Are Charismatics truly Catholic?

Is the charismatic movement an adaptation of protestantism? Did I miss something or is this a new post Vatican II phenomena? Of course, I know about the gifts of language in apostolic times. I just wonder if what often sounds like gibberish could be the same thing. :confused:

Yes they are. Though, because the charismatic movement is ‘sensational’ there is alway a danger. I say, "hey, if the Church has recognized the movement and John Paul II goes to (or went to) charismatic prayer meeting, then don’t knock it. Though it is not the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, refrain from critizing what you don’t understand (at the moment) remembering that there are many different parts in the body of Christ. I myself dont belong to this movement. I some really holy charismatics though.

and i agree too that in appearance, it seems similar to Pentecostalism.

We are all Charismatic through our Confirmation as Catholics. As to what we do with it, that is another matter. Some people appear to get very hung up on those gifts and never advance beyond and mature. Others I have found to be quite mature and good Catholics. It’s a mixed bag. I am more Cath-O-Matic than anything though so who knows how to judge this movement.

The Vatican has approved the movement…but it does state the guidlines. I would trust those in the movement who follow those. As to the overall population of the movement I really don’t know.

The Charismatic Movement is not an adaptation of Protestantism. The spiritual gifts have been present all through Church history. I was seven years old when I was confirmed. I did not have a very good understanding of what was going on. Now kids are confirmed when they’re about 14. I doubt that they understand a lot more than I did. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is just the sacrament of confirmation made real in our lives. Look at the spiritual lives of the first Catholics in the Acts of the Apostles. They exercised the spiritual gifts; why should Catholics today not do the same thing.

Yes, I have heard that the Church recognizes the charismatic movement as legitimate. I just don’t know why. I have read some history of the Church. I am aware of the references in scripture. Did this disappear for 2000 years, only to reappear in the 1970’s? I mean no disparagement againist anyone who happens to be charismatic. I am a southern catholic familiar with the protestant pentecostal movement which has it’s roots here in South Carolina. I am simply asking: What authority in the Church blessed this movement?

[quote=garysibio]The Charismatic Movement is not an adaptation of Protestantism. The spiritual gifts have been present all through Church history. I was seven years old when I was confirmed. I did not have a very good understanding of what was going on. Now kids are confirmed when they’re about 14. I doubt that they understand a lot more than I did. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is just the sacrament of confirmation made real in our lives. Look at the spiritual lives of the first Catholics in the Acts of the Apostles. They exercised the spiritual gifts; why should Catholics today not do the same thing.
[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree as so far most of the posters also do. We are discussing the strange ones who are charismatic but then that becomes the whole center of their faith to the point they loose focus of Christ and church teaching and guidance. They are of concern to the church and the Vatican. That is why the Vatican has had to interject guidelines on this movement. Not to squelch the true spirit but to make sure it is the True spirit.

[quote=Dave Young]Yes, I have heard that the Church recognizes the charismatic movement as legitimate. I just don’t know why. I have read some history of the Church. I am aware of the references in scripture. Did this disappear for 2000 years, only to reappear in the 1970’s? I mean no disparagement againist anyone who happens to be charismatic. I am a southern catholic familiar with the protestant pentecostal movement which has it’s roots here in South Carolina. I am simply asking: What authority in the Church blessed this movement?
[/quote]

The Vatican did…but with guidlines Dave. I don’t have the exact documents at the moment. If I find the link I’ll post it.

It’s tough to discern real speaking in tongues and gibberish. You want to be careful not to oppose something from God. On the other hand, the Catechism teaches that charisms like speaking in tongues are for the benefit of the Church. If you can’t understand what is said, then what benefit do we gain?

The Catechism also teaches that charisms are to be referred and submitted to the Church for discernment and testing so that they can work “for the common good”. When has this happened?

Charismatics believe that anyone can speak in tongues at the drop of a hat. All you have to do is lay hands on them and out it comes. This would be nice but gifts of the Holy Spirit are rare (like healing) and not a common phenomenon. I even had a Charismatic tell me that she has to practice speaking in tongues. If that were true, then it seems like it comes from the person and not the Holy Spirit. How do you practice a gift from God?

The Church has taken a hands-off approach to the Charismatic Movement and has not lived up to their pastorial duties to investigate and make sure that we can all benefit from it if it is truly real. In my opinion, I believe that the Church doesn’t want to interfer in something (real or unreal) that brings people closer to God. This is the same approach that they take on some borderline superstitous practices from sacrementals (like the brown scapular).

One more thing. Charismatics that I talk to speak about a baptism of the Holy Spirit that is separate from the sacraments. Some how we don’t get the full gifts of the Holy Spirit through baptism and confirmation. This seems to be a common belief of Charismatics but it is clearly against Church teaching.

[quote=Marie]The Vatican did…but with guidlines Dave. I don’t have the exact documents at the moment. If I find the link I’ll post it.
[/quote]

Find me the document.

I don’t think Charismatic is recognized or approved or anything. It’s just a movement. There are a lot of important problem. The Church wouldn’t bother to recognized every movement.

Charismatic is a fad. It’ll die down.

[quote=Mokey]It’s tough to discern real speaking in tongues and gibberish. You want to be careful not to oppose something from God. On the other hand, the Catechism teaches that charisms like speaking in tongues are for the benefit of the Church. If you can’t understand what is said, then what benefit do we gain?

The Catechism also teaches that charisms are to be referred and submitted to the Church for discernment and testing so that they can work “for the common good”. When has this happened?

Charismatics believe that anyone can speak in tongues at the drop of a hat. All you have to do is lay hands on them and out it comes. This would be nice but gifts of the Holy Spirit are rare (like healing) and not a common phenomenon. I even had a Charismatic tell me that she has to practice speaking in tongues. If that were true, then it seems like it comes from the person and not the Holy Spirit. How do you practice a gift from God?

The Church has taken a hands-off approach to the Charismatic Movement and has not lived up to their pastorial duties to investigate and make sure that we can all benefit from it if it is truly real. In my opinion, I believe that the Church doesn’t want to interfer in something (real or unreal) that brings people closer to God. This is the same approach that they take on some borderline superstitous practices from sacrementals (like the brown scapular).

One more thing. Charismatics that I talk to speak about a baptism of the Holy Spirit that is separate from the sacraments. Some how we don’t get the full gifts of the Holy Spirit through baptism and confirmation. This seems to be a common belief of Charismatics but it is clearly against Church teaching.
[/quote]

Mokey wrote ‘‘Charismatics believe that anyone can speak in tongues at the drop of a hat.’’

Wow! The epitome of generalisation! You need only to have prefaced this comment with ‘some’ and you would have saved many people a little angst.

I am ‘charismatic’ for want of a better word. I believe in discernment regarding spiritual gifts, rather than fear and prejudice.
A good approach is like that that ‘converts’ have had to use when faced with the seemingly superstitious views of Catholics: Look beyond what appears to be the weird and distasteful and seek the Truth behind it, with humility and a surrender to God’s leading.

Am I right in inferring from this quote that you are saying that the Church has taken a “hands off approach” to devotions such as the brown scapular devotion (because she doesn’t want, in your opinion, to “interfere in something (real or unreal) that brings people closer to God?”) If I am understanding you correctly, than you picked the wrong example. The brown scapular devotion has been encouraged and promoted by the Church since its inception. Out of countless examples of Popes, saints, and Church approved Marian apparitions that openly encourage this devotion, I shall pick one of the most recent: our Holy Father himself wears the brown scapular and regards the devotion highly. Please refer to this link : catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3525. I don’t really think this qualifies as a “hands off approach” but to the contrary, quite an endorsement.

Any sacramental can be used, and any devotion practiced, superstitiously. Superstition is definitely something to be guarded carefully against, and good education about the reasons and roots of these devotions/sacramentals is an important step towards that.

Just had to throw in my two cents there :smiley: God bless you!

Oh Beng. I hadn’t realised. Thankyou so much for putting me straight. :frowning:

Please read the comments in the thread on speaking in tongues if you haven’t already. Ignorance can cause much offense.

[quote=beng]Find me the document.

I don’t think Charismatic is recognized or approved or anything. It’s just a movement. There are a lot of important problem. The Church wouldn’t bother to recognized every movement.

Charismatic is a fad. It’ll die down.
[/quote]

Here is a good list of the approvals and Papal addresses. I had some from the Vatican on my clipboard to post but my server just went down. :mad: I am not going all over the web again to gather them but this will point you in the right direction.

read-out.net/avila/ccr.html

[quote=Marie]Here is a good list of the approvals and Papal addresses. I had some from the Vatican on my clipboard to post but my server just went down. :mad: I am not going all over the web again to gather them but this will point you in the right direction.

read-out.net/avila/ccr.html
[/quote]

IMO those are pushing it (some of them)

For example, how could you call paragraph 12 of Lumen Dentium an approvement of Charismatic Renewal? That’s ridiculous. It says nothing of short.

And it’s ridiculous when every mention of Holy Spirit or ANY gift of the Holy Spirit should be related to Charismatic renewal, when Holy Saints already have it since the beginning of the Church.

There are some documents mentioning positive things about the Charismatic renewal. I hope they study enough to gave such comment.

Then there’s an article about Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Umm sorry, but there’s only Baptism of Water which also include Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The analogy made in that article (That when you’re first baptised you just pour syrup into your glass of milk, you need to stir it to really taste the syrup. Stir means being baptized by the Holy Spirit) is a dangerous theology. Hopefully it’ll be anathemized.

[quote=Elizabeth]Oh Beng. I hadn’t realised. Thankyou so much for putting me straight. :frowning:
[/quote]

You are welcome.

Please read the comments in the thread on speaking in tongues if you haven’t already. Ignorance can cause much offense.

I have. Which one did I ignored?

I’ve been to several charismatic Masses, but I still can’t decide whether I like it or not. On the one hand, I have heard many of my Protestant friends say that one of their main problems with the Catholic Church is that it doesn’t have worship that is “alive” enough for them, but on the other hand, I think there is a fine line between being “charismatic” and unnecessary. If it has indeed been okayed by Rome then I’m not against it, but as of right now I still prefer traditional Masses.

[quote=beng]IMO those are pushing it (some of them)

For example, how could you call paragraph 12 of Lumen Dentium an approvement of Charismatic Renewal? That’s ridiculous. It says nothing of short.

And it’s ridiculous when every mention of Holy Spirit or ANY gift of the Holy Spirit should be related to Charismatic renewal, when Holy Saints already have it since the beginning of the Church.

There are some documents mentioning positive things about the Charismatic renewal. I hope they study enough to gave such comment.

Then there’s an article about Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Umm sorry, but there’s only Baptism of Water which also include Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The analogy made in that article (That when you’re first baptised you just pour syrup into your glass of milk, you need to stir it to really taste the syrup. Stir means being baptized by the Holy Spirit) is a dangerous theology. Hopefully it’ll be anathemized.
[/quote]

Being,
I told you that I had retrieved the documents from the Vatican website. It is not easy to find what your looking for there. Then the server went down. The only thing I had left was in my saved favorites but it is where I began.

LOL! :angel1: Don’t ask me questions on their slant…I can’t yea or nay them. I am Catholic. I am Cradle born and have lived through a boatload of controversies. The Charismatic movement is just one of many. I do know after YEARS and years of it, that the Charism’s are real and approved. BUT, as with everything there are those who distort and misuse the movement. That is my point and the only one I am making. Please ask someone who has a server that does not zap all the info gathered. :whacky:

Seriously though, good questions. Sorry I don’t still have the Vatican doc’s I gathered. One complicated turn around the internet searching for an hour is enough for me on the subject. I am old. :smiley:

[quote=Dave Young]Did this disappear for 2000 years, only to reappear in the 1970’s?
[/quote]

The place to look is the lives of the Saints. Read about St. Blaise (d. 316), St. Helena (d. 329 A.D.), St. Christina (d. 1224) or St. Joan of Arc (d. 1431 A.D.).

What are the distinctions between being a Charismatic Catholic and being a Protestant Pentecostal (other than the obvious doctrinal differences). I’m referring to what goes on during the prayer service (when these gifts/healings etc. are make known), and whether they are similar, and to what degree.

My second question is why, regular people are claiming to have charismatic gifts when only a segment or portion of saints did? Isn’t the idea of these gifts of the Holy Spirit being bestowed upon individuals who are on a certain level of their spiritual journey? I mean, it makes sense that actual saints would have these gifts, but not the high number of regular folk who claim to have the same gifts. That ‘level’ of spirituality (grace) in their lives is what enables them to be open to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit chooses what He gives to whom. I can’t imagine that it’s a power that’s applied loosely, and just because someone wants it. I believe there is a strong connection between holiness and grace and charismatic gifts.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.