ResponsetoMost

To all Readers:

I recently received a request from the Philippines to comment on a lengthy anti-charismatic article by the late Fr. William Most, who seems to have an internet following. Below is my analysis of his lengthy and quite misleading treatment of the charisms [my responses are in red in brackets; any other editorial notes are also in brackets but in black]:

"Errors of Charismatics"
by Fr. William Most ( from his collection in Catholic culture)

"The classic passage on charismatic gifts is in 1 Cor chapters 12 and 14. Although St. Paul does not use our technical terms, we can still find what he means.

Grace in general is any gift from God to man. There are two large categories: sanctifying and charismatic. The sanctifying graces are aimed at making the recipient holy. They include habitual (also called sanctifying) grace, and actual graces. Habitual grace does make the recipient holy; actual graces are aimed at that.

Charismatic graces are not aimed at making the recipient holy: they are for some other benefit, usually for the community.

[As is usual with anti-charismatics, they overstate their case. In fact, if a believer exercises a charism with humility and agape in accordance with the will of God, the exercise of the charism will conform the believer more and more to Christ—in other words, make him more holy.]

There are two groups, ordinary (the gift of being a good parent, good teacher, etc. These are given widely and freely) and extraordinary: the gift of tongues, of healing, of doing other kinds of miracles, etc.

[Here, the writer is imprecise. “Extraordinary” need not mean rare. “Extraordinary” can refer simply to the amazing quality of a charism, such as healing or speaking in tongues. For example, Jesus frequently and continually healed people during His ministry, as did the apostles. Healing in the New Testament was an amazing or extraordinary charism, but it was not rare.]

God's principles are very different in the two categories. In sanctifying graces, He offers all without limit, since in the covenant, He has accepted the infinite price of redemption, and therefore owes it to Himself to give without limit. The only limit is imposed by us, by our lack of receptivity.

But with charismatic graces His principle is: The spirit gives what He wills, when and where He wills. Having these gifts does not even presuppose the state of grace. There is a frightening text in Mt 7:22-23: "Many will says to me on that day: Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out devils in your name, and work many miracles in your name? And then I will confess to them that I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of iniquity."

So it is clear: there is need of checking in every instance to see if the gift comes from a good or an evil spirit, or just from suggestion. Hence St. Paul in 1 Cor 12 said that when they were pagans, they went to dumb idols whenever they were driven by their leaders. So he needs to tell them: If a person is speaking in the Spirit of God, he will not say "Cursed be Jesus." Pagans often cursed the god who had gotten inside them. Also, no one can confess that Jesus is the Lord (divine) except by the Holy Spirit.

[Discernment is indeed essential, yet discernment of spirits is one of the charisms listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:10. So it is quite ironic for an anti-charismatic to cite the need for discernment, which is itself a charism.]

St. Paul does not mention suggestion, but of course we should. Many charismatics today are reluctant to admit that any checking is needed. They just say: Look it is what St. Paul talked about. But as we saw, Paul warned about the evil spirit. Some years ago I wrote a long series of columns for National Catholic Register, on the movement. Many letters came in. One woman on the west coast told me she had friends who knew several languages. A group of them went to a charismatic meeting, and were able to understand the tongues. They found some were praising God beautifully - but others were cursing Him.

[Notice that here the author is admitting the real existence of the gift of tongues to praise God; but, instead, he focuses on the negative aspect reported to him. This way of presenting the gift leads me to surmise that the author is possibly a fearful person determined to denigrate this biblical and divinely revealed gift. It is equally true that you can be at Mass, and someone participating may in fact be cursing God in his or her heart. We do not control what others intend or say. We are not morally responsible for the condition of another’s soul. There is a great saying I heard recently: the abuse of a good does not diminish the intrinsic goodness of the good. Yet, in my own personal experience, I have never come across anyone reporting that someone praying in tongues was cursing God. In addition, corroborating details are missing from the anecdotes cited by Most. Yet, the most important point is this: if anyone was indeed cursing God as alleged that cursing was certainly not the authentic gift of tongues--it was likely someone simply speaking curses in a language they already knew. The very experienced exorcist of Rome, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, has written that the only time he has heard anyone under demonic influence speak in a strange language was during an actual exorcism. So it is unlikely that anyone at a prayer meeting was speaking in a strange language under demonic influence. In addition, Fr. Most reports that others in the same prayer meeting were indeed beautifully praising God. Does the alleged abuse by others cancel out the correct manifestation of the gift by other individuals? To adopt that view would be to follow the agenda of the Devil who wishes to block and disrupt the working of God's grace by sowing fear and alleged scandal, as we have seen in the attempts to denigrate the priesthood based on the scandalous conduct of a minority of priests.]

This is why St. Paul in 1 Cor 14 insists that at a meeting of the community no more than two should speak in tongues, and then only if there is someone who has the different gift of interpreting the tongues. The reason is clear: they may be cursing God!

[Here, the author is misrepresenting Paul. Paul insists on a few speaking in tongues in order to foster peace and order and insists on interpretation to build up the listeners in the assembly, not because he is concerned about anyone cursing God. In fact, the fear of cursing God plays no role at all in Paul’s treatment of charisms in 1 Cor. 12 through 14. Fr. Most, here, is unfortunately giving a very erroneous and misleading interpretation of these passages. Most is here inserting his own views into the biblical text in order to advance his anti-charismatic agenda.]

Regrettably, many charismatics ignore these rules from St. Paul. They have more than two, they have even hundreds at a time. They try to say it is one thing to speak, another to pray in tongues. But Paul makes no such distinction and with good reason, as the experience just related makes clear.

[Paul does make the distinction between praising God as an individual worshiper and addressing a listening assembly (see the biblical quote below). Charismatics engage in spontaneous group praise of God, whether in one’s own language or in tongues, in prayer meetings or even at certain parts of the Mass, as duly authorized by the local bishop. Those who freely choose to exercise the gift of tongues at such times may do so (they need not do so), without public interpretation, because in these settings the tongues are not a message directed to a listening, non-participating audience, but rather joyful praise directed to God alone. In the early centuries of the Church, this form of group praise was known as jubilation or jubilatio. It is documented by both St. Augustine and St. Teresa of Jesus. (Consult this fine article at this link: http://www.sfspirit.com/articles/9709/article1.htm .)
See: 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.]

St. Paul also knew that the Corinthians were getting vain over tongues. Hence in 1 Cor 14: he told them to be childlike, but childish.

Paul also felt the need to play down tongues. So in 1 Cor 12 he gave a list of special functions in the Church. He said that God has put the following members in His Church: first, apostles, second, prophets, third, teachers, then wonder-workers, then those with gifts of healing, then helpers of the poor, administrators, and those with various kinds of tongues. We note he mentions tongues last, and stops numbering after the first three - which are not the extraordinary type of gifts, they are of the ordinary type. (Prophecy in Paul does not mean usually foretelling the future, but giving a moving exhortation to the community). Almost all of chapter 14 of 1 Cor is a comparison of tongues and prophecy, with tongues coming off a poor second each time.

[Fr. Most is being misleading again because Paul is not in any way denigrating the gift of tongues itself, which is, after all, bestowed by the Holy Spirit, but is simply warning that the Corinthians should not become obsessed with this particular gift, when uninterpreted before the listening assembly, at the expense of the similarly amazing charism of prophecy in which the message can be understood by the listening assembly. For example, Paul writes this in praise of the charism of tongues: 1 Corinthians 14:18 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." Paul also says: 1 Corinthians 14:5 "Now I want you all to speak in tongues [quoted in part]." Paul also says: 1 Corinthians 14:39 "So, my brethren, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." It is very unfortunate that Fr. Most misrepresents this chapter in 1 Corinthians in order to try diminish one of God’s charismatic gifts. There is more Most than Paul in the way Fr. Most presents the content of these chapters in 1 Corinthians.]

The danger of suggestion is very great. At a meeting of the Catholic Biblical Associaton in New York some years ago I spoke to a woman professor of Scripture, who was also a charismatic. She told me most cases are just suggestion. A Dominican priest who worked much with them told me the same thing.

[Again, these anecdotes are not presented in detail and are not verifiable. Even if they are true, the basic principle remains: abuse of a good does not diminish the good of the good.]

In their chief journal New Covenant, I read an account about a woman - one of the Trapp family singers - who was at a meeting, did not have tongues, but wanted them. A man stood with her coaching her: Open your mouth, if any sound feels like coming, encourage it. Soon she was speaking something she thought sounded like Hawaiian, because it was mostly vowels.

[Helping someone merely start a task is not the same as faking a gift. Eventually or immediately, the Holy Spirit forms the sounds into a prayer language. Yet, God requires the free, initial step by the individual of opening his mouth and making a sound because God created us with free will and such freedom is the bedrock of all spiritual life. Like many others, Fr. Most seems to view the gift of tongues as some sort of involuntary “frenzy” or possession that takes over the individual. It is clear in 1 Corinthians that the gift is always under the control of the recipient because Paul notes that one has the power to keep silent and to wait one’s turn in using this gift before the assembly. See: 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 "27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God." That the gift is always under control of the individual is not surprising since, as Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:33, 40, God is a God of peace and of decent order.]

In a Catholic Team Manual, Finding New Life in the Spirit, p.25 the candidate is instructed to say, after some preparation: "I ask you to baptize me in the Holy Spirit and give me the gift of tongues."

This is contrary to Vatican II. In On the Church §12 the Council distinguishes ordinary and extraordinary charisms: "The extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly [emphasis added by blogger] asked for, nor should the fruits of apostolic works be presumptuously expected from them; but the judgment of their genuine character and the ordered exercise of them pertains to those who preside in the Church...."

[Here, Fr. Most contradicts himself. The Council warned against “rashly” seeking gifts. The Latin word used in the original is “temere” which means acting blindly, recklessly, or rashly. The manual he quotes from outlines a seven week series of talks and group discussions that take place before asking for the baptism in the Holy Spirit and for the gift of tongues. Seven weeks of preparation is not acting rashly or recklessly. In addition, St. Paul commands us to seek the charisms: 1 Corinthians 12:31a "But earnestly desire the higher gifts [quoted in part]" ; Corinthians 14:1 "Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy."]

The great St. Teresa of Avila, who had so much experience with extraordinary gifts, would be horrified. In her Interior Castle 6.9 she warns souls that when they learn or hear that God is giving souls extraordinary graces, "you must never ask or desire Him to lead you by that road." She goes on to explain why: First, it shows a lack of humility; second, one leaves self open to "great danger because the devil needs only to see a door left a bit ajar to enter; third, "when a person has a great desire, he convinces himself he is seeing or hearing what he desires." She adds that there are many holy people who have never had such things, and others who have them, and are not holy. This of course agrees with the warning of Our Lord Himself in Mt 7:22-23.

[I addressed this misinterpretation of Teresa in a June 2, 2008, post that you can find at this link: http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/06/no-limits.html . I also addressed the misinterpretation by Fr. Most of Interior Castle 6.9 at this link:
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/polemicist-overreaches.html

It is sad to see someone so mangle the text and context of a great saint and Doctor of the Church for polemical purposes.].

Finding New Life in the Spirit (Servant,1872) has sold 1,690,000 copies. It is a guidebook given to all participants in Life in the Spirit Seminars, developed by the Word of God Community out of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Candidates are taught how to invite the gift of tongues, to make a buildup for it -- St. Teresa, as we said above, would worry that the door is left more than a little ajar. This is open to satan and/or autosuggestion. On p.25 the candidate is told to say: "I ask you to baptize me in the Holy Spirit and give me the gift of tongues."

[See the links above to see how Most distorts Teresa's writings to induce fear of the charimatic gifts. As also noted above, St. Paul commands Christians to seek the gifts. Even the Lord makes clear in the Gospel that those who seek will find (see Luke 11:9-10). Familiarity with the Bible disarms much of the unnecessary alarm and anxiety that Most is attempting to communicate and pass on to unknowing readers.]

Is this gift of tongues the same as that which the Apostles had on the first Pentecost? Then people of many different native languages did understand. The speakers of whom Paul tells us in general would not understand. Did the Apostles also know? Probably yes. Or was there a sort of miracle in the air, so that the Apostle spoke one language, the crowd understood in various languages? We do not know.

As we said, in 1 Cor chapter 14 St. Paul makes many comparisons and contrasts of prophecy and tongues. In the course of it he says: There are many lifeless things that make a sound, such as the flute or the harp. But if there are only indistinct sounds, who will know what is supposed to be played on the flute or harp? If a bugle gives out an unclear sound, no one will get ready for battle. So too, if someone in a tongue gives out a sound that cannot be understood, how will anyone know what it means? He will be talking to the air!

St. Paul continued: There are so many kinds of voices in the world - almost everything has a voice. But if the listeners do not know the meaning, the speaker and the listener are like foreigners to each other (cannot be understood).

So, since they are eager for charismatic gifts, they should seek them for the spiritual benefit of the church. So one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the gift of interpretation. If one prays in a tongue, his spirit prays, but his mind is left without fruit. What then? If one prays in the Spirit, may he also pray with his mind. If one sings in the Spirit, let him also sing in his mind.

If you blessed God in the Spirit, how would an outsider know what you were saying? You may give thanks to God beautifully - but the other gets no spiritual help.
Paul says he would rather speak five intelligible words to teach others, than ten thousand words in an unintelligible tongue.
He begs them not to be childish in their brains, but to be childlike in regard to malice. Let them be mature in their thinking.
Then St. Paul warns them by quoting Isaiah: "I will speak to this people in other tongues and in the lips of others. But even so they will not listen to me, says the Lord."
If the whole community comes together, and all speak in tongues, and an outsider comes in: will he not think them insane? But if many are using the gift of prophecy, and an outsider comes in, he is convinced of his sins, he is led to reflect on his case. The secrets of his heart are revealed [to him]. So, he will fall on his face and adore God and say: God really is among this community.
What is the practical conclusion? When they come together, suppose various ones have a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, a gift of interpretation. Everything must be controlled for spiritual benefit. So if there is to be speaking in tongues, there should be two or at most three, and one at a time. And someone should interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let those with tongues be silent in the church, and speak alone and to God.
Two or three prophets may speak at one meeting of the community, and the others should judge whether it comes from a good or an evil spirit. If someone who is seated gets a revelation, then the one speaking at the time should be silent. For all can have an opportunity to prophesy, but should do it one at a time, so all my learn and gain exhortation. The spirits of the prophets are under the control of the prophets. For God is not a God of uproar, but of peace.

[The above section seems to be primarily a quotation or paraphrase from 1 Corinthians chapter 14. It is best to read that chapter directly from a Catholic Bible and to also read the related chapters 12 and 13].

In general this could be a valid form of spirituality provided that great care is taken. First, one must check each case, as we said above, to see if it comes from a good spirit, an evil spirit, or autosuggestion. Many charismatics object strongly to checking.

[I know of no Catholic charismatic who objects to checking (not surprising since discernment is itself a charism listed by Paul), but I guess you can always find someone somewhere to fit this description. Again, bear this principle in mind: the abuse of a good does not diminish the good of that good.]

There is also a great danger of elitism. Some charismatics say other Catholics are "dead." This could lead to spiritual pride, the most deadly of vices. They should recognize that there is a diversity of spiritual graces, so not all need to follow the same pattern. Yes, on the basic level, all must follow the same principles. But on the secondary level, there is room for much variation, e.g., compare St. Francis de Sales, a refined gentlemen, with St. Benedict Joseph Labre, who lived like a tramp, probably had body lice.

[I agree with the above paragraph but note that I do not know any Catholic charismatics who say other Catholics are "dead." Again, you can't dismiss divine revelation because some people may say stupid things, although I have not personally met persons such as those whom Most is describing.]

Some groups also reject devotion to Our Lady - a sure sign that something is very basically wrong.

[As a counterexample, my charismatic parish strongly encourages devotion to Mary and all forms of Marian devotion allowed by the Church. In fact, when we hold Life in the Spirit Seminars, we usually have an icon of Pentecost with the Blessed Mother seated in the center of all the apostles prominently displayed next to the speaker's podium. She was there, and we have no reason to doubt that she also joined in praising God in tongues, along with the others present.]

Others reject things the Church promotes, such as the Miraculous Medal or the Scapular - again, a sign of something very wrong.

[Again, in my charismatic parish, we have an active Carmelite group which meets regularly and in which many are enrolled in the Brown Scapular. The Rev. Most here is throwing darts that do not prove anything at all about Catholic charismatics in general. This type of fear-inducing polemics is a sign, in my opinion, of an anxious, possibly insecure personality overreacting to what he does not understand or is unfamiliar with in his own experience.]

Still others say they do not need the Church, they have a direct line to the Holy Spirit. This is seriously in error. Some groups have a rigid authoritarian structure - even though no one of them has a valid claim to authority. The authorities are answerable to no one - this is very dangerous.
There is also a danger of excess emotionalism: normally God does give consolations (satisfactions in religion) to those who make the second conversion (begin to get very serious about pleasing God). But this does not normally last indefinitely: St. Francis de Sales warns that if it did, they might love the consolations of God rather than the God of consolations.(Cf. his Introduction to the Devout Life 4.13).

[Again, in my charismatic parish, no one advocates the strange things described here by Most. I do not know of any Catholic charismatics or any Catholic charismatic publications that are guilty of Most's unsubstantiated allegations. There seems to be a pattern emerging here of Most engaging in reckless, broad brush accusations that may border on the mortal sin of bearing false witness. You would think that Most would be more careful in avoiding this occasion of serious sin in his writings. I assume that he was in good faith when he wrote these things out of a lack of understanding and familiarity, but at some point recklessness and lack of documentation cross the line into objective false witness against fellow Catholics, whether it is done consciously or not. For example, in the legal system, reckless disregard of the truth is sometimes equated with intentional slander. In addition to argue from a few alleged examples of abuse or ignorance in order to conclude that the entire Catholic Charismatic Renewal or a particular practice is therefore necessarily flawed is an example of the well-known logical fallacy of composition in which someone illogically argues that simply because a part of a whole has a particular characteristic that the whole also necessarily shares that same characteristic.]

Some charismatics claim what they have is merely the activation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which does not happen in the usual Catholic. They call this Baptism in the Spirit. This too is a great error.

[Benedict XVI has himself recently urged Catholics to rediscover Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit, which is a biblical phrase from all four Gospels also used by Jesus himself in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter one. Between Benedict and Rev. Most, go with Benedict. To see the text of Benedict's statement on Baptism in the Holy Spirit, see the helpful links at this blog: www.HolySpiritSeminar.blogspot.com].

All receive these Gifts along with sanctifying grace, and they have an increase at Confirmation and other times. But normally they do not show clear and overt effects until one is far advanced in the spiritual life - earlier, there may be latent effects.

[That scarcity of overt effects was not the case in the Church as described in the New Testament, especially in the Acts of the Apostles, and as documented in the research on the early centuries of the Church by Frs. Killian McDonnell and George Montague in their 1990 book: Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries. Michael Glazier Books. ISBN 0814650090. The Lord can also intervene and surprise us with new outpourings of grace and charisms, as both Popes John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI (I am thinking here especially of his writings as Cardinal Ratzinger) have noted in their discussion of the charismatic renewal.]

Still further, the effects of these Gifts are not the miraculous phenomena - that would be to confuse the sanctifying and the charismatic categories. Some also tend to be fundamentalistic in understanding Scripture.

[I find this argument by Most to be strange. In effect, he is saying that God can't mix up certain categories that Most believes must be kept in impermeable compartments. The objection to alleged fundamentalism is a sign that Most is here reaching far for anything he can get to unfairly tarnish the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. As just one example of many, Fr. George Montague, a highly reputable charismatic biblical scholar, is certainly not a fundamentalist biblical scholar. In fact, he was once head of the Catholic Biblical Association.]

Many charismatics today are trying to say all Catholics must be charismatic, that "baptism in the spirit" was routine in the Patristic age. We find this clearly in a booklet, Fanning the Flame, by Kilian Mc Donnell (Liturgical Press,1991). He cites a few patristic texts to try to show these phenomena were routine in the patristic age. But the texts given are few, just three are given: 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.

[I highly recommend that one read firsthand the book noted above by Frs. McDonnell and Montague, instead of relying on Most's unfair, polemically motivated, and highly selective presentation. In fact, St. Augustine pointed out that miracles still took place in his day. In fact, in his famous Retractions, Augustine changed his mind about the lack of miracles of healing that he had earlier asserted in his writings. As to Chrysostom, the fact that he did not see miraculous gifts in his own community and day does not mean that the Lord cannot do what He wishes to do in other places and other times with other people. You cannot ascribe that conclusion limiting the power of God to the saint. Most is committing the logical fallacy of generalizing from the experience or perspective of one writer to a conclusion that he then tries to make binding on all persons in all places at all times, although the original writer himself did not go so far. In short, Most's conclusion does not follow. St. Teresa of Jesus liked to repeat that the Lord especially favors those who do not put limits on the Lord's work. Most should have given more consideration to her statement. Most here seems to be implying that he is a cessationist who believes that the charismatic gifts are long gone, yet later he admits that they still exist. He seems to be reaching for any polemical weapon even if it makes his own position self-contradictory or incoherent. The Catholic Church has never adopted the position of cessationism which is ironically, given the Rev. Most's concern about coddling Protestants, popular among many evangelical Protestants. For example, not too long ago, the Southern Baptist Convention forbade its missionaries to pray in tongues, even in private prayer time.]

Still further, historically. The miraculous gifts were common in Paul's day, but at least by the middle of the next century became scarce in the mainline Church, but common in heretical groups. The present movement started in 1901 among Protestants. By 1925 there were about 38 denominations in the U.S. alone. Some decades later, in 1966. some Catholics, precisely by contact with the Protestants, asked that the Protestants lay hands on them, to receive tongues - for tongues were supposed to be the sign that one had been baptized in the Spirit.

Did not Pope Paul VI speak favorably of the movement? Yes, for there can be valid instances of it. But the dangers are very real and not too rare.

[There are real dangers and risks in anything fallen human beings participate. Again, the central truth that Most is ignoring is that abuse of a good does not diminish the goodness of that good. And, again, Most is making himself out as a better authority than a Pope. Between Most and Pope Paul VI, go with the Pope. This attitude of Most is, ironically, quintessentially Protestant in nature. As to the charge that the Renewal is Protestant in origin, I have spoken personally to David Mangan, who was one of the Catholics who attended the famous 1967 retreat at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh from which the Renewal emerged in the United States. Mangan made clear to me in this personal conversation and also in his recent book entitled God Loves You and There's Nothing You Can Do About It: Saying Yes to the Holy Spirit that they were simply Catholics seeking more of the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. He even told me of how he later rebuffed Protestant charismatics in other settings who expected him to leave the Catholic Church by telling them that he could not leave the place in which he received the charismatic gifts. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Duquesne took place in a chapel where the Blessed Sacrament was reserved. The students even chanted the ancient Veni Creator prayer in English as part of the retreat. (For these and other details concerning the Duquesne retreat, see the book As By A New Pentecost: The Dramatic Beginning of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Procaim! Publications, Lancashire, UK. ISBN 0953027228, written by Patti Gallagher Mansfield, another 1967 Duquesne retreatant). It was a very Catholic beginning, in spite of what Most says. In addition, the attack on Protestant charismatics is something of a red herring (that is, an irrelevant argument) since it is official Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit is indeed active among baptized Protestant Christians. That teaching is no surprise since Catholic theology teaches that the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the Sacrament of Baptism performed with water and invoking the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.]

Alan Schreck, 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".

[I have not checked for accuracy Most’s quotation from this source and from the other sources that he quotes below. But I will comment on the quotes, assuming the late Fr. Most reproduced them accurately. As noted before, it is standard, official Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit is at work among Protestant Christians (as Fr. Most himself documents by quotation below). That teaching is consistent with the quotation above that Most implies is somehow heretical or inappropriate.]

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.

[There is nothing wrong at all in saying that a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit releases gifts we have already received in the sacraments. It is a quintessentially Catholic, sacramental way of understanding the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is also standard Catholic theology that the graces bestowed by the sacraments can be blocked by our own lack of response. Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the papal household preacher now under two Popes, has written about this topic in his excellent book Sober Intoxication of the Spirit.]

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.

[Again, this is a strange, legalistic, hyperintellectualistic argument by Most. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace” (Para. 2003). There is no conflict between the sanctifying graces and the charisms—the charisms, like everything else in Catholic life, exist to build up the Church by helping Christians become more holy. And, as noted by both Fr. Cantalamessa, the papal preacher, and the eminent biblical scholar Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, the charisms can also benefit the recipient himself, in addition to those being served by the recipient of the charism, if the recipient of the charismatic gift humbly submits his life to the will of God. It is plainly silly for Fr. Most to seek to deny that the charisms are also gifts of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the very Greek word “charisma” means “gift.” Fr. Most has gotten himself lost tilting at windmills like a confused Don Quixote.]

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 saw these above, and they are few indeed, and not always clear.
Alan Schreck himself is not a very convincing witness. In Catholic and Christian, Servant,1984, he says
on p.2:"I hope it will be apparent to all that this book was not written to present Catholicism as the only legitimate form of Christianity and certainly not to critize [sic] other Christians, nor to 'prove them wrong' in their beliefs."
COMMENT [by Most]: All other forms of Christianity are heretical and/or schismatic. They are not legitimate. And we should criticize them and prove them wrong in their heresies.
Pope Gregory XVI (DS 2730.Cf.Pius IX, DS 2915.Leo XIII,DS 3250) condemned "an evil opinion that souls can attain eternal salvation by just any profession of faith, if their morals follow the right norm."
p.3: "...we will assume that any perceived errors in the life or doctrine of other Christians are honest errors that any good Christian could make."
COMMENT [by Most]: We grant most Protestants are in good faith - but we must not say that their errors are relatively minor. They deal with the very heart of the truth. Luther taught justification by faith - but did not know what St. Paul meant by that word faith. He thought it meant confidence that the merits of Christ apply to me -- there is no scholarly support at all for this. Instead Paul means: 1) belief in God's revelation' 2) confidence in His promises; 3) obedience to His commands (Rom 1:5), all done in love. Very different from Luther. So the very basis of his church is gone. Luther rejected the teaching authority of the Church. Luther taught, in Epistle 501:"Even if you sin greatly, believe still more greatly." One need not do anything if he has sinned, just believe it is all paid for. These are not small or honest errors. Objectively all outside have an obligation to investigate and find the truth. We should not make them comfortable in their errors by saying it is just an honest error that any good Christian could make.
p.63: "'The Decree on Ecumenism' states that the worship and liturgical actions of other Christian bodies 'can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.'"
COMMENT [by Most]: The quote is from On Ecumenism 3. But sadly, it quotes only part of the sentence, omitting context, and supplies a subject not in the original, namely "the worship and liturgical actions of other Christian bodies." Here is the actual text of the Decree: "In addition, out of the elements or goods by which, taken together, the Church herself is build up and made alive, certain things, or rather many and excellent things can exist outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church: The written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and love, and other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements: all these things, which come from Christ and lead to Him, belong to the one-only Church of Christ. Even not a few sacred actions of the Christian religion are carried out among the brothers separated from us... which beyond doubt can really generate the life of grace, and are to be said to be apt to open the entry into the community of salvation."
We notice the things mentioned: (1) Scripture -- Protestants read it. (2) the life of grace-- yes, one can reach the state of grace without formally entering the Catholic Church, as Lumen gentium 16 says: "They who without fault do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with a sincere heart, and try with the help of grace to fulfill his will, known through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation." Even pagans can do this. (3) faith - yes, outsiders can have faith, at least if they are not misled by Luther's great error on what faith is. (4) hope and love - again, even a pagan may attain these. (5) other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit--yes, if outsiders reach the state of grace, they also have the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. (6) and visible elements - Baptism if validly given. BUT We must note the next words in the decree: "all these things... belong to the one-only Church of Christ." In other words, it is not a protestant church as protestant that can provide these things -these are things that belong to the Catholic Church, which the Protestants have not completely rejected. (7) The next sentence says some religious actions are carried out in protestantism which can really generate the life of grace. Yes, Baptism does that. Reading of Scripture, prayers, and other things enumerated above in the first 6 items can do that. But again, it is not protestant worship as protestant that gives grace -- it is things the protestants have retained even after breaking with the one-only Church of Christ. As the previous sentence said: "they belong to the one-only Church of Christ."
To take the words as Schreck does would violate the condemnations of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII cited above.

[Fr. Most here is, with all due respect, again tilting at windmills. I have put in bold print above his own admission that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are also present among Protestants. I will not respond in detail to his comments above because they are so obviously contradicted by his own quotation from Vatican II (also put by me in bold print) and from his own admissions. At this point, Fr. Most is flailing helplessly and simply rambling as seen in the comments below that have no relation whatsoever to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal but go into unrelated topics, a possible indication that Fr. Most has run out of relevant things to say about the Charismatic Renewal itself.]

p. 62: (in this order to put it into the context of p. 63 just studied): "The Second Vatican Council does not make a distinction between a 'true church' (the Catholic Church), and other 'false churches,' ... this means that Catholics can honestly approach other Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, without necessarily having in mind 'bringing them back to the fold' of the Catholic Church."
COMMENT [by Most]: So, Schreck does not see a need to work for conversion - just leave them where they are. The same section of the decree does say that those validly baptized "are incorporated in Christ... and are rightly recognized by the sons of the Catholic Church as brothers in the Lord." To be incorporated into Christ means to become a member of Christ, that is, a member of His Mystical Body. But that Mystical Body is the Catholic Church. So validly baptized Protestants even though they do not know it are really members of the Catholic Church, and as such can be called separated brothers. But we should try to get them out of their dangerous errors, which can bring eternal ruin - cf. the major errors of Luther mentioned above.
p.166: "... the Gospel of Mark, probably the earliest Gospel written, presents Mary in a seemingly negative light, as one of Jesus' relatives who did not understand him or his mission. This is not surprising; according to Mark's Gospel, no one really understood Jesus or his mission, not even his closest apostles, until his crucifixion."

[It is certainly possible and good to work along with Protestant Christians in ecumenical settings, such as in the common task of evangelization, without making conversion a foremost objective. Yet, it is also good to respectfully and lovingly share with Protestants the great things in the Catholic Church, especially the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the other sacraments, and to so invite them in a loving manner to come to know all that Christ wants for them to have. Yet, having made these points, let me note that these issues are not unique to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and so are really an example of Most desperately searching for polemical ammunition in irrelevant places.]

COMMENTS [by Most]: 1)The passage in mind is Mark 3.20-35. Schreck does not mention that there are obviously three segments in this passage: (a) 20-21: The hoi par' autou see He does not take time out to eat. They say He is beside Himself, they go out to grab Him. (b) 22-30: Scribes charge He casts out satan by satan. (c) 31-35: His Mother and relatives come to a crowd where He is speaking. It is announced to Him. He says: Who is my Mother and my Brothers? He who does the will of God is brother and sister and mother to me."
2) Schreck assumed without proof that the hoi par' autou, those about Him, included His Mother. This is not impossible, but Schreck says it flatly, without proof. Further, Schreck ignores the fact of three segments. Form Criticism has shown many times over that some Gospel passages are put together out of three once independent units. Therefore we cannot be at all sure that since His Mother is there in segment 3, she is also meant in segment 1. This is especially so in view of the odd, and unconnected second segment, which is very long compared to the other two segments.
3) Schreck also assumes not only that she is part of the group in segment 1 - far from proved - but also that she did not understand Him. The fact that the slow Apostles did not, does not prove she did not. But much more, Schreck, like Brown and others, in violation of Vatican II, On Revelation § 12, ignores the relation of one Gospel to another. Luke clearly presents her as the first believer - how then is she now lacking in faith? Still further, Vatican II, Lumen gentium § 56 says that at the start, at the annunciation, "embracing the saving will of God, with full heart and held back by no sin, she totally dedicated herself to the person and work of her Son."
4) Schreck makes her less than an ordinary Mother. An ordinary Mother, even when her son is clearly in the wrong, commonly stands up for him. Schreck is sure Our Lady did not, that she did not believe in Him. Even if we conceded she may have been in the group of segment 1, it does not follow that she went along with them in disbelief. She might well have gone along to try to hold the others down!
5) As for the words that whoever does the will of God is Mother and brother etc.-- Vatican II, Lumen gentium § 58 says that He while saying the kingdom is higher than reasons of flesh, "proclaimed blessed those who heard and kept the word of God, just as she was faithfully doing. Yes, one category is higher than the other- but she is at the peak in both!
So Schreck, who strains so much to give a favorable light on protestants, strains in the opposite direction to give an unfortunate image of her at this point.
Conclusion: There are many great and common dangers:
1) Autosuggestion. Charismatic gifts are given where and when the Spirit wills: 1 Cor 12:11. They are not to be induced. St. Teresa of Avila as we saw was fearful of suggestion and/or the devil.

[As noted above, see my detailed responses to the misrepresentation of Teresa’s writings by Fr. Most. I will only add here that Teresa gives clear criteria for discerning that something is from God: the telltale signs of peace and joy, which she found, for example, in exultant, jubilant praise reminiscent of the experience of those praying in tongues. See her Interior Castle, Sixth Mansions, Chapter VI.]

2) Charismatics commonly disregard the injunction of St. Paul in 1 Cor 14:27-28 that at a meeting of the community at most 2 or 3 should speak in tongues, and then only if there is someone at hand to interpret. At Charismatic meetings numerous persons, even hundreds speak at once, and with no interpreter. Cases are known where persons who knew many languages understood them, and found some of them were cursing God.

[Again, this point is addressed above. Praising God in tongues (jubilation or jubilatio) does not require interpretation because it is not a message addressed to a listening audience as if it were a sermon or speech. Also, the undocumented allegation that some are said to have cursed God does not diminish the validity of authentic praising of God in tongues any more than priestly scandals diminish the ministry of holy, faithful priests. Notice, also, that Most implicitly admits that there is indeed authentic, divinely inspired speaking in tongues taking place in charismatic meetings. Also, notice that, at best, Most is weakly saying that only “some” were found to be cursing God. Again, the alleged abuse of a good does not diminish the goodness of the good, as I have repeated often in the course of my response to this attack on the Renewal.]

3) Charismatics are very wrong in insisting that all Catholics must be charismatic. We saw they have inadequate Patristic foundation, and that they cross categories, supposing charismatic things could actualize gifts belonging to the sanctifying category.

[The confused “crossing categories” argument gets Most nowhere and proves nothing at all, as explained above. All Catholics are charismatics as a result of the Sacrament of Baptism. The Renewal is merely an invitation to all Catholics to unleash the power that they have already received sacramentally. In addition, Most just gets the terminology wrong. The accurate way of describing what he is misunderstanding is that the new outpouring of the Holy Spirit releases the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives, including actualizing the charismatic gifts that may lay dormant among sacramentally baptized Catholics. I recently read the charismatic related portions of Dr. Schreck's fine, best-selling catechism on the Catholic faith and found no problem with them at all (search my blog for further details). In fact, Cardinal Schönborn, the general editor of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, endorsed the catechism by the same Dr. Schreck of Franciscan University in Steubenville who is criticized by the Rev. Most in this article. Between Most and Schönborn, go with Schönborn.]

4) In some cases charismatics become indifferent to the Church, or to the Blessed Virgin. A charismatic in a letter to me personally said priests should become involved, for charismatics need guidance. They do need guidance. But then I offered him some theological guidance - he strongly rejected it."

[In fact, the Baptism in the Spirit commonly leads Catholics to a stronger Eucharistic faith, greater loyalty to the Pope, and a new closeness to the Virgin Mary as the prototypical charismatic herself who, of all human beings, yielded most fully to the power of the Holy Spirit. My charismatic parish is a prime example that I know firsthand where what Fr. Most alleges is totally non-existent. The same counterexample to the Most allegation can be found in Franciscan University of Steubenville which has been recognized, for example by the well-regarded, orthodox Cardinal Stafford, as a leading force in renewing and strengthening the Catholic Church in the United States. Even Fr. Most qualifies his own attack by using the weak phrase “in some cases.” In some cases, clergy are wicked. Some clergy even make misleading, unfair attacks on fellow Catholics. Such realities do not mean that the priesthood itself is bad or that most priests are not wonderful men and believers.]