Charismatic Renewal

[Portrait]

Do you also reject the Rosary, since we are not obliged to accept or practice it?

Even more important: Are you a sedevacantist?

Dear po18guy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

The Rosary, or the use of beads dates from the earliest centuries, thus I do not think, my dear friend, that they are parallel with modern day irreverent charismatic activities. The prayers embodied in the Rosary were composed by our Lord Himself in the case of the Our Father, and by the Angel Gabriel, St. Elizabeth, and the the Council of Ephesus in the 5th. ceentury, in the case of the Hail Mary, and in recent times the addittion by JPII. Thus we are in very good company with those prayers. As a devotion, with its loving contemplation of the mysteries of the life, death and resurrection of our Blessed Saviour it appeals to rich and poor, to learned and unlearned alike, as Christianity itself was meant to do. Therefore we have every good reason to accept and practice the Rosary, indeed, as the great Father Peyton used to say, speaking of the Rosary, “the family that prays together, stays together”.

No, I am not a sedevacantist, just Catholic.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Your personal opinion is noted. You do realize that the Apostles locked the doors until the Holy Spirit fell upon them? Afterward, they preached the Gospel boldly, without fear, in the public arena.

To me, you clearly express fear. What do you fear that the Bishops do not? Is not the solution to your perceived fear a making of yourself submissive to the Holy Spirit?

Dear po18guy,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

It is not, dear friend, a question of fear, more of concern as to the damaging effects of the CCR movement.

Have already explained previously why I believe this movement has been warmly embraced by the hierarchy of the Church.

We all long to see earnest and devout Catholics in these Laodicean times in which our lot is cast, but earnest and devout Catholics must be rooted and firmly established in the consistent teaching of the Church and the tried and trusted “ancient paths”. A zeal not according to knowledge is mere emotionalism and this will not see men through their darkest hours of affliction etc; it is a ‘zeal’ that will ultimately disappoint as the endless quest for thrills and exciting experiences becomes stale. Many disenchanted former charismatic Catholics/Protestant Pentecostalists would testify to the truth of this, dear friend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Imperial_Guard]

I’ve had experience with something like this. It was an “infusion of the Holy Spirit” by a priest and a deacon. It was not a Mass, though it was done in the Sanctuary which was only lit by a multitude of candles on the floor. Before we entered, we were told of the “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” and the various reactions one can have. I saw people collapsing, bawling (even before it was their turn), “speaking in tongues,” and the spread of laughter. When it was my turn, the priest and deacon took turns praying over me while the other babbled like an idiot…er, I mean “spoke in tongues.” There were also assistants “speaking in tongues” around me as well. Needles to say, I was terrified and silently praying for protecton. Nothing seemed right in that sanctuary glowing red in the night.

From my understanding, this movement started when some Catholic college students went to a charismatic Protestant service and had a Protestant minister pray over them. Soon, some Brothers and priests were interested and had a minister come and pray over them. The movement then spread. With it’s dubious origins and bizzare, fruitless worship, I can’t help but pressume that it is sinister in nature. I do not believe that the clergy or layity involved are sinsiter, just that dark forces may be using these services to their advantage.

 

[Portrait]

I’ve had experience with something like this. It was an “infusion of the Holy Spirit” by a priest and a deacon. It was not a Mass, though it was done in the Sanctuary which was only lit by a multitude of candles on the floor. Before we entered, we were told of the “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” and the various reactions one can have. I saw people collapsing, bawling (even before it was their turn), “speaking in tongues,” and the spread of laughter. When it was my turn, the priest and deacon took turns praying over me while the other babbled like an idiot…er, I mean “spoke in tongues.” There were also assistants “speaking in tongues” around me as well. Needles to say, I was terrified and silently praying for protecton. Nothing seemed right in that sanctuary glowing red in the night.

From my understanding, this movement started when some Catholic college students went to a charismatic Protestant service and had a Protestant minister pray over them. Soon, some Brothers and priests were interested and had a minister come and pray over them. The movement then spread. With it’s dubious origins and bizzare, fruitless worship, I can’t help but pressume that it is sinister in nature. I do not believe that the clergy or layity involved are sinsiter, just that dark forces may be using these services to their advantage.

Dear Imperial Guard,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your contribution above.

There can be no doubt, dear friend, that there is something very disquieting about this movement, be it the Protestant or Catholic variety. One of the most glaringly dangerous underlying assumptions is that today’s manifestations, which resemble the genuine charismata of the N.T., are in fact the genuine charismata simply by virtue of this resemblance. Then you have another assumption, namely that the Holy Spirit is the author of the current phenomena, simply because He was the author of the charismata in the early days of Christianity. Surely if ever there was a need to follow the biblical injunction to “test everything” it is the present time. For if we fail to exercise our powers of spiritual discernment, then we are likely to be lead astray by the charismatic ways of our times.

To their own peril the Catholic Renewal movement completely discounts even the possibility that these contemporary manifestations could be deceptions of the devil, who has no objection to men praying in the short term if he is more likely to take them to eternal Hell in the end.

Your experience, which you recount above, is most unsettling to say the very least and ought to put men on enquiry as to what is actually driving this movement. I can understand, dear friend, why were you felt very uneasy and prayed for divine protection. Many years ago, shortly after I had become a Christian, I attended a Protestant Pentecostal ‘meeting’ with some friends who had invited me along. The whole event was most unpleasant and the preacher spoke for what seemed like an hour about 'receiving the gifts", especially tongues speaking. Worst of all I was asked to give my ‘testimony’ (an account of how I became a Christian) in front of the group, which was very difficult as I was already feeling dreadfully uneasy with the occurence of tongues speaking in the meeting. When I got to the platform, I felt this very uncomfortable presence and the people in the meeting were looking at me with piercing eyes and looked sort of menacing as if they knew somehow that I unsure about the genuiness of their manifestations and beliefs. As you can imagine, it was a relief to exit that place that evening and I was so glad to get back home and to prayer.

People will probably remark that my experience was with Protestant Pentecostalism and not within the Catholic renewal, but your own experience, dear friend, seems to suggest that uncomfortable experiences are not confined to the ranks of Protestantism. You are quite correct, I think we do need to admit the possibilty that sinister dark forces may be at work in the entire Pentecostal movement of our times. How we need to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (I Jhn. 4: 1) and, indeed, to “test everything” (I Thess. 5: 21).

Let us be perfectly honest, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal sits very confortably with the spirit of this present age, which is noisy, superficially showy and arrogantly self-assertive, in complete contrast to the spirit of Catholicism, which is given to reverence, adoration, silence and contemplation.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[po18guy]

I’ve had experience with something like this. It was an “infusion of the Holy Spirit” by a priest and a deacon. It was not a Mass, though it was done in the Sanctuary which was only lit by a multitude of candles on the floor. Before we entered, we were told of the “Gifts of the Holy Spirit” and the various reactions one can have. I saw people collapsing, bawling (even before it was their turn), “speaking in tongues,” and the spread of laughter. When it was my turn, the priest and deacon took turns praying over me while the other babbled like an idiot…er, I mean “spoke in tongues.” There were also assistants “speaking in tongues” around me as well. Needles to say, I was terrified and silently praying for protecton. Nothing seemed right in that sanctuary glowing red in the night.

From my understanding, this movement started when some Catholic college students went to a charismatic Protestant service and had a Protestant minister pray over them. Soon, some Brothers and priests were interested and had a minister come and pray over them. The movement then spread. With it’s dubious origins and bizzare, fruitless worship, I can’t help but pressume that it is sinister in nature. I do not believe that the clergy or layity involved are sinsiter, just that dark forces may be using these services to their advantage.

Please explain just how you came to be at this event in the first place. And, did you make any inquiry of the clergy present? Did you converse with any of the members about what they experienced? And, this is important, did you speak with any of those present at a later date to see if, or how their faith lives changed?

Honestly, it sounds like you attended with a bias and left with a bias.

 

[po18guy]

It is not, dear friend, a question of fear, more of concern as to the damaging effects of the CCR movement.

Concern is fear. Let us call it what it is.

Here are a few questions that I ask you to consider:

Is falling more deeply in love with Christ bad?
Is realizing one’s charism a bad thing?
Is deepening one’s faith life bad?
Is being drawn to the Holy Eucharist bad?
Is evangelizing bad?
Is deepening of one’s prayer life bad?
Is devotion to the Rosary bad?
Is devotion to the Chaplet of Divine Mercy bad?

All of these and more I have realized only after receiving the prayer experience colloquially known as the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I judge the charismatic renewal by its fruits. If these are bad, please inform me, so that I may seek to reverse them!

Conversely, from the content and tenor of your posts, you appear to judge the movement by outward appearance and personal bias that is driven by fear (concern).

You can allay your fears by making inquiry into the movement - noy by seeking opinions which simply agree with you, but rather by speaking with Priests and Bishops who can assure you of the movement’s good fruits. It does not appear that you have done this.

It also appears that you may be placing your personal opinions over and above the years - even decades - long examination of the movement by the Bishops. This is very troubling.

If the charismatic movement is not for you,** do not participate in it!** But why, out of apparent lack of knowldge, do you engage in ad hominem attacks upon it? Have you not given thought to the fact that you may be opposing the Holy Spirit Himself?

 

[arkwright]

It is sad to see the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues spoken of in such an irreverent way in some posts on this thread .

 

[Indyann]

It is sad to see the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues spoken of in such an irreverent way in some posts on this thread .

Agree 100%. Even though the gift of tongues is the least of the gifts, some are treading on dangerous ground by denigrating the works of the Spirit. I don’t think the Lord will be impressed by pretty words and polite colloqueisms (sp)

For those who hearts and minds are closed and continue in their ignorance, I will repost this history of the New Pentecost. Please cease spreading your misconceptions and educate yourselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=J-QDOcDGDWA&feature=context&context=C423bac3ADvjVQa1PpcFORrK0wh7LKXzO2ocLbH-u38uxF3AevJYU=

 

[po18guy]

It is sad to see the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues spoken of in such an irreverent way in some posts on this thread .

Amen! In many cases by those who simply don’t know what they are condemning. The advice of Gamaliel, who taught Paul, should be heeded:

Acts 5:38-39
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
“And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.”

 

[Imperial_Guard]

My above experience stated earlier was part of a weekend retreat with the Society of St. John (I believe) which is based out of Argentina (I think).

I went in not sure of anything, then people started bawling and collapsing. I don’t have much contact with them as it was the last event in a series of meetings. One of my friends who went had strong faith before hand and is the same as before.

From my understanding and readng of Scripture, when the Apostles spoke in tongues, they were able to communicate with everyone regardless of their native language. When people “Speak in tongues” now, there is no communication to be found. I have full faith that the Holy Spirit can, did, and does bestow His gifts. However, I find it very difficult to believe that He can’t yield communication to English speakers.

 

[curlycool89]

It is sad to see the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues spoken of in such an irreverent way in some posts on this thread .

I know.

I have a friend who has spoken in tongues before. The way he explained it is that you know it’s real because it sounds like a prayer. Like there’s pauses where there would normally be and stuff.

My above experience stated earlier was part of a weekend retreat with the Society of St. John (I believe) which is based out of Argentina (I think).

I went in not sure of anything, then people started bawling and collapsing. I don’t have much contact with them as it was the last event in a series of meetings. One of my friends who went had strong faith before hand and is the same as before.

Usually it’s good to have a bit of foreknowledge so that you’re not distracted. It’s hard to be prayerful when you’re half-wondering when you should start running for the nearest door.

If you were to talk to the other people, they’d probably describe a very prayerful experience.

From my understanding and readng of Scripture, when the Apostles spoke in tongues, they were able to communicate with everyone regardless of their native language. When people “Speak in tongues” now, there is no communication to be found. I have full faith that the Holy Spirit can, did, and does bestow His gifts. However, I find it very difficult to believe that He can’t yield communication to English speakers.

Peter had the gift of tongues, and the people listening had the gift of interpreting tongues (en mass).

In most cases it does not work like that now. Tongues is a gift of praising God in “groaning the Spirit makes for us, too deep for words” (cf. Romans 8:26).
Come Holy Spirit, and teach us how to pray.

Like I said in one of my post, there are definitely some people here (I won’t point fingers, but people can fill in the blanks) who I think are scared of the Holy Spirit. They’re scared of being docile to the Spirit, as Mary was or as Samuel was.

You don’t have to be doing something to draw attention to yourself or anything either. I know that when I’ve gone to Praise and Worship, when the song is over and the music is still playing (or in the middle in an instrumental part) sometimes there’s a word or a phrase on my lips that I’ll just sing out (Hillsong songs are highly susceptible to this). That’s very common, and that’s an example (I’d say at least). What you’re doing is meditating on a certain word or phrase, almost like Lectio Divina but for music instead of scripture (although, some music is very scriptural).

 

[po18guy]

My above experience stated earlier was part of a weekend retreat with the Society of St. John (I believe) which is based out of Argentina (I think).

I went in not sure of anything, then people started bawling and collapsing. I don’t have much contact with them as it was the last event in a series of meetings. One of my friends who went had strong faith before hand and is the same as before.

From my understanding and readng of Scripture, when the Apostles spoke in tongues, they were able to communicate with everyone regardless of their native language. When people “Speak in tongues” now, there is no communication to be found. I have full faith that the Holy Spirit can, did, and does bestow His gifts. However, I find it very difficult to believe that He can’t yield communication to English speakers.

Even though it may not be for you, please understand that all that I have posted (post 86) is the gain that I have from receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit as part of a Life in the Spirit seminar conducted by the charismatic renewal. It is a night and day difference.

We should try not to judge the manifestations as they appear in others - we simply don’t know the cross they bear, or the joy they may experience at such an event. Saint Paul wrote of the Spirit praying for us via “inexpressible groanings” There is a thread regarding that. Yet, each charism must be tested, as it is in the spiritual realm. Only if it produces good fruit is it to be accepted.

Yet, we also must understand that any difference in one’s faith may not occur immediately. Some may notice a difference weeks or even years later. The Lord is in charge of the timing. Regardless of how we determine the nature of our charism, the Holy Spirit gave it to us for a divine and eternal reason. It is our responsibility to use it to the best of our ability.

As I see it, the use of our charism is a parallel to the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. po18guy

Dear po18guy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou kindly for your response.

First, dear friend, concern is not synonymous with fear, rather it means anxiety, worry or uneasiness (as is in, for example, I felt deeply concerned about his behaviour). Thus I feel deeply concerned respecting contemporary charismatic activities, as indeed, do many other good people. By introducing the notion of ‘fear’ into our discussion, you are intimating that those who oppose the CCR are controlled by some sort of irrationality and not sound theological principles or spiritual discernment. This is completely untrue, although I will concede that it may well be the case with a small minority.

The problem is, my dear friend, that all of things that you listed could apply equally to those who repudiate the claims of the CCR, they are not the sole monoply of the adherents of the Renewal movement. Many pious Catholics would be deeply devoted to these things, for example many devout people in my former parish had an earnest devotion to the Rosary, yet they rejected the CCR.

My dear brother, please understand that I am not denying the reallity of your experience, but I think that you received this blessing from God because you are sincere and zealous and, naturally, our gracious God is wont to respond favourably to that; “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (S. Matt. 7: 11). However, this does not legitimize or render acceptable the erroneous teachings of the CCR, it just means that God will copiously pour out His manifold blessings upon those who earnestly seek after Him and have a passion for holinesss.

Our, Spirit baptism, dear friend, is received when we are baptized into the One Mystical Body of Christ - “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (I Cor. 12: 13). Since this occurs at the time when the initiatory sacrament is administered, it is obviously not something that will be, or indeed can be, repeated at a later time. Therefore all Catholics have had their Spirit baptism and, according to St. Paul, this is always necessarily concurrent with the administration of water baptism. A baptized Catholic should realize that he has a real connection with Christ and His Church and should henceforth strive to live up to the arduous requirements of his most holy religion. He should make good his baptism by living a life of sanctity and separation from the godless world.

It is misleading and downright error to apply the spiritual baptism of which St. Paul speaks to some faith experience in which one feels the release of the graces already received in Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. A man can certainly experience God’s presence in a deeply personal way subsequent to his baptism, as you have, dear brother, but it theologically incorrect to term this encounter a ‘Baptism in the Spirit’.

Despite Charismatic attempts to elevate personal endorsements of high-ranking Church officials into official approbation by the Church, no such approbation exists. Whilst Popes Paul VI and JPII received Charismatics many times in audience and spoken of them in their addresses on many occasions, nonetheless, no official pronouncement respecting the CCR has been issued. As with liberal Catholics, Charismatically inclined Catholics have a tendency to ascribe “creeping infallibility” to unofficial papal pronouncements in their favour. One witnesses this frequently on these boards on a whole range of topics.

Unfortunately, there is no dearth of Charismatic adherents at any level of the hierarchy or clergy. As you know, priests, deacons, cardinals, bishops and popes have been great enthusiasts for the CCR, if not members of it themselves. That people supposedly well-tutored in the sacred sciences should be taken in by sensational and utterly groundless beliefs and practices is surely a great reproach to this age. No doubt the hearts of many are in the right place and, as I remarked in one of my earlier posts, there is probably a feeling that anything that might breathe new life into the Church and revive it must necessarily be a good thing.

Notwithstanding enthusiasm for the CCR among the hierarchy of the Church, the movement is fundamentally un-Catholic and irreconcilable with 2000 years of Catholic teaching. The tacit assumption is that the Church had lost an essential part (Charismatics would say the essential part) of the Faith, whilst the Holy Spirit maintained that aspect in Protestantism. Protestants, hence, were supposedly restoring to Holy Mother Church her lost patrimony! This is an audacious and clearly false position which flatly contradicts two dogmas of the faith, namely, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church, no salvation), and the indefectability of the Church. Of course I, and many others, are deeply ‘concerned’ by such things and we have very good reason to be, dear friend.

You say that if chaps like myself do not feel that the Charismatic Renewal is for us, then we do not have to participate in it. This is an extraordinary comment to make, given that Charismatics fervently believe that the CCR is the essential part of the Faith. Surely, if that is the case then it is not someting that is optional and every professing Catholic should eagerly embrace it, indeed he must embrace it or be in a state of rebellion and disobedience.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

It is sad to see the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues spoken of in such an irreverent way in some posts on this thread .

Dear arkwright,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This is begging the question, dear friend, since it tacitly assumes that the phenomena that is occuring in contemporary Catholicism is the same as the genuine gift of tongues in the early days of Christianity. That has not been established as a fact, on the contrary it has been shown to be false assumption, since that charism was part of the “signs of an apostle” and even by circa 70 AD was not a normative part of church life (see Heb. 2: 3,4 and note the past tenses in that passage). Once our most holy religion was established in the world these extraordinary gifts would be no longer required - they belonged to the Church in her infancy, not in her state of maturity. When a building has been erected the scaffolding is always removed as it is now able to support itself.

It surely most irreverent, dear friend, to assert that was is occuring in our midst today is the genuine gift of languages.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Amen! In many cases by those who simply don’t know what they are condemning. The advice of Gamaliel, who taught Paul, should be heeded:

Acts 5:38-39
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
“And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.”

Dear po18guy,

Hello again.

To ascribe ignorance to those with whom we disagree is a common stratagem in polemics, dear friend, the intention being to discredit an opposing viewpoint. Thus, for example, the Catholic who rightly opposes that debased sensory material, rock/pop music, is invariably accused of ignorance, prejudice, or of failing to understand the genre, when in fact he understands it only too well, which is why he is so vehemently against it and desires to expose its unwholesome influence.

The passage which you cite above cannot be applied to the CCR, dear friend, although I can understand how you might think it does so apply. The text has reference to the early Christian movement which, because it was of divine origin, would overcome all human opposition. Moreover, the Sanhedrin may find itself in the position of opposing God and thus standing under His judgment.

Now the divine origin of our most holy religion is an incontrovertible fact and all Christians would concur with this, which adds cogency to Gamaliel’s counsel. However, the same cannot be said for the CCR, who’s divine origin has clearly not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. On the contrary it has shown itself to be fundamentally un-Catholic and at variance with two millenia of Consistent Catholic teaching. Actually, Gamaliel’s words can be applied more convincingly to traditional groupings within Catholicism, who are currently witnessing widespread numerical growth, yet they repudiate the erroneous teachings of the CCR unreservedly.

In view of modern day charismatic claims and activities, we surely ought to attend to the sombre words of our Lord:

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’” (S. Matt. 7: 21-23).

This will be my final post for now, po18guy, as it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends. May I thank you, my dear friend, for taking the time to engage is discussion with me this week and may you, and all other contributors to the thread, have a delightful weekend, whatever your plans are.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[po18guy]

It is clear that you unwaveringly oppose that which the duly appointed and competent Church authority has well investigated, has approved, and is actively monitoring. You have failed to state by what authority you judge the Church to be in error. You have produced zero evidence that your opinion is based upon anything of an objective nature. I grant that you may indeed possess information pertinent to your opinion, yet I see none actually produced. I note that you have made no reference to initiating or maintaining a dialog with your Bishop, or other member of the Church hierarchy, relating to your concerns.

Please review forum rules regarding the advancing of agendas, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that you may possess an anti-Church agenda in this regard. I have explained the fruits of the movement as they have manifested themselves in my case. Your response has consistently been to casually dismiss them and contunie your calmly worded but firm tirade against what the Church has approved. I see no bona fides in your posts.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Let’s get one thing straight: The Church has never “approved” of the Charismatic Catholic movement. What the Church HAS approved are (ONLY) the statutes of the ICRSS. The Vatican appointed an advisor to the ICRSS, but it is not an official Office of the Holy See and it has no authority. It is a lay organization.

It is misleading to claim that the Church has endorsed the “movement,” because the “movement” goes beyond what the ICRSS statutes establish, and whatever is beyond those approved statutes has NOT been approved by the Church in any way, shape, or form.

One of the things that is far beyond the ICRSS statutes (and yet is apparently an inseparable part of this movement) is the so-called “charism” of speaking in “unknown tongues.” I realize that not all people who participate in the Charismatic Catholic movement practice this, but it is part of each and every Charismatic worship service. There is no such thing as a Charismatic worship service that does not include speaking in “unknown” tongues. And this practice has NOT been endorsed by the Catholic Church.

If you read the Church-approved statutes of the ICRSS, you could not prove that ANYONE spoke in tongues. In fact, you cannot find any specific charism. There is only one mention of charisms, in a vague and general sense.

There are TWO types of “tongues” (languages) - known and unknown. One is a valid charism and the other is highly questionable. We see how “known” (legitimate) tongues work in Acts 2:
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:1-13[/BIBLEDRB]
We see here that the Apostles were exercising the legitimate charism of speaking in tongues, and many of their listeners had the legitimate gift of interpreting tongues (but not all - see verse 13).

Then there’s the highly dubious “unknown tongues” which Paul mentions in 1Cor. There is no doubt that the early Corinthians were doing this - the doubt is whether it is spiritually valid. Paul never ONCE promotes or encourages the practice - rather, he puts strict limits and restrictions on it (limits and restrictions which are NOT observed in Catholic Charismatic services, BTW).

Mormons practice “proxy baptism of the dead” - where they “stand in” for dead ancestors and are baptized for them by proxy (this is one reason why genealogists owe a great debt of gratitude to the Mormon faith - Mormons do a lot of ancestor research). Where do the Mormons get this idea? From the early Corinthians, of course:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:29[/BIBLEDRB]
Speaking in “unknown tongues” is no more scripturally valid than proxy baptism. It is mentioned, but is never promoted, encouraged, or supported in any way. In fact, we might infer that “unknown tongues” is LESS valid than proxy baptism (which is obviously heretical), because Paul specifically discouraged and limited tongues, but did not do so for proxy baptism.

And the Church has NEVER promoted, encouraged, or supported this practice. Some here have claimed that various Saints and Popes have done this - but these claims are not accompanied by verifiable citations. That’s because there ARE NO verifiable citations. I have discussed this issue on this forum for years, and NOBODY has ever provided a verifiable citation that ANY Pope or Saint of the Church has EVER practiced speaking in “unknown tongues” (but I encourage and challenge anyone to do so now). And, yet, this practice is found in every single Charismatic Catholic worship service, without exception.

Whether we are talking about the legitimate practice of speaking in known tongues, or the dubious practice of speaking in “unknown tongues,” the Early Church Fathers assure us that both practices did, indeed, cease from an early date:

In the earliest time, "the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues, "which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance. " These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign, and is passed away. [St. Augustine, TEN HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, Vol. VII]

This entire passage [regarding tongues in 1Cor] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer takes place [St. John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON FIRST CORINTHIANS, Vol. XII]

 

[po18guy]

David, I know not what drives you so relentlessly against a movement whose positive fruits many others and I have attested to. Are you superior in authority to the Bishops? I can refer you to at least one local Bishop who is active in the CCR.

I do not believe that you have any actual experience with it, do you?

I have stated my peace. I seek not to argue technicalities and fine points, like a Pharisee. I see good fruits.

What spirit drives you?

What spirit?

 

[Tony_Anastasis]

You seem to say that the charismatic renewal came from Protestantism. I understand that there maybe distinct hallmarks of Catbolicism interwoven into your experiencd,

For example, when we protestants receive a prophecy, interpretation or other spoken gift, it can only be from a, member of the Trinity, whilst you guys might have a word from Mary or possibly, even a saint. Is that correct?

 

[DavidFilmer]

David, I know not what drives you so relentlessly against a movement whose positive fruits many others and I have attested to. Are you superior in authority to the Bishops? I can refer you to at least one local Bishop who is active in the CCR.

Then, please, by all means, do so. Give us his name and his See.

This would obviously mean that this Bishop publically practices the dubious practice of speaking in unknown tongues, as is practiced at EACH AND EVERY “Charismatic Catholic” worship service. I presume you do not offer (yet another) Bishop who subscribes to the ICRSS statutes (which I fully support as well).

I do not believe that you have any actual experience with it, do you?

You have no idea. You really don’t know who I am? Really?

I have stated my peace. I seek not to argue technicalities and fine points, like a Pharisee. I see good fruits.

You are content to beat up on Portrait, and actually accuse him of being unfaithful to the Magesterium of the Catholic Church for his opposition to a movement that you now do not apparently wish to defend.

You unjustly wield the club of heresy against your opposition, yet you cannot answer one single question that I have put forth to you. You dare not wield your club against me, because you know that I am right (and I know your name - we have discussed this topic before, and you are now as incapable of answering me as you have been before).

What spirit drives you?

The HOLY Spirit. The Spirit of TRUTH.