Charismatic Catholics

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Feb 14 2006, 03:49 PM']Do you even understand the true intent of the Charistmatic movement and where it originated?  If I remember correctly, the Charistmatic movement, correct me if I'm wrong, was supported and encouraged by our late beloved John Paul II.
[right][snapback]887375[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

that's not going to fly far with a more-catholic-than-the-pope traditionalist.

And yes, the modern charasmatic movement did origninate in the pentacostal heresy. However, Catholics are good at Christianing the pagan (and in this case the Protestant), but that is only stating the obvious, as I'm sure GI knows.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Fine...:


See...I'm not smart enough to debate with the 'Big Dogs'.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 14 2006, 04:47 PM']This is not happening through the charismatic movement.  The charismatics came from the Pentecostal heresy.
[right][snapback]887373[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You are only have speculation.

The Charismatic movement started centuries ago, our lost pentacostal brethren coming home to Rome might have some issues that are unresolved... they might have brought it more into the open... but it did not start with them.

Do you read the bible?

Think of the parable of the weeds and wheat. You seperate weeds at harvest least you destroy the wheat.

Instead of focusing on your opinion, try to focus on Catholic teaching. It is possible that we are in the last days. Some could be real, some could be fake.... it's God's job to judge, not yours. I believe much of it is fake, but I know some is real.

God Bless,
ironmonk
www.CatholicSwag.com <- Catholic t-shirts that do not claim to speak in tongues.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Feb 14 2006, 04:54 PM']Fine...:
See...I'm not smart enough to debate with the 'Big Dogs'.
[right][snapback]887388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


with as in "side by side" or "against"?

Anti-vat 2 types are not big-dogs... they're more like lost puppies that are hungry for truth and will bite your hand when you try to feed them. With time and prayer, they'll come around.

[scardella]

First, Inquisitor Generalis, I'm noting your blog proclaims your Trad-ness...

Second, you're certainly not approaching this debate in charity. Hatred only breeds hatred.

Third, if you want to debate, read the debate and make a thoughtful reply. If you think that speaking in tongues is dead (when does God change?) or it's heretical (why go against the Bible?), please back up your answers with personal experience, philosophy/logic, Scriptural quotes, quotes from the CCC, Church Fathers, Popes, encyclicals, etc.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 14 2006, 01:23 PM']The Charismatics are a complete and total embarrassment.  The fact that they have not been condemned is a grave scandal.
[right][snapback]887259[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
chill

i am one

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='scardella' date='Feb 14 2006, 05:42 PM']
Second, you're certainly not approaching this debate in charity.  Hatred only breeds hatred.  [/quote]

You need to look at this through the eyes of what Catholics, say, 100 or even 500 years ago would have thought. The clear answer is that they would have acted in total disgust in regard to the charismatic movement. That's just a plain fact, take it how you will. And no one would deny that point.

[quote name='scardella' date='Feb 14 2006, 05:42 PM']
Third, if you want to debate, read the debate and make a thoughtful reply.  If you think that speaking in tongues is dead (when does God change?) or it's heretical (why go against the Bible?), please back up your answers with personal experience, philosophy/logic, Scriptural quotes, quotes from the CCC, Church Fathers, Popes, encyclicals, etc.
[right][snapback]887536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Like I said, Catholics at any other period of time would have reacted in disgust to the charismatic movement. I highly doubt most of them would have even needed to bother to cite any sources, b/c they would have a sensus Catholicus, and that would have been sufficient. Read Popes like Pius X, Pius IX, or Pius XII. You'll quickly see that they would have never tolerated anything remotely similar to the charismatic movement.

Furthermore, if you want me to cite sources, bringing back speaking in tongues is awfully close to the false archaeology condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

[jezic]

I don't really know how to explain everything, but some of the guys here and I went to this Charismatic conference thing. I was skeptical about tongues, i really didn't like the idea at first.

There were some Native Americans in my group who could. They did. At first it scared me, i was like what the heck. Then it was like Jesus told me, who i am to say what he has given them. They aren't doing to to impress me or anything. Somehow they believe that the Spirit is moving them and it is true prayer. What i was stunned by was that it was these people who seemed to have the deepest insights. The words that they would mention or scripture verses had a huge impact on me because it was like they knew what was going on in my life without me saying a word.

Then to make it wierder, they said that i prayed in tongues. Though honestly i was only saying things in English and i understood them in English, but somehow they heard whatever noise i made. I was taken back by it at first, but i just kind of smiled and said, Jesus if you want me to i will. My focus is praying and contemplating and encountering you. If somehow they hear tongues i won't worry.

I think this is the most important part to remember. If it does draw these people closer to Christ, then who are you to tell them it is not real?

My views were changed by the sheer reality of what happened there. It was something that i couldn't really deny was happening.

As another note, if people think that the Charismatic movement is fake, they need to wake up. It is a great benefit to us to come to understand the Holy Spirit in our lives more. That doesn't mean we will all start speaking in tongues or falling over, but rather that we are encountering God in a fuller way.

Some say it is protestantized, but the reality is those people are. They want things to be "their way". It should be the way that they think is real. That is a protestant idea. (ask them about scriptures and how they decide for themselves what to believe) The truth is that this deals with God. As the wise pharisee said in the Bible, if this is of God, who are you to stand in his way. If this is not of Him, then it will die out. (not in so many words, but close to that)

[jezic]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 14 2006, 05:55 PM']You need to look at this through the eyes of what Catholics, say, 100 or even 500 years ago would have thought.  The clear answer is that they would have acted in total disgust in regard to the charismatic movement.  That's just a plain fact, take it how you will.  And no one would deny that point.
Like I said, Catholics at any other period of time would have reacted in disgust to the charismatic movement.  I highly doubt most of them would have even needed to bother to cite any sources, b/c they would have a sensus Catholicus, and that would have been sufficient.  Read Popes like Pius X, Pius IX, or Pius XII.  You'll quickly see that they would have never tolerated anything remotely similar to the charismatic movement.

Furthermore, if you want me to cite sources, bringing back speaking in tongues is awfully close to the false archaeology condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
[right][snapback]887551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How do you know what Catholics in the past would have said? Were you there?

And who are you to tell God what he can and can't do?

[Mercy me]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 14 2006, 08:35 PM']How do you know what Catholics in the past would have said? Were you there?

And who are you to tell God what he can and can't do?
[right][snapback]887584[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have been reading through this thread and find it quite interesting. Jezic you nailed it. Who are any of us to tell God what he can and cannot do?

Along the lines of this thread, I must admit that I too am a skeptic as to the Charismatic movement . However, I have come understand the gift of tongues. While I have never prayed in tongues I have experienced it. It was traveling and was attending a mass. My friend and I had shared a Magnificat at other masses but not at this one. I did not need to. The church we were at had an awesome Holy Spirit window and I remember being transfixed by it. The really strange thing is that while I did not recognize the language of the mass, I understood every word of it. My ears heard a foreign language but I understood the words including the lengthy homily given by that particular cardinal. It was so strange that I did not share it for several years. But I cannot forget what happened at that mass at St. Peters. God has the ability to speak directly to our hearts if we are open to Him and He does not always communicate in ways that make sense to us.

[God Conquers]

Inquisitor Generalis... the name says it all.

Speaking in tongues in not "the charismatic movement".

Charismatic refers to the Greek term for "gifts of grace", The Church is in this sense "charismatic". As it is the perfect vessel for all gifts of grace which God gives to us.

You certainly must not know many people who consider their spirituality to be charismatic if you believe them to be an embarrasment. Charismatic Catholics (it is a huge generalization and umbrella), are at the forefront of evangelization and renewal in the Church. I wouldn't call that an embarrasment.

Plus, I personally believe the "charismatic renewal" is all but over. However, it has left something good and lasting in the church, like all movements borne of God: a love and joy in the faith, a new understanding of the Holy Spirit's place in our lives, and passion for evangelization.

You can't possibly claim to know what people in the past would have thought...

By that token I could say that the Catholics of the 6th century would have reacted with disgust to the reforms of Trent, or the mendicant movement.

Come on!

[ReinnieR]

thank you

[Paphnutius]

Just a thought from the CCC on this matter:[quote]2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. [b]There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit." 53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church. 54[/b] [/quote]Just saying that the charisms are indeed alive and well today. I am not stating that the CCR is right or wrong, but either way Inquisitor you cannot deny that the charisms are still present (notice the use of the present tense) in the Church without denying the CCC.

[scardella]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 14 2006, 05:55 PM']You need to look at this through the eyes of what Catholics, say, 100 or even 500 years ago would have thought.[/quote]

Ok, there are multiple problems with this statement. First, you do not back this statement up. You are giving no evidence of what people have stated in the past, and you cannot claim to have been alive to have a sense of how they would have reacted. Second, there have been many movements in the past which have emphasized one part of the faith when it was necessary. Might I mention St. Margaret Mary Alcoque and devotion to the Sacred Heart, or St. Louis Marie de Montfort and his emphasis on devotion to Mary? What about St. Faustina and Divine Mercy? They all started different movements within the Church at a time when it was needed. In the same way, the Charismatic Movement is fighting the anti-spiritualist notions that are prevalent today. On a personal note, I wouldn't be here were it not for the Charismatic Movement within the Church. As a matter of fact, many of my friends who are devoted Catholics got their start directly from the Charismatic Movement and its efforts. Finally, this is coming from the eyes of a current Catholic.

[quote]The clear answer is that they would have acted in total disgust in regard to the charismatic movement.  That's just a plain fact, take it how you will.  And no one would deny that point.  Like I said, Catholics at any other period of time would have reacted in disgust to the charismatic movement.  I highly doubt most of them would have even needed to bother to cite any sources, b/c they would have a sensus Catholicus, and that would have been sufficient.[/quote]

This is inflammatory, and I don't appreciate it. I'm trying to be fair and respond to your criticism. The above argument is relying upon the same type of argument that many Protestants use when they are interpreting the bible. You are just substituting sensus Catholicus for the Holy Spirit's guidance. "How do you know how to interpret the bible?" "The Holy Spirit guides me!" --> "How do you know that the Charismatic Movement is invalid?" "Any true Catholic could see that it is invalid." This is how you are coming across. If I remembered my old propaganda techniques from HS, I'd name the fallacy of it, but I can't remember. Hrm...ok, I decided to look it up: bandwagon appeal, appeal to ridicule, emotional terms, hasty generalization... (Note: I competed in "Academic Games" in HS... this argument would be great for the Propaganda game, which is where I got the terms from... Unfortunately I'm working off memory for their definitions. I think they should be fairly self-explanatory, though.)

[quote]Read Popes like Pius X, Pius IX, or Pius XII.  You'll quickly see that they would have never tolerated anything remotely similar to the charismatic movement.

Furthermore, if you want me to cite sources, bringing back speaking in tongues is awfully close to the false archaeology condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.[/quote]

Quite honestly, I don't have enough time to dig through a whole encyclical, much less the writings of 3-4 popes. If you would quote something appropriate, I'd love to read it, but I've been trying to snatch time here and there to read [i]Deus Caritas Est[/i] for almost a week and I'm only half through it. I'm also way behind on philothea's book, among other things.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

This is ridiculous and I'm not even going to debate the topic. You all need to look into what Catholicism was like before Vatican II, see it from the eyes of Catholics in various time periods, and you'll know what I'm talking about. You're asking me to debate something that's basically common sense.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Inquisitor Generalis