So, is Discernment of the Spirits a part of the Deposit of Faith. Do you agree that we should try to discern and test the spirits as well? That’s all I was saying and the Catechism of the Church seems to back that up. Hence, the analogy to some forms of Yoga which has been discussed in forums, Catholic and Protestant is a valid one.
Right. It’s not supposed to be gibberish. They understood what they were saying because they were speaking real languages. This is what charismatics believe happens when they pray in tongues.
Only if you are giving a message to the assembly in tongues. That needs to be interpreted. And Paul is also re-aligning the Corinthians’ evangelical focus: it’s about bringing more people into the faith. So prophecy trumps tongues.
You seem bound and determined to disagree, regardless what others share so I think I’m going to bow off this thread. What I post won’t matter, at least reading through this that’s the impression I’m getting. I feel sad too because I know how powerful and helpful this (charismatic renewal) has been in my life and of course want this for others. I wish you well on your spiritual journey, wherever He takes you.
This is Not what St. Paul said, and I think this is teetering on deceit when you promulgate this error. Within 1 Corinthians In verse 26 he specifies the various forms in which these gifts are produced, e.g., psalms, doctrine, revelations and interpretations. In his usual rhetorical format, St. Paul admonishes his brethren because they are not using these gifts for edification but for self gratification. As he gives specific instructions on the proper use of tongues and prophecy in the following verses (27-33), one of his main concerns is that everyone does not exercise their gift at the same time in the church. Thus, in the case of tongues, he states that two or three at most could speak, and then, only one-by-one, provided someone interpreted.
I have been reading that thread and David has done a great job, as well as yourself in this thread.
Thanks for providing this because in my heart this is how I felt about it. Here is a link if anyone else wants to check it out. baltimore-catechism.com/lesson9.htmI found this in the Baltimore’s Catechism #3
Q. 448. Why are these sign’s not continued everywhere at present time?
A. these sign’s are not continued everywhere at present time, because now that the Church is fully established and its divine character and power proved in other ways, such signs are no longer necessary.
I agree with this, and I feel it is “mature thinking”.
But the whole “Can you verify this is always the case” is not a fair criticism, no more than pointing out the presence of abuses in other areas of the church is an argument against those. The presence of abuses, even overwhelming abuse, does not negate something that is of God. If that were the case then well …
Paul is talking about prophecy and tongues being signs that signify God’s attitude. Signs can be positive or negative. When God speaks to a people in a language they do not understand, it is a sign of his anger and his judgement. Paul is saying to the Corinthians that to the unbeliever tongues are a negative sign - a sign of God’s judgement. When an unbeliever hears someone speaking in a tongue he cannot understand, it drives him away, because that is what happens when you speak in unintelligible language. Paul is saying to the Corinthians that in your childishness, you are displaying signs of judgement on people whose hardness of heart have not yet reached the point where they deserve that severe kind of judgement yet. This is why an unknown utterance in church needs to be interpreted, so that unbelievers can understand what is happening and will not be driven away.
But NOTICE he says he wants all of them to speak in tongues, and gives thanks he prays in tongues more than any of them. What he is saying there is, if someone has a message in tongues (the verb “speak”), let it only be two or three and only with an interpretation. The others just speak to themselves and God (pray in tongues quietly). If everyone is trying to give a message in tongues, it’s a jumbled confused mess. Because speaking in tongues only edifies the person speaking, unless there is an interpretation. Prophecy is of greater import here, and the gifts that directly build up the church. Plus, this is pretty much a liturgical directive. He says previously: when you gather together (and he is speaking about the Mass, since the discussion on charisms is a part of a greater section on the liturgy) someone bring a tongue, an interpretation, a prophecy, an inspired hymn… There used to be a special office of “prophet” in the ancient liturgies, but this is no longer the case. There was talk about restoring that at the Second Vatican Council, but currently the Church has wisely decided not to. He has other liturgical directives in the letter we don’t follow - such as the women must wear head coverings and not speak in church.
When I read that verse, it may mean that or could it be like in Acts, that the Unbeliever should be able to understand that tongue or language as their own?
“In the law it is written”: I find some analysis and references for this verse. I should read up on it before I speak further on it.
But that is the point, neither the Corinthians nor Paul expected anyone-either believers or non-believers-to understand anything coming out of the mouth of anyone one speaking in a tongue. That is why the gift of interpretation was necessary in the first place. If what you are saying is right, Paul would have simply said “You guys are only speaking gibberish. If you were really speaking in an unknown language, these unbelievers would be able to understand you.”
Right after verse 17, Paul says:
So it is reasonable to think that Paul indeed spoke in tongues in private, and if he did speak in tongues publicly, he would provide an interpretation.
All Charismatics would agree that prophetic tongues needs to be interpreted and discerned. So let’s move on from that. Your references to tongues not being needed anymore is being too broadly applied. It is true in the early church that the majority of teaching came through prophecy some of which was in tongues. After a time the majority of teaching came by other means. Still, prophecy and prophetic tongues did not go away altogether for the gifts of God are given without recall according to Scripture.
Could you please be more specific when you speak of Marian devotions, this is a wide subject and not all of these devotions have been authentically taught by our Magisterium. If you are speaking of the Marian dogmas, I could only argue that they have been infallibly taught. If you speak of a personal devotion to the BVM, then I can argue that - unlike the CCR events - these devotions are indeed personal, and these authentic devotions are historically traditional. Again, please be more specific with your accusations of Marian devotion. I really don’t see the comparison, one is a personal devotion the the Mother of God, whom can intercede on behalf of our salvation, the other is a movement with its foundation built on an ambiguous practice of the early Church, that has been promulgated by the CCR without being properly defined.
They are doing well, I think the ash and smoke from the fires around us have gotten to them a wee bit. Thanks for the concern.
I think this is a weak analogy, we asked for - at least I asked for - authoritative documentation of the Church on the subject of these nine spiritual gifts. It seems that you are at a loss. It has been the normal practice of the Church to clearly define subjects such as the dogmas of the Church, or even Marian dogmas and devotions.
As far as the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is concerned, can you provide anything that can verify your statement that it should be used to “refocus, reeducate, and renew” what that “first Church” - which is the same Church of today - “received in their initiation“? This seems presumptuous to me, I have not read anywhere in authoritative Church documents - or ECF’s - that this is exactly what should happen when others pray over us seeking this gift.
Understandably, this is a spirituality that is far different and a direct contradiction of the spirituality that the CCR espouses. Further, St. Benedict was said to have many charisms, although he felt that to being silent was far more advantageous then speaking in tongues, whether it be gibberish or of a foreign tongue.
This is in referance to the cleansing and sanctification of his plentiful grace, which we receive at our sacramental Baptism.
This verse only says that they will receive “power when the Holy Spirit” has come upon them, twisting this to verse to somehow validate your interpretation is disingenuous. Does the Holy Spirit only come upon Charismatic’s?
I disagree, the CCR is part of a package put together by protestants and is not part of the deposit of faith - albeit, charisms are. Your arguments are presumptuous, and spiritually dangerous if incorrect.
Ok, would you deny the ambiguity that the CCR has been promulgated on? I would imagine you would. I try to make apparent the ambiguity I see in the CCR:
Sorry, but the CCR has no roots within the deposit of faith, although, charisms do indeed have them.
I find it strange that there has not been a single Pope whom has spoken infallibly on the subject being debated here - and who it was a non-issue for centuries. Sure, there are examples of some of these gifts, but there is NO examples of the CCR prior to 1967.
Clearly? Really? If it is so clearly taught, why are there so many abuses within this movement? Why is there so few Church fathers teaching on the subject? Why has it not be clearly defined by the Magisterium?
You may say that “many” charismatic’s don’t thinks this, but, I have been told by those within this forum and outside of it that this indeed is the case. I can only go from a personal experience.
It is not part of a package put together by Protestants…
No, it’s not part of the deposit of faith, nobody is claiming that it is. Neither is any other movement, besides Christianity itself. What the CCR is claiming, in regards to the charismatic dimension and “spirituality of Pentecost” IS part of the deposit of faith, and has been since day one. Literally.Well this is a straw man and misunderstand of our claim of what tongues is. We claim that tongues is another language unknown to the individual.
You can’t make sweeping generalizations like that. And if the way they are practiced does not uphold to the Biblical ideal, this is still perhaps better than the other alternative: no speaking in tongues at all. Which also contradicts what St. Paul has to say about tongues. Having something against the gift of tongues or people praying in tongues, actively turning away from tongues, forbidding tongues… this all contradicts what Paul has to say about it. If he had his way, everybody would have the gift of tongues.
So has a lot of things in the Catholic Church. Perfect example is Greek philosophy, which we picked up aspects of to further our understanding of the faith. Yet I don’t see people criticizing St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine for being so influenced by sources outside Holy Mother Church.
They are also allowed by the Church to speak at church. They’re allowed to say the responses.There are a number of liturgical disciplines St. Paul has in Corinthians we we no longer inforce or have changed. The Church has the power to change things like this, since they are not doctrinal or moral issues. This is a rather silly point. Paul explicitly says: do not forbid speaking in tongues.
There are authoritative pronouncements, from the US bishops (several in fact) and what the Pope has said. catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/nonattributed/US_Bishops_001.html and see here iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr/
Traditional Protestant thought is very prevalent in the mentality of the opposition to the movement, I think.This is a bare assertion, and rather a silly comment.
I find it strange that people think the Pope should have spoken infallibly on the subject of an ecclessial movement… of course there were no examples of the movement before it started! There were no examples of Opus Dei before that started. There were no examples of any of the other new ecclesial communities and movements before they started. There were no examples of the Benedictines, Fransiscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelites, etc. before they started. There has to be a first time for everything!
Because for many reasons (none of them good), it’s a subject that’s been largely ignored for centuries and that’s why there’s a movement in the first place.
Yes indeed, it is ambiguous. And fine - I don’t think one would have to associate with the movement in any way. But you must, if you are to be faithful to Church teaching, and wish to grow in holiness, go about with the awareness of the graces of your baptism and confirmation, seek to live continuously in the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit, especially manifested through the charismata. You don’t have to speak in tongues, but it would be senseless not to. Why turn away from the gifts of the Spirit? Why say “this grace is not for me”? Why deny yourself of anything that leads to a more deepened dependence on and love for God? Why deny yourself a gift aimed at helping you to adore and praise and worship God?
So, we agree that the CCR is a novelty, but we disagree that the CCR had its roots in the protestant faith.It is not part of a package put together by Protestants…
Later, ratified by the Boston Catechism #3:
With the Apostolic tradition of charismata ruled out, one must look elsewhere for the origin of these modern phenomena. I agree with most writers whom trace the beginning of modern Pentecostalism to John Wesley. Thus the CCR’s protestant “roots”.
The end of these external manifestations of the Holy Ghost corresponded roughly with the Church’s achievement of moral universality. The desire to return to practices which were suited to an earlier time and never intended to be “ordinary” is antiquarianism pure and simple.
This is silly, gibberish is not a language that I am aware of, I am not sure of your retort here.
Ahh… so it is better to speak in tongues that to be prudent, and avoid the occasion to have the words of Satan come out of our mouth that may be damning to our lord? I truly don’t feel you understand what our Sacred Scripture meant.
So the argument should be “when have these phenomena have ceased, or have they, in relation to the above scriptural citation?” I would say that they certainly have, as St. Augustine and the catechism have taught ** clearly** in the above mentioned citations.
The difference being - in the case of St. Augustine -, that the Greeks were a part of our Church. Your analogy has no merit or truth there. St. Thomas, was of course, empathetic of the Eastern Church, but I am unsure of how we “picked up aspects’ of their spirituality via St. Thomas. Please clarify your argument.
They are also allowed by the Church to speak at church. They’re allowed to say the responses.There are a number of liturgical disciplines St. Paul has in Corinthians we we no longer inforce or have changed. The Church has the power to change things like this, since they are not doctrinal or moral issues. This is a rather silly point. Paul explicitly says: do not forbid speaking in tongues.
The bolded sentence speaks for itself. As far as women not speaking in tongues, let look at scripture:
and see here iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr/
Let me get this straight, do you believe that *anything/] that a Pope says is authoritative? Even if it is outside his office, or as a personal theologian? If you do in fact believe this way, it could lead to a plethora of contradictions. Surly, you are not asserting this idea, I hope I have mistaken your intent.
Right, both Luther and Calvin got this idea from the Church that they were taught at before their dissent and eventual heretical theology, If you don’t remember they were both Catholics. Again, your analogy does your argument absolutely no justice.I would say the opposition to the CCR has its roots in the reformation. Luther and Calvin were very “cessassionistic” (they thought the age of miracles was over, and charisms weren’t for that time). They also took away the sacrament of confirmation, since it obviously didn’t look anything like Pentecost and obviously couldn’t be for that day and age.
Really? The roots of the CCR are not the charismata, they are the actions of several misled Catholics whom embraced protestant theology in the post VII Church.
Opus Dei and any other authentic Order is nothing like the CCR, you are comparing apples to oranges. If a comparision were to be made, I would compare the CCR to movements such as the Joachimites, followers of Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century, the Fraticelli, schismatic Franciscans in the 13th and 14th centuries, and the Molinists (or “Quietists”) in the 17th century.
The reason that it has been ignored - for close to 1500 - years is because that these extraordinary phenomena dwindled considerably and disappeared after the Apostolic Age. The Church had by then achieved a moral universality and was established in such a way that these manifestations were no longer either useful or necessary.
Well, if you are indeed asking me why these abuses happen, I would tell you that the secular trend that our society has progressed, is the leading cause, then I would acknowledge that the ambiguities within the second Vatican Council is not too far behind said progression. Then again, according to most Charismatic’s, I have yet to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit”.Although, I would say “Amen, it has not yet been tested“.