Dear Desiree:

I have edited your question because you were using a lot of CAPS. Using CAPS so much is bad form and in the computer world is considered rude and shouting. You do not have to shout.

The Popes and many Bishops are very supportive of the Charismatic Renewal, at least when they behave themselves. One of the reasons that some priests are not so positively disposed to the Charismatic Renewal is that the Renewal is often time devoid of the Holy Spirit with fruits of egotism, elitism, arrogance, errant theology, and a sense of a "church within the Church."

When the Renewal begins to suggest that to have the fullness of the Holy Spirit one must be "charismatic" they cross the line. Most of the Saints were not charismatics in the sense that Charismatic Renewal defines themselves. Few spoke in tongues. The Church encourages people to "fan into flame the gift within them", the Church just doesn't do it in Protestant Charismatic style.

I have a lot of experience with Protestant Charismatics when I was a Protestant. During that time I never once experienced, nor have I seen, read, or heard of any Protestant Charismatic groups who actually follow St. Paul's directives on the subject. The Protestant Pentecostals are hardly a model to go by. The Pentecostal theology is actually materially heretical.

As a Catholic I have a lot experience with the Catholic Renewal. I have found a few, a minority, who have a proper attitude and belief about the charisms. In my experience, however, the majority of Catholic Charismatics act like Pentecostals and not Catholics.

I would suggest you read the thorough and extensive analysis of the Pros and Cons about the Catholic Renewal in the essay, Charism Gifts Building Up the Church.

If the Renewal remains humble, stays close to the Church, and eradicate Pentecostalisms, then it can be an asset to the Church. But, the Renewal has never been and never will be the primary way people experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit and His gifts.

As for Mark 16:17-18 do not interpret that passage like a Protestant Pentecostal. The Navarre Bible Commentary explains the real interpretation:

In the early days of the Church, public miracles of this kind happened frequently. There are numerous historical of these events in the New Testament (cf., e.g., Acts 3:1-11; 28:3-6) and in other ancient Christian writings. It was fitting that this should be so, for it gave visible proof of the truth of Christianity. Miracles of this type still occur, but much more seldom; they are very exceptional. This, too, is fitting because, on the one hand, the truth of Christianity has been attested to enough; and, on the other, it leaves room for us to merit through faith. St. Jerome comments: "Miracles were necessary at the beginning to confirm people in the faith. But, once the faith of the Church is confirmed, miracles are not necessary" (Comm in Marcum, in loc.). However, God still works miracles through saints in every generation, including our own.

By the way, you are not really a lector. A Lector is the title of a "installed office". This is a liturgical office reserved to men only and appointed by the bishop. The term "Reader" is more appropriate for your volunteer position.

The term Eucharistic Minister, however, is a Canonically protected term. An Eucharistic Minister is clergy. You are Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. It is seriously improper for pastors to allow the term Eucharistic minister be applied to laity.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary