www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Does the Catholic Church endorse the Charismatic movement?

The Charismatic movement entered the Catholic Church in the late 1960's. Since it differs from what the Catholic Church had been practicing for centuries previously, wouldn't the hierarchs, and the Pope in particular, have recognized that it was foreign to Catholic Tradition? Is it true as Charismatics claim that the Catholic Church endorses the Charismatic movement?

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal website says:

The Tradition in Action website says:

The Holy Spirit Interactive Website says:
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/charismaticrenewal/cr_history.asp

It is confusing for me that the Cardinal would want to see more "slaying in the spirit", as the article calls it "strange".

I have been feeling like going to a Catholic Charismatic session, because I see parallels to what was happening in the early Church where a believer like one of Paul's students went to areas where people hadn't heard the gospel and would perform various miracles. But the idea of being at a Charismatic meeting also makes me feel uncomfortable, like I could get hypnotized by it since I am attracted to it but think it is probably hypnotic rather than supernatural.

Someone on Redit asked about feeling uncomfortable with the Charismatic movement, and another person replied by posting official Catholic statements:

[video:youtube]WpEpsBjWLUE[/video]

Christ is in our midst!!

There are those who believe that Cardinal Suenens (sp?) was a prominent member of the hierarchy that promoted much of the confusion about what the Catholic Church believed and taught after the Vatican Council. There are those who believe that this latter event was the new birthday of the Church and that what went on before should be forgotten.

The Dutch Church went from being one of the most conservative to the most liberal overnight during that period. So I take anything coming from that direction with a tablespoon of salt.

See my pm to you.

I confess that I have been heavily influenced by the Orthodox Church and have had much of my formation in practice formed along lines that you would find familiar. So I admit to being very uncomfortable with novelty in the Faith and in its practice. My confessor agrees with me that the innovator should be the one to justify his innovation and does not ahve anything to do with this activity.

Bob

Thanks for your reply, Theophan!

Can I ask how you would interpret the declarations of Vatican II, which the Catholic Church considers ecumenical, about the Charismatic movement?

Speaking in tongues, prophecies, and healings would be one of the more "outstanding gifts", and the text says to receive them with thanksgiving.

The EWTN website says that the "Charisms" mentioned in Vatican II include speaking in tongues because that is what Paul was talking about in Corinthians, which Vatican II cited for support.

The Vatican II document says:
"Judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church". So the judgment of their genuinity would belong to leaders like the Pope, and the popes since Vatican II have been teaching that the Charismatic movement is genuine. What status would those like us have to make an opposite judgment?

Charismatics also point to Vatican II's declaration on the Lay apostolate:

Here is a list of papal quotes endorsing the Charismatic renewal:
http://catholicrenewalservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PapalQuotes.pdf

One Pentecostal sees Vatican II's statements as changing teachings in favor of Pentecostal understandings of the charisms:

The underlined part is confusing for me above. I understand that in Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic liturgy, the priest is traditionally seen as taking a role like that of Christ, as when he says during the Eucharistic service: "Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee on behalf of all and for all". In what sense does Vatican II see laity taking on Christ's role in particular as a priest?

He continues:
This is confusing. When the Charismatics feel inspired and make positive Christian declarations, it appears that the Holy Spirit is working in them. As part of these actions they include emotional singing and outpourings of tongues. Does that mean that this belongs to the faith if it is truly Christian and worked by the Spirit?

Christ is in our midst!!

I'm not sure that the Vatican Council meant for the first three portions you quote to refer specifically to the Charismatic movement. Remember that the Council was not meant to be some liberal exercise--I have that from the mouth of a bishop who attended all the sessions during a conversation about some of the aberations that arose claiming to be coming from said council.

Charisms, here does not refer to the Charismatic movement. It refers to the specific gifts and graces that any individual may have and are not specific to the phenomenona seen in the Charismatic movement. A charism may be to be a teacher or one who can organize activities or any otehr activity of human endeavor. "Tongues" may also refer to people who have a facility for learning languages other than one's native language.

The two theologians mentioned were under scrutiny for their orthodoxy so quoting them has no authority. It's an example of the confusion that came about after the Council where everyone assumed he could be his own authority. The whole endeavor lead to the election of Pope St John Paul II later when things had gone so far afield that two different bishops or two different priests could be found teaching opposite things. He was elected to bring order out of chaos and we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a result of his papacy.

Many of the Council's documents have been quoted out of context to justify all manner of things. The Charismatic movement did not really take off until after the Council adjourned so to claim that the fathers meant their documents to specifically refer to said movement seems a bit far fetched to me.

Bob

Dear Brother Bob,

What is your opinion of western educated Eastern Orthodox clergy citing HE Cardinal Suenens as the voice of VC2, in favor of his position?


I've heard His Grace Metropolitan Kallistos reference His Eminence in a positive light in numerous talks.

I'm with you on this so called modern Charismatic movement. In my opinion, it will be the cause of the next wave of scandal in the Church. Hopefully, it will be buried, rather than it digging the Church deeper.

Good point.

But the Charismatic movement gained a lot of strength in the Catholic Church with the Pittsburgh conferences about 2 years after the 1965 Vatican II declaration about the "charisms", didn't it?

I think it might not be a coincidence. The "Charismatic" movement had already grown at that point into mainstream Protestantism, but just wasn't big yet in the Catholic Church in 1965.

I think we need to see the quote by Bp. Kallistos Ware.
If he approved some statement or action by the Cardinal, it doesn't mean that Bp. Ware approves of everything the Cardinal has ever done as a Cardinal.

Opinions are like sweat socks: everyone has two; most stink. Here goes.

Each one of us is given the talents and gifts we have. Each of us is placed in the situation we are in. I have been blessed to have had sound, orthodox clergy as my confessors and spiritual fathers over the last half century. None of them has had a bent toward any of this stuff; in fact they have warned me to stay away. I believe that is the Holy Spirit speaking to me through them.

I don't judge others; where they are or what they may say to the contrary. I have always erred on the side of caution, whether in the Faith or otherwise. Maybe I'm too conservative--been accused of that--but one spiritual father said there is no such thing as being too conservative when it comes to the Faith and its practice.

I have to answer for me; everyone else answers for himself. I can only hope that I am on the right track, given my situation and the spiritual fathers in my history--and that my witness does not lead another astray.

I admit I am not open to charismatic practice or any New Age prayer methods.

Bob

FWIW, the movement in my area is nearly defunct. The 'healing' masses are attended by few, the prayer groups are dwindling and most Catholics I talk to either don't know it exists or are wary of it.

Hi guys,

Just my two cents' worth, having had some exposure to different manifestations of (broadly speaking) "charismatic" stuff:

My impression is that, like most primarily lay movements throughout the history of the church, the charismatic movement is a pretty big tent with a lot of stuff going on in it. Some of it is extremely edifying, holy, and beautiful, but some of it is suspect and even problematic in light of scripture, tradition, and church law.

I guess you could say the same thing about the "trad movement"--a broad, primarily lay movement, as often babysat by the clergy as led by it.

The Church tends to be cautious in regard to these things--neither condemning nor affirming with broad brushes, but always carefully "distinguishing" as the Dominicans like to say.