How old is your church?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
How Old Is Your Church? If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
-- (thetruth@God'sway.com), October 20, 2003
If you are a Christian, By Jesus around 30-33 AD, Jews will say.The truth is that revelation is relative to its time.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (EGONZALEZ@SRLA.ORG), October 20, 2003.
Dear Elpidio:
How do you interpret that?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 21, 2003.
I'm sorry;
I understood you to say the Jews believe: ''The truth is that revelation is relative to its time.'' Or, is it you? I find that a strange statement. Can you explain?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 21, 2003.
Unless someone can claim the phrase "The truth is relative to its time", then it is mine.One common apologetic expression in the Forum is the Catholic Church (The Roman Catholic )is better because is older than all churches. But God doesn't work that way Eugene. remember he used to tell his disciples that if they righteousness wasn't better than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, they would not enter the Kingdom.
Examples of truth relative to time:
What saved adam? Since God created Adam, God knew Adam would be one day be with God again. Adam was saved through God's grace.
What saved Abraham? Abraham had slaves. He had 3 wives. He killed people. He married his niece. These things we don't do now. So what saved Abraham ? Faith. Abraham believed his dreams. He left his nation. He left his family to follow God's plan.
What saved Moses? Moses was a killer. Moses was a murderer. Moses killed those who didn't want to follow his vision of God. So what saved Moses? Obedience. He was told to do things he didn't like. The Law didn't dave him, since he was above the Law.
What saved samuel?Samuel killed people. Samuel enforced the Law. So what saved Samuel? His observance of the Law.
What saved Elijah? Elijah killed people. Elijah believed God, even when most didn't. So what saved him? His love for God.
These were before Jesus.
The Messianic Jews like James and most of Jesus disciples, believed the law and belief in Jesus being the Messiah saved them.
The followers of Paul believed faith in Jesus working through love saved them.
The followers of Bishop Igatius to the present believe that whoever follows the bishop who is the recipient of truth, is saved. These include: Roman catholics, catholic Orthodox, Armenians, Copts, Syrian Orthodox, Malabarese,....
Protestant Evangelicals from the 16th century and on believe faith saves them. These include Lutherans, Reformed...
Christian fundamentalists from the 19th century believe only the Bible saves them.
Christian Pentecostals and Charismatics since 1903 believe they must experience the Holy Spirit to be saved.
Holy Name people(they don't use the word Christian) believe only the belief in God, observance of Holy days, mixed with Jesus is the Messiah saves them.
So who is truly saved?
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 22, 2003.
Elpidio,So you are a Relativist. Hmmm. You believe in I'm OK, you're OK, Everybody's OK.
Furthermore, you believe in I'm OK, you're OK, Everybody's OK yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
and Furthermore, you believe in I'm OK, you're OK, Everybody's OK yesterday, today, and tomorrow, here, there, and everywhere.
(yawn) The Writer of Ecclesiastes said, "There is Nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
The Ancient Holy Catholic Church is truly Saved! The Ancient Holy Catholic Church is Noah's Ark ~ Outside is the Great Flood!
-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.
no, james, elpidio may be a relativist, but that is not allhe also believes that God comes and talks to him in his dreams
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 23, 2003.
I was unaware, Elpidio:''[A] common apologetic expression in the forum is the Catholic Church (The Roman Catholic) --is better because it's older than all churches. But God doesn't work that way Eugene.'' --I thought you had some gravity; I was mistaken.
What has older to do with authenticity? The gods of Egypt are older than the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is divinely founded; whether recently founded or not, compared to false religions.
Here you said: ''. . . truth relative to time:
''What saved Adam? Since God created him, etc.,''
A sophism as most of your posts have been. What?
We receive from the love of Jesus Christ; and by His death & resurrection, the pledge of our life everlasting. Abraham and all the patriarchs before are saved as well. In the promises of the Prophets was the assurance of the coming Holy One of Israel. They believed; and He saved all of them. It wasn't contingent on a period in time. Not relative; as if Jesus came too late for their hopes.
Relevant as to time, your false perception, means nothing to God. God knows no before or after. No beginning, no end. Why would the truth bow to relativity? The truth is what God knows; Perfection. He reveals or conceals the truth. You would not have a tiny fraction of the truth if God had not given it or taught it to you.
Some He allows to be evident to our senses. TRUE-- Some He sends us by a revelation; just as TRUE. All of it is His. We have no truth above what God lets us know. His divine Son, as a consequence; is the very highest Truth God reveals to you & me.
He leaves it to us whether we will believe or not. God takes us to His Truth, Jesus Christ. He lets us see His truth.
He does not force you to accept it. You are free to question it. You may call His truth ''relevant to a particular time.''
But if we do we make God serve us. He allows us to doubt Him. He reverses the order of nature; giving you the last word over His.
He tests our faith. Now you see; our faith in God must be tested. You have been tested, Elpidio.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 23, 2003.
Yes, I have been tested and continues to be tested, eugene.That's how God works in my life. I cannot avoid it.
Worst thing is that what he commanded me to do I don't do it. Then, that will be bad for me.
God has been testing the Catholic Church, you know that Eugene. He tested Adam, He tested Abraham, he tested Moses, he tested samuel, he tested Elijah, he tested David, he tested Jesus, He testd the israelites, he tested the Jews throughout history, he's been testing you, too.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 23, 2003.
The ultimate test is what you say of Jesus Christ. On that result depends this whole world's destiny; Who is Jesus?I have found the faith to confess He is the Son of God; God Incarnate, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. The evidence I'm given for this confession is another Person; the Holy Spirit who made me faithful. He is the third Person, One God with the Father and the Son; not three gods, ONE.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 23, 2003.
Elpidio,Just to clarify a few of your misconceptions:
Pentecostals and Charismatics don't believe that they must experience the Holy Spirit to be saved. They believe that faith in Jesus is the beginning of salvation and that we are saved, are being saved and will be saved on that Day. In short, their perception of salvation is exactly the same as Paul's. The emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit is part of our Christian life, but not a requirement for salvation.
Same goes for Christian Fundamentalists. They don't believe that the Bible saves. They place a great deal of emphasis on the Bible just as Pentecostals do. But they believe that it is faith in Jesus that is the source of salvation.
Oh, to the original poster . . . you forgot to include the Orthodox Church.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.
The Orthodox Church is in FULL Communion with the Pope ~ therefore, they are part of the Holy Catholic Church ~ they are known also as the Eastern Rite of the Holy Catholic Church.
-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.
Not so James! The Eastern Orthodox Churches are NOT the same thing as the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox rejected the authority of the Pope in the 11th century, and thereby separated themselves from the Catholic Church, becoming an entirely separate, schismatic entity. The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, like all of its Rites, ARE in full communion with the Holy Father.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 23, 2003.
I know Dave that Charismatics and Pentecostals believe in Jesus. Dave B, do you remember in the Letter to the Corinthians Paul attacks the Charismatics of his day?Why do you think he did? Because they believed they were communicating with God directly, thus, creating chaos in the Church because each claim to experience God his/her own way. That is why Paul put Prophecy ahead of Speaking in Tongues. For Charismatics/ Pentecostals Speajking in Tongues means that Spirit of god is with you. You don't, then you are not saved , yet.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 23, 2003.
Paul ATTACKED charismatic Christians?? The same Paul who said "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you" (1 Cor 14:18)? The same Paul who wrote "I wish you all spoke in tongues (1 Cor 14:5)? THAT Paul?? The guy who spends a couple of chapters instructing people in the use of the charisms? I would be most interested in reading about this "attack". Where can I find it?
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 23, 2003.
Paul's answer was better than anything I could have constructed (which is usually the case).Elpidio, you said "For Charismatics/ Pentecostals Speajking in Tongues means that Spirit of god is with you. You don't, then you are not saved , yet.
That's just not true, at least among the Charismatics and Pentecostals in the U.S. Maybe some group, some where teaches that, but I've never heard of it. We consider salvation and the gifts of the Spirit as completely separate subjects apart from the obvious that one must first be saved in order to be filled with the Spirit and thus have the Spirit's gifts flowing.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.
Please, please, Protestants, join the Catholic church. They alone have the power to forgive sin; Our Lord said that to Peter; It is in the bible. do not ignore it. Read it for yourself with an open mind. don't just skip over it. Please!
-- Grover (Evangelist@Apostle.con), October 24, 2003.
I believe, Paul M., that the apostle Paul was already getting tired of the tongue-speaking charismatics of his day. They had already taken control, it seems of the Church of Corinth, which he had founded.Here is Ch. 14 of I Corinthians from the NA BChapter 14 (The bold is mine)
1 Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy. 2 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit. 3 On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to human beings, for their building up, 3 encouragement, and solace. 4 Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up. 6 4 Now, brothers, if I should come to you speaking in tongues, what good will I do you if I do not speak to you by way of revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or instruction? 7 Likewise, if inanimate things that produce sound, such as flute or harp, do not give out the tones distinctly, how will what is being played on flute or harp be recognized? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 Similarly, if you, because of speaking in tongues, do not utter intelligible speech, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be talking to the air. 10 It happens that there are many different languages in the world, and none is meaningless; 11 but if I do not know the meaning of a language, I shall be a foreigner to one who speaks it, and one who speaks it a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves: since you strive eagerly for spirits, seek to have an abundance of them for building up the church. 13 5 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret. 14 (For) if I pray in a tongue, my spirit 6 is at prayer but my mind is unproductive. 15 So what is to be done? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will also sing praise with the mind. 16 Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing (with) the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up. 18 I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you, 19 but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 7 Brothers, stop being childish in your thinking. In respect to evil be like infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 It is written in the law: "By people speaking strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me, says the Lord." 22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for those who believe but for unbelievers, whereas prophecy is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 8 So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person should come in, he will be convinced by everyone and judged by everyone, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, "God is really in your midst." 26 9 So what is to be done, brothers? When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything should be done for building up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern. 30 But if a revelation is given to another person sitting there, the first one should be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. 32 Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets' control, 33 since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones,
From acts we2 we know this: Italics is mine 1 When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. 2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, 2 and it filled the entire house in which they were. 3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, 3 which parted and came to rest on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, 4 as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. 5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. 6 At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
That 1)what the disciples used were real languages, to gibberish speech. 2) When Paul said he spoke more in togues he referred to : Greek, Aramaic, hebrew, Latin, and others of which we are not familiar. He wasn't referring to gibberish. 3) For Paul, who himself was a prophet, prophecy was of a higher order than Speaking in tongues. Paul had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia,...Paul did not speak in gibberish to convert people or preach to People: he used real working languages many people understood. 4) I myself joined some of these groups as a uyounger man. So I know what the belief is.
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 24, 2003.
Look at that! I tend to agree with you here, Elpidio.Somehow all the so-called tongues & babbling always has seemed just a cute rope-trick to me.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 25, 2003.
You mean to tell me that all of that Televangelist "speaking in tongues" on cue stuff is more of a "dog and pony" show rather than true exposition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? All these years people have been fooled? But, those people on t.v. have such fame and $$$$$.$$ surely they don't edify themselves, yes?"Skuset tommine dotimo shabala ramuti pasulem toomeloo!" Come on people; we're being scammed, plain and simple!
sorry....
..
..<
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 25, 2003.
Yeah, I'm such a cynic.This morning I was meditating. It seemed I'm so often posting acid-sounding words here; and I felt contrition deep in my heart for that. May God be merciful to me, a sinner. I thought about my acid remarks to many good folks; and realised;
As Jesus was dying on the cross, He looked down and said, ''I thirst.''
Then they gave Him His last drink before He died. Common wine; acid wine or ''gall''.
How sweet am I to Him; always giving off my acid words? Let's not go there. ___
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 25, 2003.
Elpidio,You need to gain a better understanding of the gifts of the Spirit. I suggest a more thorough study of 1 COR is in order to see more clearly that Paul rebuked the abuses of the gifts and then instructed them in their proper use. He didn't tell them to stop or indicate that they as a church had somehow been taken over by Charismatics. In fact, just the opposite, he was telling them they needed to gain a maturity in using them properly and was encouraging them to pursue and exercise the greater gifts of prophecy and words of knowledge and wisdom, things that would totally flip you out compared to speaking in tongues.
Just to demonstrate how wrong your view is regarding tongues, please consider this verse from 1 Cor, "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.".
See, if no one understands, if the speaker is not speaking to men, then clearly the language being spoken is NOT a known language to the speaker or listener. It says he "speaks to God" and that he speaks "mysteries", things that are not known. That alone ought to provide sufficient motive for you to re-examine your understanding of tongues and what was really happening in the Corithinian Church.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 25, 2003.
Hard to believe you and I agree on something, Eugene!Rod, I have seen these people mumbling thinking they speaking to God. Several times in the 1989s, my group of Catholic action joined them in prayer. They started shaking, crying, on the ground some, others, still shaking, eyes, closed... none from my group did. It was more than 30. Hard to believe none of us was toched by the Spirit.
Dave B. You are confused here my friend. I have read Paul's letters since I was 9. I'm 40 now. I have read them in English, Spanish, French, of course koine Greek. Acts is the key: These disciples were speaking not only to God but to real people also. These are the same concerns Paul has.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.
Elpidio-I was once involved in a Pentecostal church. I think I was the only person there who didn't go into "speaking of tongues" or "trembling".
Yes! I had to re-read Eugene's post several times. He did agree with you, or you with him, or something. I should print the post and have it framed!
rod..
..
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.
Elpidio,You haven't addressed the scripture I've referenced and despite your protestations, are still incorrect in your interpretation (as is Eugene).
There are several different functions of the gift of tongues. You've referred to one form which was recorded on the Day of Pentecost. It's not mentioned anywhere else in scripture.
I'm discussing the most common form of tongues, which Paul describes as a prayer language "praying in the Spirit" and he tells us that it's a language that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and is not interpreted. It is what he's referring to when he says that he's thankful that he speaks in tongues more than anyone else and yet he'd rather speak 5 words of prophecy than 10,000 words in tongues . . . WHY does he say that??? . . .because NO ONE UNDERSTANDS the tongues, but everyone understands 5 words of prophecy because prophecy is spoken in the native language of the speaker and listener. This would make no sense if your interpretation of scripture was true. Acording to your view, when one is speaking in tongues, it's a known language that the listeners all understand . . . so why does he prefer prophecy? Any idea?
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.
If an apostle is sent into strange lands, he must speak to the inhabitants. Because he is there to announce the Good News of salvation. He goes to China; can't fail his mission. But no one speaks Greek, or Hebrew or Aramaic. What to do?In the fire of the Holy Spirit, the apostle speaks Chinese! Or a dialect which the listeners understand; even if HE doesn't! That is tongues. That ONLY is what biblical tongues meant.
The Holy Spirit tells the apostle what he is to say. Christ promised this to His Church. He prayed His Almighty Father sanctify His Church in the truth; (John, 17 :17)-- and so He might send them into the world with His Gospel, prayed : ''Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who, through their word (tongues!) are to believe in me,'' (verse :20).
So-- is that a stretch? No. Clearly Christ was sending missions to unknown lands. They should speak in unknown tongues, for the love of God!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 28, 2003.
That's not a complete understanding of tongues Eugene. Please re- read this verse and explain to me how it jives with your theory."For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.".
There is a function of tongues which is not intended to be used when speaking to men, it's used when speaking to God (as in prayer). It's plainly stated in this verse.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.
Maybe your version of speaking mysteries has to be qualified. There's no contradiction in letting the tongues be understood by a convert, while as to the speaker himself, an appeal to God is taking place. He serves the Holy Spirit; and may not even understand himself. But the ones he addresses are able to understand.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.
Well, since the scripture says "no one understands", to say that there's "no contradiction in letting the tongues be understood by a convert" is not reasonable.
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.
If Saint Francis Xavier spoke an unknown gibberish to the Japanese, and only they could see what he was saying, that means ''no one but those who speak Japanese understand.'' I'm willing to allow you your interpretation of this verse, because I'm not able. I can't truly say it bears out your notion of what tongues in the Church today are. For one thing, Saint Paul did not elaborate on that. I can't help thinking tongues today are anachronistic and quite pointless. (I could be wrong.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.
Eugene,Apart from the function of tongues that you’ve zeroed in on as it serves as a sign to unbelievers and as a language used to preach, there are also purposes for tongues in the life of an individual believer. Tongues are used to edify (strengthen) our spirit, to pray the perfect will of God, and to worship.
All of these functions are born out in scriptures quite clearly. Here they are with my comments relating to this conversation interjected in brackets and bolded.
1 Cor 14
“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God [Paul is speaking about when tongues are spoken and no one is meant to hear or understand what is spoken] ; for no one understands [not even the Japanese], but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself [here’s that purpose you couldn’t grasp, that praying in tongues edifies the speaker]; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? . . . Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays [when we speak in tongues, our spirit prays, so praying is a second purpose of tongues], but my mind is unfruitful.
What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit [and here’s the third function, we sing in tongues as a form of worship in which our spirit is directly worshipping God without going through our soul (mind)] and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only [here one can speak in tongues as a blessing which is a function of prayer], how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.”
Here’s another reference to praying in the spirit from Romans in which we see that when we pray in the spirit, we allow the indwelling Holy Spirit to pray through us (that’s the nature of a gift of the Spirit, it’s God functioning through man). It says, “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Anyone who speaks in tongues in prayer can testify that every now and again, a tremendous burden comes on us in intercession and the Holy Spirit begins to cry out and groan through us as we surrender our spirit to Him as a tool for prayer.
I hope that helps to clarify things Eugene.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.
Let's try this again with the formatting cleaned-up (I hope)Eugene,
Apart from the function of tongues that you’ve zeroed in on as it serves as a sign to unbelievers and as a language used to preach, there are also purposes for tongues in the life of an individual believer. Tongues are used to edify (strengthen) our spirit, to pray the perfect will of God, and to worship.
All of these functions are born out in scriptures quite clearly. Here they are with my comments relating to this conversation interjected in brackets and bolded.
1 Cor 14
“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God [Paul is speaking about when tongues are spoken and no one is meant to hear or understand what is spoken]; for no one understands [not even the Japanese], but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself [here’s that purpose you couldn’t grasp, that praying in tongues edifies the speaker]; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? . . . Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays [when we speak in tongues, our spirit prays, so praying is a second purpose of tongues], but my mind is unfruitful.
What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit [and here’s the third function, we sing in tongues as a form of worship in which our spirit is directly worshipping God without going through our soul (mind)] and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only [here one can speak in tongues as a blessing which is a function of prayer], how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.”
Here’s another reference to praying in the spirit from Romans in which we see that when we pray in the spirit, we allow the indwelling Holy Spirit to pray through us (that’s the nature of a gift of the Spirit, it’s God functioning through man). It says, “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Anyone who speaks in tongues in prayer can testify that every now and again, a tremendous burden comes on us in intercession and the Holy Spirit begins to cry out and groan through us as we surrender our spirit to Him as a tool for prayer.
I hope that helps to clarify things Eugene.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.
David;
Sure, you clarify what YOU believe. Thank you. Let's see:''Tongues are used to edify (strengthen) our spirit, to pray the perfect will of God, and to worship.''
Perhaps they were, are. No theory too awkward that it can't be true. I don't want to aggrandize my sorry soul, but English and Spanish and a basic grasp of Latin have served ME excellently; to edify (strengthen) my spirit, to pray the perfect Will of God, and to worship. Did I ever ''speak mysteries'' --? Hard to say. I must confess Saint Paul never had cause to write about Chavez.
Nothing that can conceivably be spoken in tongues, David; by you or ANYBODY, will increase your love of God. Because it has no language. Love is what we offer God; not just words. Total, everlasting love!
Nothing that conceivably results from tongues is inconceivable in our own words. Read the words for instance, of the Prophet David, or Saint Augustine, or Saint Theresa of Avila. None were in a secret language; all were sublime. As far as I know, Jesus Christ spoke to the people out of His heart with authority; and addressed His own Father above, always in His vernacular; Aramaic. You would think somewhere along the way Jesus would say something to the Father in tongues. To pray the perfect will of God. --Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit. Oh, well. I'm just an ignorant sinner. Forget me.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.
I'll leave it there Eugene. Peace and God bless.Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.
Excellent, Dave.
You are a man of great sensitivity and refinement, I think. Once you've said your piece, you rest. That's a tremendous grace. I never want to hurt your feelings, trust you realise that. I argue from conviction, not malice. Thank you for hearing me out; God be with you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 29, 2003.
I think Dave B, the keywords underlined by you edify self and singing refer praising God. Not even the speaker in tongues understands his/her mumbling.That is why Paul wishes people to prophesy. Now there are two kinds of prophecy mentioned in the Bible: one that comes from a revelation from God directly, and another which deals with edifying the Church, when words come out naturaly to exhort, praise, rebuke, counsel, admonish, ...
The apostle made use of both with the Corinthians.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.
Eugene,Thanks very much. I've always appreciated you, even when we've disagreed. You're a passionate man, and very passionate in your love for God, which I respect tremendously. And I've enjoyed our discussion here and understand that we can't necessarily convince each other to change our opinions, but we can try to understand each other better, which is a good thing. You're being gracious when you say that once I said my piece, I rest. I try to do that, but too often I get myself into the thick of things and allow a discussion to descend into an argument. Thanks for understanding.
Elpidio,
Yes, the functions I was focusing on related to tongues as used in the life of the individual believer because that's the part I felt wasn't understood well. You're correct that Paul taught that when assembled together, he preferred the people operate in the gift of prophecy since it edified the body of believers. But let's not forget he also said that he wished for everyone to speak in tongues because the value to the individual is so great.
One more thing I'd like to add is a disclaimer regarding the speaking in tongues that you often hear if you're around Charismatics. Everytime I pray in tongues, it sounds like a distinct language and often shifts into different sounding languages as I pray. I once had someone who overheard me praying that I was speaking Spanish. He said it was spoken quickly but that he could understand much of what I was saying.
But I also realize that when I hear others "speaking in tongues", it often sounds like repetitious mumbling, not at all like a language. I'm convinced that many who think they operate in that gift really don't.
It's important to realize the mechanical functioning involved. The Holy Spirit doesn't totally take over one's tongue when speaking. The speaker starts to pray and the Holy Spirit "steers" the language once it's in progress. So it's not surprising that there's a mixture of flesh and Spirit that results depending on the maturity of the believer. Paul tells us that we prophesy according to our level of faith and the same can be applied to the other gifts of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses our imperfect, highly flawed vessels to function through. A more spiritually mature believer will be able to more completely surrender his/her tongue to the Spirit and speak very clearly. A less mature believer might wrestle with the Spirit some by concentrating too hard on what's being said thus breaking up the flow with fleshly fears/insecurities.
Don't know if that helps to clarify or just muddies the waters.
God bless.
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 30, 2003.
Dear Dave,Your presentation of the gift of tongues and charisms in general shows a depth of understanding that is obviously the result of years of experience in charismatic spirituality . Your comments about charismatic prayer are consistent with the very nature of charismatic prayer itself - intense yet unemotional. I find it ironic that a gift originally given by God to the Catholic Church for the upbuilding of its members now has to be defended by a member of a different church, against the criticisms of inexperienced and unknowledgeable Catholics! As a Catholic clergyman who likewise has long experience with the charismatic dimensions of the faith, I want to commend you on your thorough, well-balanced, and exraordinarily accurate explanations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Every statement you have made regarding tongues and charisms is fully in agreement with Catholic teaching - but an area of Catholic teaching which many Catholics are not well acquainted with. Indeed it is a sad commentary that those Catholics who are most vocal in their criticism of charismatic spirituality - which is fully supported both in the scriptures and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - are invariably those who have no person experience of such prayer, and therefore no real knowledge of the subject. Thanks for your patience, and for your willingness to share your knowledge and experience.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 30, 2003.
Dear Paul,I'm extremely touched by your comments. I've always believed that my understandings of the gifts and charisms were very much in sync with official Catholic teaching, thanks very much for confirming that.
When I first started posting here 4 years ago, my initial motivation for posting was to encourage Catholic believers to pursue charismatic spirituality because it has had such an impact on my walk with the Lord. So whenever threads were created discussing subjects that allowed me to interject the charismatic perspective, I'd do so. It was sometimes perceived as an attempt to draw Catholics away from the church, but it really was/is just a desire to encourage them to delve into something that's already available to them and just needs to be stirred up as Paul admonished Timothy.
Your authority as a Catholic clergyman combined with the intelligence and experience you bring to this forum will go much further in validating this as something for all to pursue.
Thanks again.
With much respect,
Dave
-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), October 30, 2003.
I find it ironic that a gift originally given by God to the Catholic Church for the upbuilding of its members now has to be defended by a member of a different church, against the criticisms of inexperienced and unknowledgeable Catholics!My belief is that Eugene Chavez has more "experience" and "knowledge" than the writer of that insult. However, there's no point in arguing about that. The important thing is that Eugene would never deny that God once gave a great "gift ... to the Catholic Church" -- languages (aka, "tongues"). Instead, I think that he agrees with me that that Church has NOT yet taught that the very gift that is mentioned in the Bible is the same as the phenomenon that one can observe in circles known as "pentecostal" and "charismatic."
I want to commend you on your thorough, well-balanced, and exraordinarily accurate explanations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Every statement you have made regarding tongues and charisms is fully in agreement with Catholic teaching -- but an area of Catholic teaching which many Catholics are not well acquainted with.
When the writer implies that there is recent full and clear "Catholic teaching" about this, he shows that HE, rather than Eugene, is "not well acquainted with" Catholic doctrine. What we are talking about here is something of recent vintage -- post-1965 within Catholicism. There is no full and clear Catholic teaching about this visible/audible phenomenon. I believe, instead, that the Church (i.e., recent popes) have so far exhibited an "observant tolerance" of what may or may not be determined to be helpful/harmful, of what may or may not be determined to be useful/useless. The Church has a dicastery devoted to overseeing this matter, because it needs to be kept under a firm grip. It has been the subject of at least one serious abuse already, in its few years of existence. There is a well-founded, constant concern that involved individuals can slip into elitism, self-satisfaction, and disdain for the uninvolved -- and that can even go so far as an attitude of disdain for the local bishop.
Those who promote what is merely being tolerated -- as if it were something specifically approved, praised, and recommended to all -- is an impatient person, jumping the gun and trying to usurp the power of the pope. Sadly, I've seen this happen several times.
Hang in there, Gene. You are where you ought to be.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 01, 2003.
"Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 799)This is your idea of "tolerated"? Sure sounds like official approval to me!
"Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them, and by all members of the Church as well". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 800)
Tolerated??
"They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 800)
Tolerated??
"... There are furthermore special graces ... called charisms. Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are orinted toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2003)
Tolerated??
"Communion of charisms. Within the communion of the Church, the Holy Spirit 'distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank' for the building up of the Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 951)
Tolerated??
"The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1508)
Tolerated?? Sounds like clear "Catholic teaching" to me, John. It seems peculiar that "something of recent vintage" would occupy several chapters of the New Testament, the earliest available documents of the Catholic Church. It is true that the RENEWAL of such intrinsically Catholic practices has been brought about by the Holy Spirit in recent decades. Praise God!
Have there been abuses of the spiritual gifts? Yes. And of the Mass. And of the Sacraments. And of the priesthood. And of the Papacy. And of all things sacred. And undoubtedly it will always be so.
"There is a well-founded, constant concern that involved individuals can slip into elitism, self-satisfaction, and disdain for the uninvolved"
Indeed, such possibilities were apparent at the very beginning, to leaders of the Charismatic Renewal itself, who were so vigilant in teaching against such abuses, and in addressing them when they appeared, that such situations never were allowed to become a serious, pervasive, or enduring problem among the many millions of Catholics who have benefitted from charismatic Catholic spirituality.
"and that can even go so far as an attitude of disdain for the local bishop"
A: In fact, charismatic Catholics are among the most orthodox, most devout, and most submissive to authority of all Catholics. In parishes which have realized the charismatic dimension of Catholic spirituality you will find perpetual Eucharistic adoration; First Friday services; Benediction; Stations of the Cross; Communal Rosary; and other traditional Catholic devotions. Unlike "traditionalists", who will have things their way come hell or high water, charismatic Catholics, by and large, are in full submission to the Holy Father and his delegated representatives. A leader of a large charismatic Catholic community, during an interview, was once asked "what would you do if the bishop said that there would be no more charismatic meetings in this diocese?". His answer, which anyone in the parish could have predicted with certainty, was ... "stop". Anyone who truly follows the leadings of the Holy Spirit is faithful to authority. "He who hears you hears Me".
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2003.
Pardon me, Paul-- Is the so called gift ofTongues necessarily included in the panoply called charisms? I have to wonder, because no clear application or need exists for that equipment in our Church now; nor did all the great saints we revere come armed that way. We sympathise with the adherents to this grand charismatic movement. It just isn't very plausible, at least to me.
God is not amused, I would think; nor will He want His Church polarized over something so drab and insipid.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 01, 2003.
"A leader of a large charismatic Catholic community, during an interview, was once asked..."Was this an ordained person?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2003.
Who? ? ? ? Emerald? Slow down, Digger!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 01, 2003.
Huh?Geez, and I think I was Mr. Strangepost.
Paul is making a reference to a leader in the Church, and I was just curious if this leader was ordained or not.
I'm pretty sure you can guess where this one's going.
It's almost predictable.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 01, 2003.
Yes, this particular leader was and is a priest, though many non-ordained persons did and do serve various leadership roles in prayer meetings and other parish functions, as you know.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 01, 2003.
How do you make the leap from what you see quoted from the CCC above to what you practice in your speaking in tongues?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
I see no "leap". the CCC (2003) specifically mentions tongues as a legitimate charism. Therefore everything else the CCC says about legitimate charisms applies to tongues ...- it is a grace of the Holy Spirit
- it benefits the Church
- it to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives it
- it is to be accepted by all members of the Church as well
- it contributes to apostolic vitality and holiness of the entire Body of Christ
- it is oriented toward sanctifying grace
- it is intended for the common good of the Church
- it is for the building up of the Church
Since the above official teaching of the Church coincides precisely with my experience of this charism and others, there is no leap involved, at least for me.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
Paul,"In fact, Charismatic Catholics are among the most orthodox, most devout, and most submissive to authority of Catholics.."
Well Paul that senerio doesn't come into play here. Just read your past few posts in this thread.
The gentleman (Dave B.)that you were complimenting on his Catholic knowledge on tongues mustnot be to submissive to authority of Catholic teaching, because he left the Catholic Church.
How can Catholics look at him as an example when he left the Catholic Church? He must be confused somewhat, wouldn't you agree?[I know he is nice guy] But is this the best you can do Paul?(A nice guy but a fallen away Catholic).
-- - (David@excite.com), November 02, 2003.
"Since the above official teaching of the Church coincides precisely with my experience of this charism and others, there is no leap involved, at least for me."I think it's a matter of you doing what you claim others are doing.
It's private interpretation on your part. There's no speaking in tongues mentioned in there anywhere.
There is, however, a Sacrament called Confirmation. This, the Church has always consistantly taught, administered and profited from.
So you go to the Scriptures and whip out a couple passages, and make your case for speaking in tongues. Private interpretation.
There you have it.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
Dear David,If you reread my statement, which you yourself just quoted, you will see that it refers specifically to charismatic CATHOLICS. Obviously a charismatic Protestant is not sumissive to Catholic authority! Sheesh.
Dear Emerald,
Tongues IS specifically mentioned as a charism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, even though that particular charism is only one small facet of charismatic spirituality - as Paul says, the least of the gifts.
"So you go to the Scriptures and whip out a couple passages, and make your case for speaking in tongues"
A: Excuse me? While I could easily provide well over a dozen scriptures describing and encouraging the gift of tongues, and instructing in the use of the gift, I didn't quote ANY scriptures at all in my above post. I quoted ONLY the current official teaching of the Church, taken directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
There's a massive gap between the miracle the took place at Pentecost and the thing that people now refer to as speaking in tongues. In the CCC passage above, there is a lesser but significant gap between the use of the word tongues and what people now are involved in called speaking in tongues.It's basically open to your interpretation of a single line of a single passage which is, to the best of my knowledge, the only place in Church history where such a thing is recognized or allowable, if you even can call it that. And you can only call it that very casually, as the terms are not defined and there's no real history of definition. Basically, this passage can be construed to mean whatever someone wants it mean.
You probably don't see it, though, that while traditional Catholics are told they are extracting single phrases from Church documents in order to bolster certain positions, which is naughty, that you're doing the same thing here. In fact, it's a worse example of it. We can provide laundry lists of phrases of bodacious clarity, and you have one of a nebulous nature.
I love this line, though, in virtue of the fact that Trads are always the recipients of the boney finger of the Pharisee accusation. Don't say I dug this one up, because you voluntary inserted the jab at us. Us trad pharisees are holier than thou, you see, but check out this bad boy:
"In fact, charismatic Catholics are among the most orthodox, most devout, and most submissive to authority of all Catholics... Unlike "traditionalists" ... charismatic Catholics, by and large, are in full submission to the Holy Father and his delegated representatives."
I can't help recall the passage from Scripture where the Pharisee thanks God for not being like the bozo at the the back of the church because he does this, that and the other thing for God. Like God needs him and he's in the groove.
So if you ask me, what we've got here is a clear cut case of do as I say, not as I do or something unduly akin to that. I'm mean, for heaven's sake, you're doing what you claim trads are doing when they aren't even doing it. We can whip up documents that are as clear as night and day, and we're still accused of it. It reminds me of the scene out of the Holy Grail where the king is trying to get the guards to keep his less-than-virile son from escaping from the tower.
Plus there's the question of exactly who this is being edified and prospering from these unique goings-on, and how, but there's this super-imposed mystery over the whole thing, and I have this feeling that if we asked what this edification is that us ungifted are supposed to be deriving, we would be met with the glances of the knowing. It reminds me of modern art. Some dips a racoon in pink paint and wipes him over a canvass, and stands back and calls it modern art. Now, if we have looks of genuine puzzled-ness on our faces, us peasants, then we obviously just don't get it. Either that, or it ain't art. Give me a beer and some pretzels, because I'm hanging with the "It Ain't Art" crowd on this one.
Exactly what good is the prophecy aspect of this phenomena if we never hear the prophecies themselves? Is it for the good of the whole or the good of the few?
What relation would the special knowledge generated from this phenomena have to the Litany of the Holy Ghost where it says "Holy Ghost, grant us the only necessary knowledge"?
And Dave the nonCatholic poster is fine by me and a nice guy and all, always presenting himself imho with a fair amount of fairness and good intention, but look, he isn't Catholic yet, though I hope someday he will be... but if you've got something more in common with him than you do your own unified flock, then there's reason to stop and take note.
There's another absurdity ready and available there, too. Trads are consultantly called "protestants" as an insult, yet here that insult fades to black when it comes to common territory with Dave the nonCatholic. It's an insult over there, see, but not here. Selective insulting and selective complimenting depending on topic commonality can't possibly be the paradigm of consistancy.
There's just too many questions for any of us, traditionalist or neo- modernist Catholic alike, to feel as though the Church as given this charismatic movement it's wanted sanction.
Not to mention concerns about the sources of seemingly supportive quotations. A Catholic catechism is meant to reflect the Deposit of the Faith. Clearly, speaking in tongues is not included in the Deposit of the Faith. Otherwise it would not have an orbit and period of re-visitation comparable to a comet.
Don't mind my saying so, but it's my own personal opinion that what you're playing with are entities.
A little more snippy of a post than average on my part, but we receive it, so I'm sure you can absorb it from time to time.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
We aren't neos, Emmie; nor are you tradionalist. There's the one Church; all Catholics.The only thing that divides you and me is your divisive heckling of the faithful. We welcome you and the other brethren. But we rebuke you and others when they heap scorn on the Litugy and our Popes. We wouldn't be Catholics if we didn't. The Church is One Body; and dividers cause the Body pain.
Please can that neo label; it isn't true. We are all neos because this is not the past. All of us live in the PRESENT, Sir /
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 02, 2003.
Would you settle for ever ancient, ever new?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
That is quite apropos; since Our Lord is Alpha and Omega in One. We should hardly refer to Him as Omega, with another section of Him the Alpha grade Christian; or ''Trad''. Keep asking and you might catch up with the truth here.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 02, 2003.
"Keep asking and you might catch up with the truth here."I think maybe I'll just dig my sword in the ground and wait for the enemy to come to me.
I'll hand you one thing, though, Genie. You make more sense than any of the other
NeoCatholicsuh, EverNew's around here.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
Is Nuvo ok?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 02, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Paul M.I just got through reading your response to the message I posted yesterday. I must say that you disappointed me thoroughly, but did not surprise me. It is truly a pity how you consistently succeed in posting the most sublime and factually correct messages about 19 out of 20 times you post -- but in that last 1 of 20, that 5% of the time, you post an outrageously ridiculous "flatus" of an answer.
I hesitated for a LONG time before posting that previous message of mine, because I judged that the odds were about 99 to 1 that you would indeed foul up in trying to respond to me. I knew that you would almost certainly have a knee-jerk reaction, resulting in a "wounded-ego" kind of whining, if anyone dared to speak up in any way that could raise a doubt about your personal spiritual practices. Boy, was I right! Even though I broke my back to use the proper words to be precise, your eyes simply "glazed over" when you felt threatened by me, so you were totally incapable of reading my message objectively. Even though I did not actually criticize your personal practices as improper, contrary to Scripture or Tradition, contrary to the Church's Law, etc., you immaturely interpreted my words as an attack on you and the people who share your practices.
Now, I'll go over what you said and show you how you went astray ...
Most of your response was a long and unsuccessful attempt to refute the following comment of mine: "I believe ... that the Church (i.e., recent popes) have so far exhibited an 'observant tolerance' of what may or may not be determined to be helpful/harmful, of what may or may not be determined to be useful/useless." Later, I referred to an impatient promotion of "what is merely being tolerated."
To this, you quoted a half-dozen irrelevant passages from the Catechism -- insulting me by not even stopping to think that I would already be familiar with them:
(1) "Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 799)
This is your idea of "tolerated"? Sure sounds like official approval to me!My response: IRRELEVANT! I never said that "charisms" are only being "tolerated." Instead, I clearly referred to the "visible/audible phenomenon" "that one can observe in circles known as 'pentecostal' and 'charismatic.'" The point, which would have been obvious to an objective person (but not an overly defensive, emotional person) is that the controversial "phenomenon" has NOT yet been identified by the Church as a "charism." The Church moves more slowly than molasses in January. She apparently needs much more time before making a doctrinal statement about this matter. As I said, she hasn't made one yet. Meanwhile, the phenomenon is being "tolerated" and observed.
(2) "Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them, and by all members of the Church as well". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 800)
Tolerated??My Response: Ditto. IRRELEVANT! I needn't repeat myself.
(3) "They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 800)
Tolerated??My Response: You know it already ... IRRELEVANT. Or, really I should say, "very relevant!" because my own comments reflected this phrase from the CCC: "provided they are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit." I retain the objectivity to observe that the jury is still out on whether the controversial phenomenon really is a "genuine gift". If/when the Church formally declares that it is, then I will stop withholding praise and admiration for it. But until the Church declares that they it is a "genuine gift," it needs to be quietly regarded with great caution and ought never to be promoted in the injudicious manner heretofore observed on this forum.
(4) "... There are furthermore special graces ... called charisms. Whatever their character -- sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues -- charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2003)
Tolerated??My Response: No surprise here ... IRRELEVANT. As I made clear in my previous message to people with open and objective minds, the phenomenon of which I spoke has not been identified by the Church as "the gift ... of tongues" or as any other gift/charism. At this point, it is merely a visible/audible phenomenon that has not been forbidden.
(5) "Communion of charisms. Within the communion of the Church, the Holy Spirit 'distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank' for the building up of the Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 951)
Tolerated??My Response: Ho-hum. IRRELEVANT again.
(6) "The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1508)
Tolerated?? Sounds like clear "Catholic teaching" to me, John.My Response: Definitely "clear 'Catholic teaching,'" but TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to what I was talking about.
You wrote: "It seems peculiar that 'something of recent vintage' would occupy several chapters of the New Testament, the earliest available documents of the Catholic Church. It is true that the RENEWAL of such intrinsically Catholic practices has been brought about by the Holy Spirit in recent decades. Praise God!"
Again, you make an unwarranted assumption, unbacked by an official Church teaching of recent times. When I spoke of "something of recent vintage," I was not speaking about all the ancient charisms mentioned in the New Testament. Instead, I was speaking only about the controversial visible/audible phenomenon that is indeed of "recent vintage" in Christianity (less than 200 years in Protestantism and less than 40 in Catholicism).
Whatever the Church has (with specificity) recently described -- or will some day soon describe -- as a "renewal" of an ancient charism is something for which we can truly "Praise God!" However, I have been speaking out against prematurely "prais[ing] God" for something that we don't yet know to be from him (as opposed to being something horrible from the evil one -- or something useless from the mere emotions of sensitive people who have been led into mass hysteria -- or ???). I intend to remain a mature and patient Catholic, awaiting the Church's ruling on this -- not immaturely and impatiently issuing my own invalid imprimatur to it, as you and others have been doing.
Last time, I stated: "There is a well-founded, constant concern that involved individuals can slip into elitism, self-satisfaction, and disdain for the uninvolved."
To this, you replied: "Indeed, such possibilities were apparent at the very beginning, to leaders of the Charismatic Renewal itself, who were so vigilant in teaching against such abuses, and in addressing them when they appeared, that such situations never were allowed to become a serious, pervasive, or enduring problem among the many millions of Catholics who have benefitted from charismatic Catholic spirituality."Wow! I specifically stated: "The Church has a dicastery devoted to overseeing this matter, because it needs to be kept under a firm grip. It has been the subject of at least one serious abuse already, in its few years of existence."
But, in the blindless of your prejudice, you totally ignored me and stated that "such situations never were allowed to become a serious, pervasive, or enduring problem".That is an historical blunder on your part. You need to delve into a thorough history of, not just the good, but the seamy side of Charismaticism.
Serious? Pervasive? Enduring? Oh, yeah!
There was indeed at least one "serious" problem in the U.S. Midwest more than a decade ago.
In the area of "pervasive" problems (i.e., something infecting people almost everywhere), there are liturgical improprieties -- especially some familiar, unapproved accretions.
And there has been at least one "enduring problem" indeed -- the pressuring of innocent fellow parishioners or college students (under pain of ostracism or being considered inferior) to get involved in this spirituality, even when they do not have a vocation for it.Last time, I wrote -- clearly speaking only of very exceptional cases (as an objective person would have seen): "... and that can even go so far as an attitude of disdain for the local bishop"
To this, you overreacted with the long paragraph that begins: "In fact, charismatic Catholics are among the most orthodox, most devout, and most submissive to authority of all Catholics."
Notice the insult? You started your comment with the words, "In fact" -- as though what I had said about very exceptional cases was not "In fact."
I know perfectly well that, if the Church could be artificially subdivided into "spirituality segments" -- one being so-called Charismaticism -- most of the people who identify with that segment would be near the top in such areas as fervent devotion, scriptural study, pro-life efforts, and an intention to be orthodox and obedient to the pope. (That's why I admire them more than most other "segments" of Catholics.) But what YOU need to realize -- by removing your prejudicial blinders -- is that these positive factors ... (1) do not cause the people of Charismaticism to be living saints, ... (2) do leave them capable of making serious mistakes in their words or actions and (3) do leave them susceptible to bestow illicit "imprimaturs" on things that need to be left instead to a slow and painstaking discernment process occurring at the highest levels of the Church.God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 02, 2003.
"...things that need to be left instead to a slow and painstaking discernment process occurring at the highest levels of the Church."They seemed to be somewhat swamped with more pressing matters at this time.
Until such time as they are again ready and available to address the pressing needs of the flock, mostly consisting of things pertaining to the salvation of souls, you may get better results by using one of these:
New stuff gets old after a while.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 03, 2003.
Emerald re Dave Non catholic youve nailed it, hes transparent and honest about his position, I can relate to and respect that. I cannot respect your position as much as I respect.Hi Paul, Ill climb in with my irrelevant 2 cents worth as well. Not much to add though Johns pretty much said it all, I guess the superior tone you always seem to take on this issue gets my back up , but that doesnt take much at the best of times. I thought your comment about Eugene was unfortunate. I think for you to have to make a comparison relative to traditonlists was unfortunate. I was too young to remember well the charismatic movement when it was big in the 1980s in NZ, I think it was called renewal. Its well documented the divisons this movement caused in NZ and the abuses that occured as a result. Personally Im from a generation who remembers going to "charismatic masses" as a young child in the 80s to see the Priests alll of whom seemed slightly manic really giving it.They were high on somethng, the Holy Spirit? Maybe. One of the priests would always yell back to the parish "I cant hear you"when we had to say AMen and it wasnt to his satisfaction.. he repeated this line until we screamed AMEN a dozen times and he was happy. I loved it but then what young boy doesnt like screaming his head off. Ill never foget trying to dodge the flying remote control truck one of the many "props" used as part of his sermon as an altar boy, etc etc the tales could go on. He certianly made everyone sit up and take notice but orthodox etc as you claim, I dont think so. Neeldless to say my experience wasnt uncommon but I can only speak for myself and clealry our perceptions differ and its not my cup of tea.
God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 03, 2003.
"I loved it but then what young boy doesnt like screaming his head off. Ill never foget trying to dodge the flying remote control truck one of the many "props" used as part of his sermon as an altar boy, etc etc the tales could go on." That's got a humorous, visual punch to it. He could't quite explain it
They'd always just gone there...
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 03, 2003.
Additionally, I add this caveat regarding practice:1 Corinthians 14:27-28
27 "If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret.
28 But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God."
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 12, 2004.
Yes, that caveat applies to one specific use of the gift of tongues, the delivery of a verbal message in tongues to a gathered body. But it does not apply to prayer in tongues, either communal or private, since no interpretation is called for in such usage.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 12, 2004.
Paul,When I read the footnotes regarding the verse just prior to the two cited I came to a understand it to be conclusive regarding the practice:
Can you reference where your understanding comes from?
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 13, 2004.
Daniel,My understanding comes primarily from 36 years of personal experience in Catholic charismatic communities and from extensive reading on the subject.
As far as Scripture is concerned, we are told that there are "various kinds of tongues" (1 Cor 12:10, 12:28).
There are a number of passages in Scripture where groups of people spontaneously begin praying in tongues together, and it is apparent that interpretation does not apply to such situations, since interpretation can be given only when a single individual speaks in tongues ...
"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." (Acts 2:4)
All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. (Acts 10:45-46)
"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying". (Acts 19:6)
I have witnessed and participated in this kind of spontaneous communal prayer thousands of times, and it never involves interpretation. Obviously the use of tongues in private prayer likewise does not involve interpretation. I have also witnessed a great many times the kind of tongues that does call for interpretation. When this occurs in the congregation, the priest or other prayer leader is sensitive to the action of the Holy Spirit, and encourages the people to sit in silence for a time, until the interpretation is forthcoming.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 13, 2004.
Paul,Thank you.
I understand what you wrote and what others elsewhere have written and described regarding the practice; however, regarding practice, I still do not embrace it as authoratative interpretation as only the Magesterium posseses such authority and in regard to specific practices has yet to definitively address the topic...
I have not experienced -so I am more of a cautious observer. I see it, I know of it, I cannot deny it exists within our Church and as such have been researching this topic to gain both understanding and guidance. One who knows me, knows that I strive to Truth and obedience to the Magesterium. -- The objective fact that specific practices have not been declared non-authentic does not by default grant them objective authenticity. My well informed conscience cautions me against blindly embracing and following subjective practices that are not definitively defined and led by the Magesterium.
Regarding Truth, my belief is that Truth is clear and authoritative - -Truth does not require laborious and reaching derivation... I may not understand it; however, my required obedience to it suggests it exists clearly despite any specific inability I may have to comprehend the reasoning behind it or purpose to obey it...
On this topic -regarding authentic charasmatic practice I have yet to find anything clear and authoritative? Hence, my caution to accept that not clearly defined...
Here are two quotes I ran across in another discussion that tend to embody my evolving thoughts on this thus far:
"Yet when dealing with spiritual and mystical phenomena, it is wise to keep in mind that we are dealing with the sublime and ineffable, and this does not immediately lend itself to a tidy definition which follows the rules of Aristotelian logic."
"In the earliest days of the present CR movement among Catholics, it was often stated that the Church would follow "The Gamali-el approach". As clearly as I can see, it appears that advice is still much in effect.
Gamali-el Approach: But a Pharisee in the council named Gamali-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men. For before these days Theudas arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:34) "
Daniel////
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 14, 2004.
Regarding the original post, I would ammend the last line to read:If you are a traditional Catholic, you know that your Church was founded in the year 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and it is still the same church.
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), October 20, 2004.
Nick, I don’t know what your definition of “a traditional Catholic” is, but ALL Catholics know that their Church was founded by Christ. (Though the consensus of modern historians is that the date was actually 30 (or possibly 29) AD.)
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), October 20, 2004.
By "traditional Catholic" I assume Nick means someone who is faithful to the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterial teaching of the Church, for without that a person is neither traditional nor Catholic.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.