Charismatic Worship

[Apotheoun]

Charismatic practices should not be allowed during the liturgy, because the liturgy is concerned with the common faith of the whole Church, and is not about a particular gift that an individual may claim to have. As I said in an earlier post, I cannot give an assent of faith to what Charismatics do or say, because I have no way of knowing if what they are saying is true, or by what "spirit" they are even saying the things in question.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='15 September 2009 - 07:54 AM' timestamp='1253019249' post='1966750']
It's somewhere in the documents approving the Tridentine as the Extraordinary Form and allowing it to be celebrated without explicit permission of the local bishop, but I haven't found it yet. The gist is that both forms need to be held in equal regard.
[/quote]

Perhaps this is what you think supports your view:
"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness." (Letter to bishops accompantying Summorum Pontificum)

Unfortunately, this does not state what you claim it does: namely, that neither the prayers and rites of the EF nor the prayers and rites of the OF are superior to those of the others. It merely states that Catholics must recognize both forms as valid and holy.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 September 2009 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1253045954' post='1967059']
Charismatic practices should not be allowed during the liturgy, because the liturgy is concerned with the common faith of the whole Church, and is not about a particular gift that an individual may claim to have. As I said in an earlier post, I cannot give an assent of faith to what Charismatics do or say, because I have no way of knowing if what they are saying is true, or by what "spirit" they are even saying the things in question.
[/quote]
Thanks for steering this back in the right direction. Too bad your words become unheeded.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='11 September 2009 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1252676013' post='1964877']
Is that different from people who rely on their emotions through traditional worship?

I ask because sometimes charismatics and traditionalists seem to have a lot more in common than they like to believe. Both can be very emotional and very much attached to certain aesthetics and experiences. When I see people talking about the EF like a new crush they just fell for, frankly, I don't see much difference between them and those who are crazy about charismatic worship. I think we forget, for example, that it's quite possible to faithfully attend an EF Mass disobediently (i.e. if one believes it is inherently superior to the NO or that the NO is invalid).

Someone earlier in this thread pointed out that the preacher to Benedict XVI is charismatic. Why doesn't that raise any eyebrows?
[/quote]

My questions are still unanswered...

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 September 2009 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1253047622' post='1967075']
Unfortunately, this does not state what you claim it does: namely, that neither the prayers and rites of the EF nor the prayers and rites of the OF are superior to those of the others. It merely states that Catholics must recognize both forms as valid and holy.
[/quote]

That wasn't it... I can't find it at the moment.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='16 September 2009 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1253078147' post='1967424']
Thanks for steering this back in the right direction. Too bad your words become unheeded.
[/quote]

Um, check out post #58.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 September 2009 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1253045954' post='1967059']
Charismatic practices should not be allowed during the liturgy, because the liturgy is concerned with the common faith of the whole Church, and is not about a particular gift that an individual may claim to have.[/quote]
Truthfully stated; no disagreement here. The thing with which I disagree is that the inferences that charismatics have a different faith than the rest of the Church and that charismatic worship places emphasis on the individual. In post #6, I give a link to my parish's website that gives a little intro to what the overall spirituality of Christ the King is. There are statements and documents supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself in the Church today through visible gifts, and not just ones of spectacle (speaking in tongues, etc.), but things that happened in the early Church regularly. You can just take that as you'd like, but it's not something that we're just making up as we go along. As for placing emphasis on the individual, charismatic worship does no such thing. It allows us to praise God expressively and communally (not in an overly-exuberant, out-of-hand way that many Protestant Pentecostals do). It's not as if someone just bursts out with a string of tongues and then there's the need for an interpretation as is often described in the NT (though it can happen outside the mass if people get together for prayer). [quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 September 2009 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1253045954' post='1967059']As I said in an earlier post, I cannot give an assent of faith to what Charismatics do or say, because I have no way of knowing if what they are saying is true, or by what "spirit" they are even saying the things in question.
[/quote]

...And no one's begging you to do so. If you like being an Eastern Catholic, that's fine. It's just that you seem to have a particular elitist disdain when it comes to certain things Western because from what it seems, it's just not something you can get off on, and that's sort of problematic. It really does bring back what Louisville was saying about people who have fallen head-over-heels in love with the EF simply because of the indult that allows it to be said nowadays. If the Pope didn't give it, would he have been wrong? Charismatics and Traditionalists often do have a lot in common that most don't want to acknowledge. Really being into things charismatic is pretty much the same thing as being into the EF of the mass with the Latin, the chant, the ad orientem, the smells, bells, whistles, all of that. It's something completely external that may or may not do anything internally because reverence, a love for God and his Church, and an appreciation for the Liturgy, whichever it be, is something that must first be internalized before it can be truly expressed outwardly. It doesn't work the other way. You can't go through motions and somehow be changed by them alone.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='16 September 2009 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1253110557' post='1967495']
That wasn't it... I can't find it at the moment.
[/quote]

That's because it doesn't exist.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='16 September 2009 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1253113500' post='1967503']
Truthfully stated; no disagreement here. The thing with which I disagree is that the inferences that charismatics have a different faith than the rest of the Church and that charismatic worship places emphasis on the individual. In post #6, I give a link to my parish's website that gives a little intro to what the overall spirituality of Christ the King is. There are statements and documents supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself in the Church today through visible gifts, and not just ones of spectacle (speaking in tongues, etc.), but things that happened in the early Church regularly. You can just take that as you'd like, but it's not something that we're just making up as we go along. As for placing emphasis on the individual, charismatic worship does no such thing. It allows us to praise God expressively and communally (not in an overly-exuberant, out-of-hand way that many Protestant Pentecostals do). It's not as if someone just bursts out with a string of tongues and then there's the need for an interpretation as is often described in the NT (though it can happen outside the mass if people get together for prayer). [/quote]
My point, which you failed to grasp is this, whether or not a person has a "charismatic gift" is a subjective matter that cannot be proven, and to allow for these so-called "gifts" in the liturgy is to allow an element that is not part of the faith of all the members of the Church to intrude into the worship of the whole Body of Christ. The assent of faith cannot, by its very nature, be given to the acts of a person who "speaks in tongues" because there is no way to know if the person is experiencing a true "gift" or whether they are - and I mean no offense by this - delusional.

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='16 September 2009 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1253113500' post='1967503']...And no one's begging you to do so. If you like being an Eastern Catholic, that's fine. It's just that you seem to have a particular elitist disdain when it comes to certain things Western because from what it seems, it's just not something you can get off on, and that's sort of problematic. It really does bring back what Louisville was saying about people who have fallen head-over-heels in love with the EF simply because of the indult that allows it to be said nowadays. If the Pope didn't give it, would he have been wrong? Charismatics and Traditionalists often do have a lot in common that most don't want to acknowledge. Really being into things charismatic is pretty much the same thing as being into the EF of the mass with the Latin, the chant, the ad orientem, the smells, bells, whistles, all of that. It's something completely external that may or may not do anything internally because reverence, a love for God and his Church, and an appreciation for the Liturgy, whichever it be, is something that must first be internalized before it can be truly expressed outwardly. It doesn't work the other way. You can't go through motions and somehow be changed by them alone.[/quote]
My being Eastern Catholic is immaterial to the question at hand. The liturgy (whether it is Roman, Byzantine, Coptic, etc.) is the public worship of the Church, and as such it is not the place for the "charismatic gifts" of a particular group within the Body, but is instead intended to manifest that which unites the whole Body.

A Charismatic is free to exercise his "gifts" privately (e.g., at home, or in a Charismatic prayer group outside of the liturgical setting), but those "gifts," which by the their very nature cannot be proven to exist objectively, cannot be used in the public worship of the Church, because the Church's worship is always an act of the whole body, and not merely a small portion of it.

All the talk about smells and bells is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

P.S. - I have not said that Charismatics have a "different faith than the rest of the Church"; instead, I have pointed out a truth of Catholic doctrine, i.e., that the assent of divine faith cannot be given to the actions of Charismatics when the exercise their so-called spiritual "gifts" because their individual experience is not an objective truth, but is a subjective experience that may or may not be valid.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='16 September 2009 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1253133046' post='1967669']
That's because it doesn't exist.
[/quote]

It does... it's something to do with bishops retaining the authority to restrict a priest or parish from celebrating the EF in cases where practices or teaching are more akin to, say, the SSPX than the Catholic Church.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 September 2009 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1253137464' post='1967728']
My point, which you failed to grasp is this, whether or not a person has a "charismatic gift" is a subjective matter that cannot be proven, and to allow for these so-called "gifts" in the liturgy is to allow an element that is not part of the faith of all the members of the Church to intrude into the worship of the whole Body of Christ. The assent of faith cannot, by its very nature, be given to the acts of a person who "speaks in tongues" because there is no way to know if the person is experiencing a true "gift" or whether they are - and I mean no offense by this - delusional.


My being Eastern Catholic is immaterial to the question at hand. The liturgy (whether it is Roman, Byzantine, Coptic, etc.) is the public worship of the Church, and as such it is not the place for the "charismatic gifts" of a particular group within the Body, but is instead intended to manifest that which unites the whole Body.

A Charismatic is free to exercise his "gifts" privately (e.g., at home, or in a Charismatic prayer group outside of the liturgical setting), but those "gifts," which by the their very nature cannot be proven to exist objectively, cannot be used in the public worship of the Church, because the Church's worship is always an act of the whole body, and not merely a small portion of it.

P.S. - I have not said that Charismatics have a "different faith than the rest of the Church"; instead, I have pointed out a truth of Catholic doctrine, i.e., that the assent of divine faith cannot be given to the actions of Charismatics when the exercise their so-called spiritual "gifts" because their individual experience is not an objective truth, but is a subjective experience that may or may not be valid.
[/quote]

Points taken into consideration.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 September 2009 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1253137464' post='1967728']All the talk about smells and bells is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.[/quote]

It wasn't until Louisville made an excellent point. As he and I said, some charismatics and some traditionalists in all rites and of all stripes have more in common than they're willing to believe. There are some, not all in both camps who tend to gravitate towards their liturgy of choice because of its aesthetic appeal to them. The way some on this forum speak of the EF form of the mass lends to that perception because they speak of it as if it's bell-bottoms coming back and they're now all the rage just because some celebrity was endorsing them. The pope has allowed the EF form of the mass to be celebrated because he's seen the turning away of minds and hearts from Catholicism and he believes that if we go back to something can be perceived to be authentic, not something that has a bit more leeway and can be dressed up (the way the NO is sometimes) people will be attracted to it again, since it's the fundamentals of the faith that many in Europe and America seem to be lacking. A lot of people are attracted to this for the right reason. There are some, however who have an elitist disdain for the ordinary form because for them, it just doesn't hit the spot the way the good 'ol EF does. There's also a perception among some of these people that those who actually prefer the NO to the EF are somehow lacking something because if you don't have the same appreciation for the older, more liturgy of the Church that they do, you've just [i]got[/i] to be one of those hippie progressives who aren't all [i]that[/i] serious about their faith. While in the mind of charismatics, we're incorporating something that was once a major part of Christian life that was lost along the way into not only our daily personal worship but our communal worship as well, to traditionalists who like their smells and bells (and honestly don't know anything about the beginnings of the Catholic charismatic renewal and will often tell you that it has strictly Protestant roots, a lie), we're just adding a bunch of "emotion" that shouldn't be there. I'm not advocating that anyone be charismatic. I'm simply defending the place that it should have in the lives of those who want to have a deeper relationship with Christ, which MANY have found through allowing the Holy Spirit to manifest Himself through his gifts. The purpose of the gifts are to edify the whole body, not to put emphasis on one individual, which some are constantly claiming that they do (which they don't). Traditionalists, while they claim reasons for why the EF is objectively better, will also speak of the "beauty" of the liturgy, pointing out some aesthetics to which they gravitate. Catholicism (really Christianity) has always engaged all parts of our person: our intellect, our senses, (and even) our emotions. To say that many traditionalists who often scoff at the suburban parish liturgies that they sometimes have to attend have no emotional attachment to the EF is absurd. Someone can become just as emotionally attached to the EF (and often do) as much as they become attached to a liturgy that has come opportunities to praise God in an expressive way. While this wasn't the bulk of Apo's argument, I just want to get this out of the way because some of the things people have been saying about charismatics having a "shallow spiritual life" or leaning on the emotions while the intellect is neglected. My parish has been accused of being of all things, "too conservative", "overly-catechizing", and, dare I say it, "too traditional" by people in the diocese.

Apo, I don't agree with, yet respect your perspective of the charismatic gifts and why you can't accept their use in the liturgy. It's perfectly reasonable. I used to think the same way. I was raised in a Pentecostal denomination and I came to believe that the charismatic gifts were simply fake, that no one could actually be doing it "for real". I was nervous about attending the parish of which I'm now a member because I simply didn't know what to expect. I'll just say that it was nothing like the place that I grew up. I'm not going to debate the point with you because it will just be useless and get either of us nowhere. I, however, appreciate your intellectual honesty and Christian charity.

[Apotheoun]

Louisville did not make an excellent point, but rather confused the issues involved.

Those in this thread who have opposed the use of so-called "charismatic gifts" during the liturgy have done so because those "gifts" are emotionally based, i.e., they are founded upon a subjective notion that one possesses a "gift of tongues" or a "gift of prophecy", etc., and so an act of divine and catholic faith cannot be given during the public worship of the Church (or at any other time) in connection with this subjective emotional state of the "Charismatic" individual, which could be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the person using the "gift." A traditionalist, on the other hand, who has an emotional attachment to the older Roman Rite is not constantly infusing new subjective emotional states into the public worship of the whole Church, but is simply being faithful to the liturgical rite as it has been passed down from one generation to the next, while being attached to the rite emotionally in a private manner.

Thus, there is no real comparison between the subjective emotionalism that a Charismatic interjects into the public worship of the whole Church, and which cannot be given the assent of divine and catholic faith (i.e., without falling into theological error), and the emotional attachment to the ancient Roman Rite by a traditionalist, which simply involves following the objectively based liturgical norms passed down since time immemorial.

P.S. - A Charismatic is free to use the "gifts" he thinks he has received privately, i.e., outside of the Church's public liturgical worship.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='17 September 2009 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1253198558' post='1968039']
It does... it's something to do with [b]bishops retaining the authority to restrict a priest or parish from celebrating the EF[/b] in cases where practices or teaching are more akin to, say, the SSPX than the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

That is completely incorrect. No bishop has any authority to restrict a priest of the Latin Church with faculties to say Mass from privately celebrating the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. (cf. Summorum Pontificum, Art. 2)

If what you are claiming existed really did exist, you should have no problem finding it since Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter to bishops are both relatively short.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='17 September 2009 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1253207123' post='1968084']
... There are some, however who have an elitist disdain for the ordinary form because for them, it just doesn't hit the spot the way the good 'ol EF does....
[/quote]
I'm sorry. I lawl'd. Thought that was funny.

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='17 September 2009 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1253207123' post='1968084']
Catholicism (really Christianity) has always engaged all parts of our person: our intellect, our senses, (and even) our emotions. To say that many traditionalists who often scoff at the suburban parish liturgies that they sometimes have to attend have no emotional attachment to the EF is absurd. Someone can become just as emotionally attached to the EF (and often do) as much as they become attached to a liturgy that has come opportunities to praise God in an expressive way. ...
[/quote]
The way you juxtapose a "suburban" liturgy and an EF liturgy in this context, it seems there is some implication that the EF can not be expressive. Truly, my theory prof made the point this week that though we were given one chord and the other three chords that came in sequence were dictated note-by-note, we were still being musically expressive. I do not believe one cannot be "expressive" by deadpan, no exceptions "do the red, say the black". It's not just someone's "cup of tea", but it's what is asked of priests by Mother Church. We need to get out of our post-Christendom, post-"enlightenment" minds the idea that expressiveness and liberty comes from destroying, breaking, or otherwise ignoring rules and continuity. Now, I'm not blaming you for anything. I know you're pretty much on the "trad" side as it is, I just thought I'd springboard off your posts to speak my mind.
*steps down from soapbox*
Wanna go for some pie later?

+

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='19 September 2009 - 01:02 AM' timestamp='1253336535' post='1969049']
I'm sorry. I lawl'd. Thought that was funny.


The way you juxtapose a "suburban" liturgy and an EF liturgy in this context, it seems there is some implication that the EF can not be expressive. Truly, my theory prof made the point this week that though we were given one chord and the other three chords that came in sequence were dictated note-by-note, we were still being musically expressive. I do not believe one cannot be "expressive" by deadpan, no exceptions "do the red, say the black". It's not just someone's "cup of tea", but it's what is asked of priests by Mother Church. We need to get out of our post-Christendom, post-"enlightenment" minds the idea that expressiveness and liberty comes from destroying, breaking, or otherwise ignoring rules and continuity. Now, I'm not blaming you for anything. I know you're pretty much on the "trad" side as it is, I just thought I'd springboard off your posts to speak my mind.
*steps down from soapbox*
Wanna go for some pie later?

+
[/quote]

I understand your assumption. What I was trying to say was actually the opposite. I was trying to expound on Louisville's point and say that while there are some charismatics who are attracted to the aesthetics of things charismatic, there are indeed also trads who are rather attracted to the aesthetics of the EF mass. Both a mass that has room for charismatic/expressive worship (which is pretty much a NO mass anyway) and an EF mass are aesthetic in some ways same, some ways different. It's just that some trads have trouble admitting that and try to paint others as being not-as-faithful or even not-as-Catholic.

And I couldn't agree more with your final assessment. We find freedom in parameters and boundaries. It's when we lose boundaries that we lose security, and without security, we have no freedom. We have a liturgy and we need to stick to it. There is, however, nothing inherently wrong with allowing charismatic worship at certain points during the mass where there is nothing of the nature particularly forbidden.

I would definitely like to take you up on the pie offer.