. We do not see in their errors simply free opinions but culpable and formal heresies, as the law of God teaches us they are. By virtue of the assumed freedom of their own opinions the Liberals are bound not only to tolerate but even respect ours; for since freedom of opinion is in their eyes the most cardinal of virtues, no matter what the opinion be, they are bound to respect it as the expression of man’s rational freedom. It is not what is thought, but the mere thinking that constitutes the standard of excellence with them. To acknowledge God or deny Him is equally rational by the standard of Liberalism, and Liberalism is grossly inconsistent with itself when it seeks to combat Catholic truths, in the holding of which there is as much exercise of rational freedom, in the Liberal sense, as in rejecting them. But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and (114) folly is a duty and a virtue. With reason therefore does a great Catholic historian say to the enemies of Catholicity: “You make yourselves infamous by your actions and I will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings.” In this same way the law of the Twelve Tables ordained to the virile generations of early Rome: Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered: “To the enemy no quarter.”

I am not saying WHO is liberal, although I believe fruits are pretty easy to distinguish by their taste; it’s no miracle to be able to call a spade a spade.

But my main reason for posting this is to demonstrate that most reasonable “conservative” Catholics are today expected to behave like these liberals of the 19th century! “Never offend, they are humans too.” Thanks to the blown-out-of-proportion doctrines on the “dignity of the human person” (Which is compromised in those who are not Catholic to one extant or another).

Respect for persons has become the new standard of Orthodoxy, whilst those who have sense enough to cry “wolf” are smacked on the face for doing so and told by the elder and more enlightened sheep “That is no wolf! He is at heart simply a dog who has come to realize that he has a vicious nature which he has promised not to use around us.”

Please.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It seems to me that God the Holy Spirit gives charisms to members of the Catholic Church.

Those charisms can be used in the right way–obedient and subservient to the Catholic Church in all respects so that a person with those charisms COULD be a traditionalist as regards to what the Catholic Church has always taught.

I’m saying that it would be POSSIBLE to be both charismatic and traditionalist.

Is such a thing indeed possible?

 

[vardaquinn]

@ Jerry Jet: I think it is. Problem is that the traditionalists aren’t traditionalists. George Weigel made a good distinction between Traditional and traditionalism, analyzing Bl. John Paul II in his book “Witness to Hope”. The difference between the living faith of the dead, and the dead faith of the living.

@ Gregory I: That totally has nothing to do with the charismatic renewal. As Catholics we shouldn’t be either liberal or conservative - both are extremes. We need to be right in line with the chair of Peter - not a step to the left or to the right.

 

[guanophore]

@ Jerry Jet: I think it is. Problem is that the traditionalists aren’t traditionalists. George Weigel made a good distinction between Traditional and traditionalism, analyzing Bl. John Paul II in his book “Witness to Hope”. The difference between the living faith of the dead, and the dead faith of the living.

@ Gregory I: That totally has nothing to do with the charismatic renewal. As Catholics we shouldn’t be either liberal or conservative - both are extremes. We need to be right in line with the chair of Peter - not a step to the left or to the right.

I have very much enjoyed your informed, balanced and charitable posts on this thread vardaquinn. You are certainly a testimony to the commandment to always be ready to give an account for the hope that is within.

I also think the point you made in the first paragraph is equally true about charismatics, and the “movement”. I think that there have been, and still are, legitimate concerns with the “movement”, but that this is no different than equal concerns about “traditionalism”. Extremes and abuses can happen at anywhere along the spectrum of spiritual experience.

I have also been thinking about something I read in this thread comparing charismatic spirituality to that of spiritual disciplines such as a Fransican way of life. I dontl think that is quite accurate. I came up (spiritually) in the last 30 years through a charismatic Benedictine monastery near here. I was able to witness how the charismatic experience is expressed in a Benedictine lifestyle. I have also known charismatics that are committed to many other expressions of spirituality. I think rather than a vowed way of life such as this it might be better compared to the practice of the Brown Scapular.

I do agree, though, that when completed, the “renewal” will be invisible, having passed into the regular practices and rites of the church from whence it came. I see those people that I joined with for prayer meetings now rarely come, and have committed to active ministries in their parishes. I see them as extraordinary ministers, taking communion to the sick, working in the parish offices, ushering, there is a society at the service of the altar making cloths and stoles, etc. The purpose of the charismatic gifts is the service of the Body, so when people are ignited in their faith and are ready, willing and able to commit to this service the function has been fulfilled. Would that all the pew warmers that filled the parish on Easter would be so moved!

 

[vardaquinn]

Thank you.

Yes, the movement itself has to be absorbed into the whole church, and probably most especially on the parochial level. And then disappear. Once the “spirituality of Pentecost” and the charismatic gifts are again active and present in the life of the Church, there will be no need for any sort of “charismatic renewal”.

 

[marie_teresa]

If you do any research online about the Charismatic movement and how it began it is tied in with protestantism. The man who began the Mormon Church could pray over people and have them fall over just like the slaying in the spirit that goes on at Stuebenville and other charasmatic services. The Holy Spirit simply doesn’t work this way and there’s no way to definitely attribute this to the Holy Spirit. I think that the only reason that three popes have given their approval to this movement is because of it’s size. It would a real problem to have all of these Catholics declared schismatic. It’s always best to stay away from this stuff.

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF marie! :dancing:

If you do any research online about the Charismatic movement and how it began it is tied in with protestantism.

The only authenticity that is in the Protestant ecclesial communities comes from the Catholic Church. They read the Catholic Scriptures, and prayed that the Holy Spirit, as declared by the Catholic Church would fill them, and He did. They cannot be faulted for being more open to receiving the gifts of God than Catholics are.

the Catechism:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

The Charismatic gifts were given to the Catholic Church. If Catholics leave these gifts by the side of the road, how can we find fault if some other Christian picks them up and wants to use them?

The man who began the Mormon Church could pray over people and have them fall over just like the slaying in the spirit that goes on at Stuebenville and other charasmatic services. The Holy Spirit simply doesn’t work this way and there’s no way to definitely attribute this to the Holy Spirit.

The gifts of God can be abused, and the origin of spiritual experiences must be discerned, of course. But the HS most definitely does do work of this kind. There are definite ways to attribute the work.

I think that the only reason that three popes have given their approval to this movement is because of it’s size. It would a real problem to have all of these Catholics declared schismatic. It’s always best to stay away from this stuff.

You are basically saying that the popes are so weak and unfaithful that they are willing to commit mortal sin by supporting error within the flock. It is a grievious sin to support others in error. You are saying that the teachings of our Magesterium are in error, and that Jesus has allowed the Church to fall into error, thereby abandoning His promise to lead her into “all Truth”. You are saying that we cannot trust our Holy Fathers to protect the Truth, and that the Catechism, proclaimed by them to be a “sure norm” in the teaching of the faith, is wrong.

 

[InquisitorMax]

The argument is:

“Pope supports Charimatic movement, therefore your criticism of its emotionalism, it’s interpretation of Biblical ‘gifts’ and its mystical aspects are invalid.”

It doesn’t follow.

I don’t see the Pope giving unqualified support to Charismatic Renewal. My personal opinion is that the Catholic Church lacks an authoritiative mystic to write a critique of their practices.

You can easily create mystical effects and feelings in people. I, personally, am just not interested in that kind of shiney-eyed emotionalism. Read the Philokalia. It’s all been encountered before.

 

[vardaquinn]

If you do any research online about the Charismatic movement and how it began it is tied in with protestantism. The man who began the Mormon Church could pray over people and have them fall over just like the slaying in the spirit that goes on at Stuebenville and other charasmatic services. The Holy Spirit simply doesn’t work this way and there’s no way to definitely attribute this to the Holy Spirit. I think that the only reason that three popes have given their approval to this movement is because of it’s size. It would a real problem to have all of these Catholics declared schismatic. It’s always best to stay away from this stuff.

Yet, people would also fall over and be slain in the spirit because they heard the preaching of St. Ignatius of Loyola, and in the lives of the saints, and in Scripture. Such mystical phenomena occurs among both Catholic and Protestants. I think there is definitely a case to make to attribute this to the Holy Spirit, but I think that one should indeed be cautious of this.

Popes and Bishops don’t approve it simply because its big. In America, most Catholics vote pro-choice. But obviously the Magisterium is not going to approve the pro-choice movement simply because it has a large number of adherents. Or use any example like that. They give approval to something when it genuinely has their approval. Read what they have said on it! It goes beyond more than simply not condemning it, they’ve called it a clear sign of the working of the Holy Spirit, a chance for the Church and the world. Pope John Paul II even went so far as to call the charismatic dimension of the faith co-essential with the institutional to the very nature of the Church.

Your understanding is kind of limited, simply reducing it to something tied in with Protestantism, therefore anti-Catholic, therefore wrong. Which totally misunderstands it.

 

[vardaquinn]

The argument is:

“Pope supports Charimatic movement, therefore your criticism of its emotionalism, it’s interpretation of Biblical ‘gifts’ and its mystical aspects are invalid.”

It doesn’t follow.

I don’t see the Pope giving unqualified support to Charismatic Renewal. My personal opinion is that the Catholic Church lacks an authoritiative mystic to write a critique of their practices.

You can easily create mystical effects and feelings in people. I, personally, am just not interested in that kind of shiney-eyed emotionalism. Read the Philokalia. It’s all been encountered before.

None of us are giving unqualified support to the Charismatic Renewal. My personal opinion is that people just need to have a basic catechesis of charismatic gifts and a more fuller understanding of the spirituality of Pentecost. We’re all supposed to be mystics. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were not exhausted in the upper room on Pentecost. We are all supposed to be people of Pentecost, on fire with the Spirit, and open to His workings and inspirations and gifts.

Please, after all the information we have provided, do not be so stubborn as to persist that the Charismatic movement is simply mere emotionalism. If it was simply mere emotionalism, I do not think that billions of Catholic world wide would call themselves Charismatics.

Read what the US Bishops say: catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/nonattributed/US_Bishops_001.html