ERRORS OF CHARISMATICS 

Alan Shreck, in "Catholic and Christian" (Servant, 1984) says on p. 11, in
a quote from "Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B.", "Indeed the historical
churches, Catholic and Protestant, owe a debt to classical Pentecostals
for witnessing to the role of the spirit and his gifts." This is said to
be necessary for the "full gospel". 

COMMENTS: Kilian McDonnell, on p. 1 is called "leading Catholic
ecumenist." He is also a leading Charismatic - one of the editors of
"Fanning the Flame," Liturgical Press, 1991. Both that booklet and
Schreck's work are striving hard to convince all that charismatic things
are needed for the "full gospel." They seem to say that charismatic
phenomena are merely the actualization of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit,
received at Baptism.

We need some distinctions here: In the broad sense, all graces are gifts
from the Holy Spirit. But there are two major categories: (1) Sanctifying
graces - these are aimed at the sanctification of the recipient. The term
Gifts of the Holy Spirit normally refers to these; (2) charismatic graces
- these are aimed at some benefit for the community, not directly for the
sanctification of the recipient. Here are such things as tongues, praying
in tongues, healing the sick.

The kind of phenomena we see at charismatic meetings definitely belong to
the charismatic category - no sign of the sanctifying features regularly
called effects of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Surely, no instances of
infused contemplation being given en masse - it never is so given - nor
routinely. The phenomena are tongues, praying in tongues, healing etc.
These are very definitely part of the charismatic category, not the
sanctifying category. So they are not an actualization of the Gifts of the
Holy Spirit, which belong to the sanctifying category. Schreck has jumped
categories.

Further, the mass phenomena of praying in tongues does not readily fit
with St. Paul's injunctions in 1 Cor 14: 27-28 where Paul specifies that
no more than two should speak in tongues, and then only one at time, and
only if there is someone to interpret. The rule is wise - there are cases
where persons who knew the needed languages went to a charismatic
gathering - they found some did praise God well, while others cursed Him.
And letting many at a time speak in tongues hardly fits with St. Paul.
Yes, I know they say that there is difference between praying in tongues
and speaking in tongues. The distinction is probably not important. As we
said above, there have been cases where charismatics have been cursing
God, without knowing what they were doing. 

So the thrust to at least imply all Catholics should be charismatic is
invalid. The booklet, "Fanning the Flame," cites a few Patristic texts to
try to prove the same thing - that we have been neglecting things needed
for the "full gospel". (We will return to these texts presently) . But the
texts are insufficient, because few, and not always clear. As we said,
there are two kinds of charismatic graces - the ordinary and the
extraordinary. The latter are such things as tongues, healing the sick,
prophecy. But the ordinary are given to everyone, such as the grace to be
a good parent, a good teacher, a good speaker etc. Schreck and "Fanning
the Flame" seem to mean the extraordinary type. 

Something frightening: Our Lord Himself warned (Mt 7. 22-23) that on the
last day He will reject many who worked miracles: "Many will say to me on
that day: 'Have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out devils in
your name, and done mighty works in your name' - and then I will confess
to them: 'Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. I never knew you. '" So
those with extraordinary gifts may not even be in the state of grace -
much less having the actualization of sanctifying graces!

Vatican II, "Lumen gentium" 13 said: "These charisms, whether the most
brilliant or even the more simply and widely diffused, since they are well
accommodated to the needs of the Church, are to be received with thanks
and consolation. However, the extraordinary ones are not to be rashly
sought, nor should fruits of apostolic works be presumptuously expected of
them." [underline added]. Such things as tongues, healing, miracles etc.
are extraordinary. The Council said they are not to be rashly sought -
which is very different from saying all Catholics must have them or they
will lack something needed for the "full gospel".

As to the Patristic texts, as we said, they are few. Fairly clear are
those of Tertullian, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem. But the booklet
admits on p. 18 that: "Both Basil of Caesarea. . . and Gregory Nazianzus.
. . situate the prophetic charisms within the Christian initiation, though 
they are more reserved in their regard than Paul." No quotes are given. 
Then we see a remarkable admission on St. John Chrysostom, quoted on the 
same page, "Chrysostom complained, however 'the charisms are long gone.'" 
St. Augustine, in "City of God" (21.5), has to argue strongly that miracles
are possible, against those in his day who denied the possibility. He says
that if they want to say the Apostles converted the world without any
miracles - that would be a great miracle. If there were miraculous gifts
commonly around, Augustine would have merely pointed to them. But he did
not.

As to a debt to classical Pentecostals - in the first decade of this
century a group of Protestants claimed to have miraculous charisms in
abundance. The main Protestant churches did not receive them well, so they
did the usual Protestant thing, they established splinter churches, such
as the Holy Rollers. More recently, perhaps 20 years ago, a group of
Catholics, precisely by contact with the Protestant Pentecostals, began to
claim abundant gifts again. These gifts were routine in the day of St.
Paul - but they faded by the middle of the next century, when the
heretical Montanists claimed to have them in profusion. And that was the
pattern throughout the ages. Thus the Albigensians claimed them again.