Ask a Pentecostal

[ltwin]

Not quite sure I buy that, The Scriptures are speaking of somthing that is for the Church, and needs an interpreter, not just something between God and myself.

Nooooo. The Scriptures are speaking of something that can be for personal devotion and for the edification of the Church. Read 1 Corinthians 14 all the way through. Notice how Paul says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (v. 18-19). Notice the important point----Paul is talking about tongues in the church. He is talking about getting up in church and speaking in tongues to convey knowledge. In order to convey knowledge and edification, there must be an interpretation.

Yet, when I am alone in my prayer closet or my car who am I speaking to? Am I speaking to you? Am I speaking to a congregation? Or am I speaking “not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”

It would seem to point out the difference between us is the Pentecostal idea is it’s primarily a personal thing, and the Catholic Church teaching that it’s something that is not done alone but in union or communion with the three states of the Church, and their head, Christ Jesus. I could be wrong.

Pentecostals recognize their are different functions to the gifts of the Spirit. Some functions of tongues are personal—they aid in prayer. Other functions of tongues are corporate----it is for the building up of the entire church.

Secondarily it would blow out of the water the argument many Pentecostals and other Protestants have made in the past against the Church using Latin or other dead languages in the worship of God, as while few (at least in more recent years) understood Latin, it would seem to fall under their interpretation of authentic worship languages. As most had access to a Latin/Vernacular missal, or at least had the sermon and Biblical lessons in the local language, they had interpretation, according to the Pentecostal argument.

In the Middle Ages? Most people couldn’t even read let alone afford a Latin/Vernacular missal!

And anyway the analogy is not the same. Pentecostals never conducted entire services in “tongues”. Pentecostals give messages of a few minutes length in tongues followed by an interpretation in the common language of those gathered.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Pentecostal churches don’t forbid divorce, but they may forbid remarriage. The issue is remarriage if a former spouse is still alive. In that case, a person is committing adultery because whether they are civilly divorced or not, they are still married in the eyes of God…

I presume you mean civil divorce? The Catholic Church does not forbid civil divorce. The Catholic Church does not forbid remarriage in the case of a deceased spouse. The Catholic Church forbids remarriage when both spouses are still alive. It appears there are similarities between Pentacostal belief and Catholic belief in this regard.
Iwin:

…Most Pentecostals also recognize that there are some situations in Scripture where divorce is permitted. These would be the Pauline privilege,…

The Catholic Church interprets this as finding the marriage is null, rather than an allowance of divorce in the eyes of God.
Itwin:

…fornication, and adultery…

Please explain the difference between these two terms. Fornication is sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. If the two individuals are unmarried, how is it that divorce enters the equation at all? Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the spouse. That exception is not found in Holy Scripture. With this in mind, is the adultery exception merely the opinion of most Pentacostal churches since it is not contained in the Bible and therefore not a doctrine of the Pentacostal denomination?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure if speaking in tongues would be the evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit as it is a Charism, an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit who wills all or some of these extraordinary gifts as He wills and to whom He wills.

Information for Catholics.

At this point, it is important to clarify that the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catholic Church does not require any outward evidence of the Trinity’s presence with the person.

In early centuries, there was a prayer experience of committing one’s life to Jesus Christ. This accompanied the Sacrament of Baptism for adults. Today, the accompanying prayers for the Sacrament of Baptism include the Renouncement of Satan.

Again, I will repeat that there are two separate, distinct gifts of the Holy Spirit which use what is known as Tongues. According to St. Paul, one gift is considered ordinary and the other gift is considered extraordinary.

 

[grannymh]

Since we are only 9 days away from Pentecost, when Tounges was first seen in the Church, how do you reconcile an “unknown language, with the fact that while the Apostles and those who had been in hiding in the upper room spoke their own (known) language, through the intervention of the Holy Ghost the hearers heard it in their own languages. While the idea or practice of the unknown language is not forbidden to Catholics, where do we get the idea that tounges is this unkown language?”

What you are describing is known as a miracle of hearing. It is definitely not the the same as praying in tongues. Ears are a different location from the mouth.

I’m a bit fuzzy on the whole idea that tounges is an “unknown language”.

The reality is that tongues is actually a series of sounds. Some series of sounds include cadence.

 

[grannymh]

Also since there is so much conversation about the gift of tongues in this thread, I thought it would be good to post from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 12 said of the extraordinary gifts:

“. . . they are not to be rashly sought, nor should one presumptuously expect of them the fruits of the apostolic works; but the judgment as to whether or not they are genuine, and as to their ordered use pertains to those who are in charge in the Church . . . .” When these gifts are used with careful discernment of spirits and obedience, they are “fitting and useful for the needs of the Church”

Praying to God is not an extraordinary gift. All people can pray to God in some way.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t consider tongues “extraordinary.”

Since you have already said a number of times that your gift is praying to God in tongues, it is nice to know that you, me, and St. Paul agree on something.

 

[grannymh]

Not quite sure I buy that, The Scriptures are speaking of somthing that is for the Church, and needs an interpreter, not just something between God and myself. It would seem to point out the difference between us is the Pentecostal idea is it’s primarily a personal thing, and the Catholic Church teaching that it’s something that is not done alone but in union or communion with the three states of the Church, and their head, Christ Jesus. I could be wrong.

I will repeat.
Once people can understand that St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, chapter 14, is referring to two, yes two, distinct gifts, 73 % of questions and unfounded comments will disappear.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Porknpie
Itwin,

Do Pentecostals view themselves as having a faith that is Apostolic?

Yeah.

For one, we take Scripture as it is. Jesus took bread and wine, blessed it, and said this is my body/blood, take eat and do this in remembrance of me, later on Paul talks about eating unworthily and that is why people are sick. That is what we read. That is what we believe. The bread remains bread. The wine remains wine. We see no reason to come up with theories about substance and accidents. We believe Christ is really present wherever 2 or 3 are gathered. Simple as that.

Itwin,

I think we’d agree that Jesus taught his apostles without error. And that the apostles taught their descendants without error. And the descendants taught their descendants. This is the apostolic faith. St Paul exhorts us to hold on to what we have been taught both by word and by what is written.

To understand this transmission of faith - by word and by writing - we can look at what the early church believed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Justin Martyr is clear…that “we have been taught” about the Real Presence…taught by Christ to the Apostles…from the Apostles to their descendants.

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

That early Catholic Church continued to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist … and when the Catholic Church approved the Canon of Scripture in 400ad, they approved it to have a universal set of readings at the Catholic Mass (& for teaching & instruction)

If we could go back to those Church councils in 393, 397 and 405 ad (think my dates are correct), we’d find everyone in the room believing in the Real Presence…and believing the authors of the books that they were including in the canon of scripture believed in the Real Presence.

Here’s St Ambrose speaking at the same time the Church canonized the bible.

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, **how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ **And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed…The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

Itwin, since the apostolic age, the Catholic Mass has always included the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I’m still not clear how one can profess to be “apostolic” and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…as the apostles and their descendants all believed.

Pork

 

[kimg901]

Itwin, since the apostolic age, the Catholic Mass has always included the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I’m still not clear how one can profess to be “apostolic” and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…as the apostles and their descendants all believed.

Pork

Not only believed, but practiced!!!

 

[Brandall]

1 tim 3: 12 “A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.”

Here paul indicates the role of deacon to be exclusively for men that point on at least.

Would this preclude single men or childless married men from being deacons?

 

[Porknpie]

Would this preclude single men or childless married men from being deacons?

No. And neither does it say that women can be deacons.

 

[Brandall]

No. And neither does it say that women can be deacons.

Let me assure you that I’ve never been a part of a church that ordained women as deacons or pastors and probably never will. However, you’re pinning that only men can be deacons on that verse that says “A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.”

An unmarried man cannot be faithful to his wife so could not be a deacon using your logic. Since you’re using the “wife” angle to be the deciding factor in someone being a deacon, that would naturally preclude unmarried men from the job. If someone that does not have a wife can be a deacon, how does this preclude women?

Now I know that JPII had stated it impossible for the church to ordain women, there must be more to it than this verse. I hope to delve more into the Church’s reasoning of all of this over the next few months.

 

[Porknpie]

Let me assure you that I’ve never been a part of a church that ordained women as deacons or pastors and probably never will. However, you’re pinning that only men can be deacons on that verse that says “A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.”

An unmarried man cannot be faithful to his wife so could not be a deacon using your logic. Since you’re using the “wife” angle to be the deciding factor in someone being a deacon, that would naturally preclude unmarried men from the job. If someone that does not have a wife can be a deacon, how does this preclude women?

Now I know that JPII had stated it impossible for the church to ordain women, there must be more to it than this verse. I hope to delve more into the Church’s reasoning of all of this over the next few months.

Hi Brandall,

Did you have a chance to read the Catechism on the subject of ordination? If not, take a look here. I don’t believe that this was a proof text on its own. Have to look at the totality of scripture and the practice & teaching of the Church since the apostolic age (Tradition). Christ taught the apostles…the apostles taught their descendants… and the descendants taught their descendants. At no time in the history of the Catholic Church has there been ordained women deacons. You can read more about “deaconesses” in the Church here.

Pork

 

[Brandall]

Hi Brandall,

Did you have a chance to read the Catechism on the subject of ordination? If not, take a look here. I don’t believe that this was a proof text on its own. Have to look at the totality of scripture and the practice & teaching of the Church since the apostolic age (Tradition). Christ taught the apostles…the apostles taught their descendants… and the descendants taught their descendants. At no time in the history of the Catholic Church has there been ordained women deacons. You can read more about “deaconesses” in the Church here.

Pork

I’m currently reading the Catechism but in attempt to comprehend it, I’m really taking my time with it. It is my plan to be finished with it by August. It frankly is a very slow read to be able to attempt to comprehend all it is attempting to communicate. Additionally, there are a few other books I’ve committed to study in that time, then there is that inconvenient chore of providing for the family etc. Let me just respectfully say that I prefer not to skip ahead at this time.

It’s my belief that JPII was possibly the greatest person alive during my lifetime. Looking back over the past fifty two years, that’s saying a lot. I’m positive that if he had a reason to think it impossible for the church to ordain women, he must have had a very good reason and I’ll come to that understanding in time.

As for tonight, I was just attempting to play with you. The verse seemed kind of a thin reasoning and was easy to manipulate. I hope it was evident that I was being more playful than serious.

Respectfully yours,

 

[ltwin]

I presume you mean civil divorce?

Yes. Civil divorce would not be an issue for most Pentecostals. It’s when you get into remarriage that questions of adultery come into play.

Please explain the difference between these two terms. Fornication is sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. If the two individuals are unmarried, how is it that divorce enters the equation at all?

You’re right. I should have said “sexual immorality” or something like that, not “fornication.” Of course, sexual immorality includes adultery, but it is broader than that.

Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the spouse. That exception is not found in Holy Scripture. With this in mind, is the adultery exception merely the opinion of most Pentacostal churches since it is not contained in the Bible and therefore not a doctrine of the Pentacostal denomination?

Scripture indeed gives exceptions to the innocent party to divorce a spouse for marital unfaithfulness. In such a case, the innocent party is not bound and is free to marry again.

The Law makes clear that divorce permitted remarriage. Deuteronomy 24:1-4, already quoted, assumed that the divorced woman (and her former husband) would remarry. However, this passage also shows that the Law put certain limits on remarriage in that the rejected wife could not be reclaimed after her marriage to another man. (Divorce and Remarriage, AG position paper, p. 6.)

Jesus included an exception on behalf of the innocent spouse. “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (porneia), causes her to become an adulteress” (Matthew 5:32; see also Matthew 19:9). This shows that a married person who divorces a sexually immoral spouse does not cause that spouse to commit adultery, since the offender is already guilty of adultery. Nor does the spouse who has been sinned against commit adultery upon remarriage. It should be noted, of course, that “marital unfaithfulness(porneia)” often implies repeated immorality so this exception should not be considered a command to end a viable,salvageable marriage marred by one tragic indiscretion. (p. 5.)

 

[Porknpie]

I’m currently reading the Catechism but in attempt to comprehend it, I’m really taking my time with it. It is my plan to be finished with it by August. It frankly is a very slow read to be able to attempt to comprehend all it is attempting to communicate. Additionally, there are a few other books I’ve committed to study in that time, then there is that inconvenient chore of providing for the family etc. Let me just respectfully say that I prefer not to skip ahead at this time.

It’s my belief that JPII was possibly the greatest person alive during my lifetime. Looking back over the past fifty two years, that’s saying a lot. I’m positive that if he had a reason to think it impossible for the church to ordain women, he must have had a very good reason and I’ll come to that understanding in time.

As for tonight, I was just attempting to play with you. The verse seemed kind of a thin reasoning and was easy to manipulate. I hope it was evident that I was being more playful than serious.

Respectfully yours,

Brandall,

Good for you. The CCC is a long read for sure. I’m reading it one day at a time over a year. See my signature for a study guide. Shorter, condensed ways of getting the major points are through the compendium, the audio book (in my signature) and through a book like “Catholicism for Dummies”…part of the Dummy series…the C4D was written by two priests. I believe they have written a similar Dummy series book on the Mass. The Catholic.com library tracts are terrific too. And do listen to my favorite Jesuit whether you be Catholic or catholic.

Pork

(tomorrow I start reading the 5 Dialogues of Plato…well at least three of them)

 

[ltwin]

Scripture indeed gives exceptions to the innocent party to divorce a spouse for marital unfaithfulness. In such a case, the innocent party is not bound and is free to marry again.

The Law makes clear that divorce permitted remarriage. Deuteronomy 24:1-4, already quoted, assumed that the divorced woman (and her former husband) would remarry. However, this passage also shows that the Law put certain limits on remarriage in that the rejected wife could not be reclaimed after her marriage to another man. (Divorce and Remarriage, AG position paper, p. 6.)

Jesus included an exception on behalf of the innocent spouse. “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (porneia), causes her to become an adulteress” (Matthew 5:32; see also Matthew 19:9). This shows that a married person who divorces a sexually immoral spouse does not cause that spouse to commit adultery, since the offender is already guilty of adultery. Nor does the spouse who has been sinned against commit adultery upon remarriage. It should be noted, of course, that “marital unfaithfulness(porneia)” often implies repeated immorality so this exception should not be considered a command to end a viable,salvageable marriage marred by one tragic indiscretion. (p. 5.)

I meant to add to all of this another quote from the same document, p. 6-7:

*It is sometimes recognized that Jesus’ exceptions do indeed allow divorce for “marital uncleanness.” But it is then argued that such a divorce still does not sever the marital bond, or give any right to dissolve it. Therefore, on this view, remarriage by the innocent party is still adultery. However,Jesus never made such a statement; and in Matthew 19:9, He assumes the man will remarry. The verse deals with divorce and remarriage; the laws of grammar make the exceptive clause apply to both. The Greek word for “divorce (apoluō)” is used in the Deuteronomy passage to which Jesus referred in Matthew 5:31 and Mark 10:2-12. In the Deuteronomy passage, the “divorcing” clearly dissolved the marriage bond. Jesus did not change the nature of divorce as the dissolution of marriage. He simply threw out all excuses, reasons, or causes except “marital uncleanness (porneia).”

Moreover, this view is difficult to maintain in light of other passages that emphasize the conjugal rights and obligations of husbands and wives (as in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5). Most Protestants therefore have understood that the exceptions spoken by Jesus do indeed provide for remarriage and free the innocent party of any charge of adultery. But, in no case does Jesus command divorce or remarriage. They are merely permitted under this condition.*

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…in Matthew 19:9, He assumes the man will remarry.

In Matthew 19:10 the disciples respond by saying that if that is the case (what he defined in verse 9), it would be better not to marry. There is no mention of assumption of remarrying. Jesus responds in verse 11 that not all can accept what he had just stated in verse 9. Jesus didn’t refute what the disciples said about it being better not to marry. Jesus was confirming that it is a hard teaching for people to accept.

Regarding the passage you provided from Deuteronomy, Jesus states in Matthew 19:8 that divorce was permitted out of hardness of man’s hearts, not by some decree from God.

Marriage is not dissolvable by men per Jesus’ teaching. The implication that an act by a man by being unfaithful contradicts that. Therefore, the use of the English term “fornication” to translate “pornea” makes more sense than “marital unfaithfulness” since fornication is sexual relations between unmarried persons. In other words, an unlawful marriage (therefore null) in the eyes of God.

 

[ltwin]

In Matthew 19:10 the disciples respond by saying that if that is the case (what he defined in verse 9), it would be better not to marry. There is no mention of assumption of remarrying. Jesus responds in verse 11 that not all can accept what he had just stated in verse 9. Jesus didn’t refute what the disciples said about it being better not to marry. Jesus was confirming that it is a hard teaching for people to accept.

The fact that Jesus’ teaching was hard for religious Jews at the time to accept has nothing to do with the exception that Jesus allowed.

In verse 3, the Pharisees ask, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife** for any and every reason**?”

Jesus answers in verse 6, “what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The Pharisees then ask in verse 7, “‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’”

Jesus responds in verse 8, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

But then in the sentence right after that in verse 9 Jesus said, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples then say, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry” in verse 10. To which Jesus replies, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.”

So you see, Jesus does away with the “any and all reasons” approach to divorce that the Pharisees were advocating. But he did not remove all exceptions. He left in place the provision for the victim of adultery to divorce and remarry without guilt.

Regarding the passage you provided from Deuteronomy, Jesus states in Matthew 19:8 that divorce was permitted out of hardness of man’s hearts, not by some decree from God.

Yes, but even so it is permitted. Jesus further tightened these restrictions, commanding that the only grounds for divorce is adultery.

Marriage is not dissolvable by men per Jesus’ teaching. The implication that an act by a man by being unfaithful contradicts that. Therefore, the use of the English term “fornication” to translate “pornea” makes more sense than “marital unfaithfulness” since fornication is sexual relations between unmarried persons. In other words, an unlawful marriage (therefore null) in the eyes of God.

This position contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture!

 

[grannymh]

Tiny comment on your signature
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:18)

I often reference chapter 14, Gospel of John as a sign that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ.