Charismatics, Trads, and Orthodoxy

[nowak.chris]

Ok I was thinking about posting this a while ago, but never was able to get around to it.

Having lived in areas tending to opposite extremes, I have my own opinions about both Carismatics (Cmats) and Traditionalist (Trads).

1) either is better than none. An actively Cmats parish or an actively Trad parish is more likely to be orthodox than an inactive parish.

2) While each tends to its own errors, they actually pull each other toward orthodoxy, if both are properly understood.

this is where some speculation begins:
3) While these two rarely occur together, I think it is necessary that they be brought together. I also think it is inevitable, but that is besides the point.


I have serious concerns about the histories of both groups, the Pentacostal start on one side, and the schimatic tendencies on the other.

I have serious concerns about current practices Baptism in the Spirit and overemphasis on tongues on one side, and lack of ecumenism and too strong a sense of legality on the other.

Where the two were to meet, however, you would have the Holy Spirit active in a reverent community. The proper majesty of the sacrements would be enhanced by the understanding from the Spirit.

Else we would have the Latin Mass with liturgical dancers, at which point I become a hermit!

Chris

[Specter]

Okay, in reading your fears about this dialogue becoming heated, I was wondering what it could possibly be. When I was reading your post, I was noticing things about it that clicked into place.

1) The charismatic movement isn't about changing the Church into a more pentecostal type Church.

2) Traditional Catholics, which I am going to assume are pre-Vatican II.

3) The contradiction in your proposal is that, through Confirmation, the Holy Spirit IS active in a reverent community. Oh how I wish you could witness St. Isidore's Parish in Grand Rapids, MI. I suppose it depends on how hard you're willing to look. Remember.. faith isn't about emotion, it's about making a choice.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Specter' date='Feb 17 2006, 01:18 AM']Remember.. faith isn't about emotion, it's about making a choice.
[right][snapback]890174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

John Paul II has warned the Charismatic movement of just this:

[quote]Yes! The Renewal in the Spirit can be considered a special gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in our time. Born in the Church and for the Church, your movement is one in which, following the light of the Gospel, the members experience the living encounter with Jesus, fidelity to God in personal and community prayer, confident listening to his Word and a vital rediscovery of the Sacraments, not to mention courage in trials and hope in hardship. Love for the Church and submission to her Magisterium, in the process of maturing in the Church supported by a solid permanent formation are relevant signs of your intention to avoid the risk of favouring, unwittingly, a purely emotional experience of the divine, an excessive pursuit of the "extraordinary" and a private withdrawal that may shrink from apostolic outreach.

--Address to the participants in the National Congress of the Italian "Renewal in the Spirit", 2002[/quote]

[nowak.chris]

The current Cmat movement was born out of the Penecostal movement, as a matter of historical fact. In this, I trace several of my objections to the current Cmatic movement as I experienced and interacted with it in Steubie and NJ. The de-emphasis of the sacraments in favor of a "new sacrament" 'Baptism in the Spirit'. Also the necessity of tongues as a sign of said 'baptism'.

I know I am proposing nothing truly new, just a challenge to a current situation.

By trads, I mean those who prefer the Latin Mass, who want the Rites of the Church restored to their former majesty, even if it were to happen in the Novus Ordo, NOT the schismatics.

I am challenging all who read this thread to abond your prejudices against either of these groups, and to look at them critically. What is good in this or that? Where is it lacking? My observations led me to conclude that this was lacking that? What one had right, the other needed. They are not exclusive, but need to embrace each other.

As to my fears of this becoming heated, it is because it is a challenge to beliefs, accepted by the Church, but that are both lacking. They are precisely lacking each other, capable of completeing each other, but more often at odds. Trads want to discard the current hymnals for older ones, Cmatics are writing new ones, for example. Both must give up things that they are attached to that only serve to divide us. We must be wholly united for the trials ahead.

c

[philothea]

I agree with your premise. I don't have any particular experience with either Charismatics or Traditionalists, other than on phatmass... though I did long ago go to a prayer service which -- now that I know the term -- had some charismatic influence.

The Charismatics seem to be a little too willing to accept anything, and they lack structure. The Traditionalist seem to be a little too attached to abitrary forms, and they lack flexibility. The groups would complement each other, but people who have chosen these subsets of the Church have sorted themselves by their own preferences. I don't know if it's possible that they'll pick up attributes they don't like just because they would benefit from them. When have people ever been like that, willingly?

I think both communities benefit from the Us vs. Them mentality, where they feel special and, perhaps, oppressed. But, while being oppressed may be Christian, thinking "We're better than everyone else" is [i]not[/i].

In my experience, it was beneficial to be stuck with a parish which was not to my taste. It was painful and depressing, but once I got beyond the stuff that merely pleased me aesthetically, what the mass was really about became much more clear.

[Servant_of_Eve]

I myself am more proned to the Traditional. When you said that the Trads are more focused in legality, you were right. Latin for the sake of Latin misses the whole point and what is interesting with the Cmats is that they are using their own culture to embrace the Mass. Both opinions must be considered to find unity. My biggest issue is when the Mass is celebrated the way we want it instead of the way God wants it. In Pope Benedict XVI's book The Spirit of the Liturgy, he basically says that when worship becomes man made it becomes only a caricature of what is divine. The example he uses is from Exodus. When Moses leaves his people to go to the mountain and speak with God they build a golden calf. The chosen people of God do not believe that what they have made is a god, but symbolizes the power of The Almighty. They are worshipping Yahweh but in their own way. Moses comes down and rebukes them from doing such a horrendus thing. The message of the story is worship how God teaches us to worship, not how we feel or think we should. This is very applicable to the question of the Liturgy with the Trads and the Cmats.

[Cam42]

[quote name='nowak.chris' date='Feb 17 2006, 12:20 AM']Ok I was thinking about posting this a while ago, but never was able to get around to it.

Having lived in areas tending to opposite extremes, I have my own opinions about both Carismatics (Cmats) and Traditionalist (Trads). 

1) either is better than none.  An actively Cmats parish or an actively Trad parish is more likely to be orthodox than an inactive parish. 

2) While each tends to its own errors, they actually pull each other toward orthodoxy, if both are properly understood.

this is where some speculation begins:
3) While these two rarely occur together, I think it is necessary that they be brought together.  I also think it is inevitable, but that is besides the point.
I have serious concerns about the histories of both groups, the Pentacostal start on one side, and the schimatic tendencies on the other.

I have serious concerns about current practices Baptism in the Spirit and overemphasis on tongues on one side, and lack of ecumenism and too strong a sense of legality on the other.

Where the two were to meet, however, you would have the Holy Spirit active in a reverent community.  The proper majesty of the sacrements would be enhanced by the understanding from the Spirit. 

Else we would have the Latin Mass with liturgical dancers, at which point I become a hermit!

Chris
[right][snapback]890101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hi Chris,

I have a couple of questions for you, in regard to your thoughts.

Are we assuming that both the "Cmats" and the "Trads" are both in full union with Rome (ie. no schism and no adherence to organinzations such as Taize?)

How can something which is in error lead to orthodoxy? I am confused by that statement, I'd like clarificaiton. I have a thought on this, however, I would like to see what you have to say first, so that I don't misunderstand your position.

If I am reading this correctly, I think that you can find some common ground starting in the 1940's, with Cursillo. I think that there is a union or harmony that can be found in authentic charismatics and traditionalism. But I think your reservations and questions are warranted. I'd like to see what you have to say before we go any further, because I am not quite sure what you are getting at or where you are going with your thoughts......

This is an interesting topic and one that is not touched upon very often.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='Specter' date='Feb 16 2006, 11:18 PM']Oh how I wish you could witness St. Isidore's Parish in Grand Rapids, MI.  I suppose it depends on how hard you're willing to look.  Remember.. faith isn't about emotion, it's about making a choice.
[right][snapback]890174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


How I miss that parish! Can't wait to be able to attend Mass there on the first Sunday of May!

[jezic]

I think that the part about them united and doing the most good is important. That is the truth. If they are united in union with the whole Church, they serve to foster our knowledge and understanding of the community of God. (a good thing)

On either extreme they lead to heretical beliefs or open denials of the fullness of Truth.

[nowak.chris]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 17 2006, 12:45 PM']Hi Chris,

I have a couple of questions for you, in regard to your thoughts.

Are we assuming that both the "Cmats" and the "Trads" are both in full union with Rome (ie. no schism and no adherence to organinzations such as Taize?)

How can something which is in error lead to orthodoxy?  I am confused by that statement, I'd like clarificaiton.  I have a thought on this, however, I would like to see what you have to say first, so that I don't misunderstand your position.

If I am reading this correctly, I think that you can find some common ground starting in the 1940's, with Cursillo.  I think that there is a union or harmony that can be found in authentic charismatics and traditionalism.  But I think your reservations and questions are warranted.  I'd like to see what you have to say before we go any further, because I am not quite sure what you are getting at or where you are going with your thoughts......

This is an interesting topic and one that is not touched upon very often.
[right][snapback]890414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Cmats and Trads in the Church, correct. (the other issues would tend to cloud the issues).

It is not that they are in error theologically, but the divisions that they foster are an error in judgement, against reason. I would love to see them join together rather then pitting themselves against each other.

I believe that reform, of the cmats against the 'spirit' of Vatican II, and of the trads towards the reforms of Vatican II. The liturgical reform advocated by both our Holy Father and Cardinal Arinze is a step towards that balance.

chris

[Resurrexi]

[quote]2) While each tends to its own errors, they actually pull each other toward orthodoxy, if both are properly understood.[/quote]

Traditional Catholics are not in error, they practice the Faith just as our great-great-grandparents did. The Cmats, on the other hand, are in serious error.

[jezic]

if they reject the direct authority of the Pope and VII they are in grave error.

[Resurrexi]

VII was Pastoral, not Dogmatic

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 02:11 PM']Traditional Catholics are not in error, they practice the Faith just as our great-great-grandparents did. The Cmats, on the other hand, are in serious error.
[right][snapback]890542[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If a trad is a follower of the SSPX movement, then they are indeed in serious error. Liturgy is not about being frozen in time. The liturgy of today is different than the liturgy of 1700 which is different than the liturgy of 1000, which is different than the liturgy of 500 which is different than the liturgy of 33AD. It is for the hardness of your hearts that the Magisterium issues indults. Every charasmatic I have met is faithful to everything the magisterium asks of them. If the Vatican were to ask them to jump, they would ask how high. Unlike Traditionalists, I don't know any charasmatics who are in schism, even if some practice speaking in tongues, which hasn't been validated or condemned by the Church.

This is another blatent error of schismatic traditionalists. 'Pastoral' is not an issue. It is ecumenical - that is, it is binding.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Brother Adam

[nowak.chris]

your attack on a recognized movement of the Church is in error, theologically, not just in judgement.

here begin the fights, I guess.

I stated that they tend toward error, which they do.

c

[jezic]

i think that it is an action of the Magisterium of the Church and as such it is grave to be in violation of it.

I will look for the quote from JPII about this.

[Resurrexi]

Well the only dogma that was in Vatican II, was dogma that was previously defined.

[jezic]

the part i was thinking of was actually from something about the SSPX but i think Ecclesia Dei might be warranted.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 17 2006, 02:21 PM']Well the only dogma that was in Vatican II, was dogma that was previously defined.
[right][snapback]890559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise6.html"]This essay should be of some interest[/url]

[quote]V - The "Dogmatic/Pastoral" Artificial Dichotomy:

There is some truth to the assertion that the Council was "predominantly pastoral in character" but the dichotomy made between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" - as if something "pastoral" is automatically not "dogmatic" in any sense whatsoever -  is frankly a facile one. It has no support whatsoever from the Magisterium of the Church and therefore it should not be handled with the kind of smug certainty that many so-called 'traditionalists' like to utilize it. At the very least, it seems to this writer that "pastoral" and "dogmatic" as concepts should not be interpreted not in a vacuum. Instead, the meaning of the expressions should be sought in light of the way pastoral theology and dogmatic theology respectively are viewed. The following quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article Pastoral Theology defines this concept as it applies to theology in general:

    Pastoral theology is a branch of practical theology; it is essentially a practical science. All branches of theology, whether theoretical or practical, purpose in one way or another to make priests "the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (I Cor., iv, 1). Pastoral theology presupposes other various branches; accepts the apologetic, dogmatic, exegetic, moral, juridical, ascetical, liturgical, and other conclusions reached by the ecclesiastical student, and scientifically applies these various conclusions to the priestly ministry. [12]

Before delving into all that pastoral theology entails, a look at how it differs from dogmatic and other fields of theology would be in order as well:

    Dogmatic theology establishes the Church as the depository of revealed truth and systematizes the deposit of faith which Christ entrusted to His Church to hand down to all generations; pastoral theology teaches the priest his part in this work of Catholic and Christian tradition of revealed truth. Moral theology explains the laws of God and of the Church, the means of grace and hindrances thereto; pastoral theology teaches the practical bearing of these laws, means, and hindrances upon the daily life of the priest, alone and in touch with his people. Canon law collects, correlates, and co-ordinates the laws of the Church; pastoral theology applies those laws to the care of souls. In brief, pastoral theology begins, where the other theological sciences leave off; takes the results of them all and makes these results effective for the salvation of souls through the ministry of the priesthood established by Christ. [13]

In "presuppos[ing] the fields of apologetic, dogmatic, moral, juridical, and other fields of study in its applications to the care of souls", pastoral theology would not be divorced from the other sciences. (Indeed to some extent it would rely on them.) Hence one could accurately say that pastoral theology is indirectly concerned with dogmatic theology as well as moral theology and juridical theology (canon law). Transposing these distinctions onto the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council by corollary extension, it could be logically asserted that a Council that was "predominantly pastoral in character" would nonetheless have an indirect foundation in dogmatics; consequently a "pastoral council" would be "indirectly dogmatic" and presupposing the foundation of dogmatic theology in its pronouncements. (Which by asserting that the Council unlike previous Councils was not "directly dogmatic" is precisely what Pope Paul noted in several general audience speeches in the final thirteen years of his reign.)

By contrast, most of the earlier ecumenical councils were "predominantly dogmatic" but that did not detract from the fact that most of them also issued canons of disciplinary import as well. The distinction would be that most of the earlier councils were called to resolve a doctrinal crisis and disciplinary issues were an addendum issue if they were treated on at all. (Councils such as Constantinople II and III did not treat on disciplinary matters at all whereas by contrast of the five Lateran councils only the fourth was not predominantly concerned with matters of discipline.)

With the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, it was called not to address any one point of doctrine but instead to address the application of all Church doctrine to more effectively meet the conditions of the modern age. In the process, (i) previous dogmas of the faith would be reaffirmed, (ii) previously declared doctrines reasserted and perhaps developed a bit further, and (iii) theological controversies which touched on matters closely joined to dogma would be settled. Further still, (iv) doctrine would be developed to meet the needs of the age in certain parameters, (v) the disciplinary code would be revised, and (vi) the overarching approach in all areas would lean more to doctrinal exposition and its application then to dogmatic formulations. The tools used for this process would mirror those used in pastoral theology and include the following:

    Tradition and the Holy Bible...are the first sources of pastoral theology. As evidence of Tradition the decrees of general councils are of the highest moment. Next come pontifical [documents]; decrees of Roman Congregations...the various sources of dogmatic and moral theology and of canon law, in so far as they bear directly or indirectly upon the care of souls. Decrees of various provincial councils and diocesan synods together with pastoral letters of archbishops and bishops are also among the sources whence pastoral theology draws. [14]

If one reads the index of every document from the Second Vatican Council, they will see copious references to Sacred Scripture. There are also numerous references to the documents of the General Councils. (Particularly Vatican I and Trent but there is also more than thirty references to other ecumenical councils - particularly the councils of Florence, Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran IV, Constantinople IV, and Nicaea II.) There are also numerous references to documents from the papal magisterium - particularly Pius XII, Pius XI, John XXIII, and Leo XIII - along with various other papal pronouncements. (Such as Allocutions and Radio/General Addresses.) Included in this mosaic are references to the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church among other sources. Finally, the use was also made of documents from plenary councils which had received papal approbation, decrees from the Roman Congregations, etc.

Consistent with the understanding of "pastoral" in theology, the Second Vatican Council certainly meets the criteria in its usage of sources spanning the dogmatic, moral, and other fields of study. As far as the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, the Catholic Encyclopedia article Dogmatic Theology had this to say about the correlation:

    Pastoral theology, which embraces liturgy, homiletics, and catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to, moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology needs, therefore, no further proof. [15]

And just as "no further proof" is needed to demonstrate the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, there is no further proof needed to refute the facile dichotomy of "pastoral" and "dogmatic" when it comes to Vatican II when compared with most of the previous ecumenical councils. It suffices to say that most previous councils were directly dogmatic and indirectly pastoral whereas with Vatican II the converse was the case. But it does not suffice to say that the predominantly pastoral character of the Second Vatican Council precluded any active dogmatic elements at all and (as a consequence) any formal infallibility. For as we will now see, to some extent this element is active in all General Councils where the resolutions have received the approval - either manifestly or tacitly - of the Roman Pontiff.[/quote]

Edited February 17, 2006 by Brother Adam

[nowak.chris]

added a poll for people to identifiy the skew on this thread.

I consider myself both, some where in between, where I would most likely be rejected by both.

Bro Adam, there are those cmats who would deny the importance of adoring Christ in the blessed Sacrament for P&W (you're in Steubie, right? the Eucharistic FOP controversy comes to mind)