Charismatics---continued

[Les_Richardson]

Joysong:

Hello Les,
Were it not for discerning in you a real search for truth, it would be futile for any of us to respond, but you have a genuine spirit, and I believe one day some of this material will reach your understanding - not so much to convert you, but to allow you to rest, knowing that the charismatics are not heretical destroyers of God’s holy Church.

And I appreciate your willingness to discuss a specific issue, rather than switch back to defensiveness. Indeed, if all is as you have described, I should think my voice here would merly be an annoyance, no more. I have never understood the vitriol that some seem prone to launch with when I ask specific questions about specific issues.

I respect the article written by Mr. Akin and much of his thinking is valid, but incomplete. What none of us can know with certainty is how the early Christians were gifted with tongues, and what St. Paul’s writings were addressing and correcting. All we can know is that the Holy Spirit cannot be put into our box of understanding, for He is beyond it, and may manifest His gifts in new ways, if He so chooses.

So let’s consider the known number of 100,000,000+ charismatics throughout the world who have experienced in our day, what they refer to as “tongues.”. Let’s assume further, that some in the movement do not use “tongues” - leaving perhaps 70,000,000 who do. Ponder that in 38 years of manifestation, these 70,000,000 members were in error. Where was God all these years, who has promised to be with us and deliver us from evil?

I understand your point here and believe me, I have considered it very carefully. In response I would step back to another aspect of Vatican II, the issue of Protestant Christians. My understanding of Unitatis Redintegratio and the principle of invincible ignorance (that is not a derogatory expression) as expressed in Gaudium Et Spes and by many theologians and JPII himself in various documents is that while Protestants are in error, first they cannot be held accountable for the errors and intransigence of Luther and Calvin, et al. Secondly, while they do not have the fullness of the faith, in particular, our Lord in the Eucharist, there are many who will find salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ because what they do have comes from the Catholic Church. Further, there are many examples of the working of the Holy Spirit in powerful and remarkable ways amongst the Protestants that sometimes give us pause. And there is a great expansion within the Protestant denominations world-wide as we speak, through evangelization and the like. God is blessing at least some of their efforts. Knowing all of this, it is not a surprise to me that a large number of Catholics could be *taught *an error and believed it in good faith and the Holy Spirit has overlooked it due to the relevant importance of it in the immediate term. God works with us despite our foibles. Indeed, the results of the willingness to accept the work of the Holy Spirit is remarkable, and I have said before, perhaps not loud or long enough, I have no dispute with that.

I am looking long-term, I’m looking at the big picture, and I’m looking at what the Church, Magesterium, Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture teaches us about our salvation. It would take several large posts to convey all of it. I tried that and was castigated for it. Suffice to say, where all of this is headed, in particular that belief I quoted from Fr Foster linked from Mysty101, ie. *“Catholic Charismatics believe that God gives the gift of praying in an “unknown tongue” to anyone who seeks it.” *,in that belief is the seed of an equation in thought between Holy Spirit=tongues=CCR, or in other words, as you say, 70, 000,000 Catholics can’t be wrong, and the specific teaching and methodology and practices common to the CCR become ***the ***gateway to the experience of the Holy Spirit within Church culture. And then where does that leave us with respect to salvation? Because we know that the Holy Spirit works within us so that we can believe in the first place. In fact, nothing happens in our lives without the help of the Holy Spirit. The picture is so much bigger than the “tongues” box in which CCR teaching has placed the Holy Spirit. I don’t think it is fair to new converts, those with no Christian or spiritual background at all, to give them this picture of the Holy Spirit=tongues. You say it isn’t so, but it is the one issue that raises the hackles of charismatics, and that tells me how important it really is to them.
I sincerely think we have a problem in the making. And as I said before as well, it is not about condemning, it is about steering.
I’ll ask you, suppose the Life in the Spirit Seminar were to replace praying for tongues for praying for wisdom? If it is not a prime issue, that would be no problem, right? So then why is it?

 

[Les_Richardson]

Joysong:

Whether or not the charismatics are in error about the issue of tongues is something we should never be debating.

Do you really think that any teaching or doctrine practiced under the name of Catholic cannot be legitimately debated? You ought to tell Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating.

It is solely a point of contention for the naysayers to put forth their condemnation.

You see what I mean?

Incidentally, tongues is often misconstrued, wrongfully, as a charism by those who do not understand the difference between gifts and charisms.

I would like to hear how you would distinguish them.

Mr. Akin stated: When discussing speech, “tongues” has a simple and established meaning. It just means “languages.” I agree. What is language? Merely a tool of communication to allow the hearer to understand our thought. It is not necessary to form fluent intelligent syllables of language to convey thought, for this can be done in other ways.
Example: When a babe wishes to give utterance to his parents and communicate with them prior to understanding language or knowing how to talk, he simply manifests pleasant sounds of “glossalalia” to make baby-talk with the parent. Mom and dad take particular joy in listening to these goo-goos, and there is a realization that the baby is manifesting in its own limited way its love to the parent.

Indeed. But do they allow that baby to communicate that way indefinitely? In fact the child as it grows wants to communicate clearly in language, and tries mightily to do so until it is successful. Do you see where your analogy takes us with respect to tongues prayer? I won’t say it, but St. Paul did make the point.

This is my understanding of prayer tongues. If these 70 million people come before God in prayer, have their hearts and minds filled with love for Him, and utter nonsensical sounds of praise to adore Him, who of us can say it is not pleasing to Him?

We can study the Scriptures, the Fathers and the liturgy and get a pretty good feel for it, I would suggest.

Who of us can judge that it is demonic, as I have seen some dare to assert.

I believe there are godly people who can. I’m not one of them but I met 3 missionaries when I was a kid who were so filled with holiness and the power of the Holy Spirit that their presence and their silent prayer in a meeting could shut down anything happening that wasn’t of the Holy Spirit.

The intent of praising, loving, adoring God is what the Lord sees within, irregardless of whether the sounds are intelligible, or are a specific language. Many do not wish to concentrate on language words to form its prayer to God, for it can be a distraction to deeper prayer. They simply lift up their hearts, and pour out their spirits in sounds, rather than remain silent… Well, some people release it in prayer “utterances” rather than tears - but it must come forth in some fashion when one is deep in prayer.

Does this happen when they are alone, or only in the group setting? And are they in control of it? If they are not, I would have some doubt, because of everything else that we know about how God saves us and works in our lives through the Holy Spirit tells us that He never overrides our free will.

Some in these threads confuse this type of prayer tongue with the prophetic tongue uttered supernaturally (though rare) in a prayer gathering. Yes, that is the type Paul referred to that needs interpretation, for the person is speaking for the Lord under His anointing. This is not the same as the simple prayer form mentioned so often by Suzanne, and which is legitimately spoken aloud in a prayer meeting. It may, or may not be supernaturallly prayed, but the person’s spirit is definitely in prayer. This form does NOT require interpretation! She has been correct all along, but many who know nothing about this are attempting to apply their human understanding and a few scriptures to back it up, and are indeed “quenching the Spirit” in their persistent error.

I know this is what is necessary to believe in order to continue in the practices common in the CCR. However, I disagree that it is a done deal theologically. I think you’ve made the point yourself, as have others, including me, that on that specific issue, we have not had a definitive statement from the magesterium yet. The closest I’ve seen is the General Audience I quoted. I repeat again, that until we do have that statement, it is well within the bounds of Catholic debate, and is in no way “quenching the Spirit” to call for St. Paul’s teaching to be applied. I don’t see any distinction from St. Paul between speaking and praying in tongues. Other lay people, including Jimmy Akin agree, as well as some Catholic theologians. So the debate is still open and it is not “error” to take one side or the other on that issue.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Joysong:

It is true the movement among our Protestant brethren gave inspiration to the original group at Duquesne University to seek a deeper relationship with the God and allow His Spirit to enter more deeply into their lives. It was a little more than inspiration. Pentecostal theology comes to mind, in particular the “second blessing” teaching.

So what? Can’t you see the irony of history repeating itself? In Acts 11, everyone throughout Judea had heard that the Gentiles had accepted the word of God. As a result, the circumcised

Jews took issue with Peter, scandalized that he dared to enter the home of uncircumcised men and ate with them! (vs. 2)Apples and oranges. If some Catholic organization(in the making) got fired up about their faith after making contact with some Protestant group, and we found later they were teaching Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide we might try to point out the error for their sake as well as other Catholics less versed. And we would be right to call it Protestant doctrine.

Many of our opponents are like the Jews of old, full of disbelief that God would bestow His Spirit on those outside the chosen Catholic people.

Pretty broad brush there, of which opponents are you speaking?

Could He not do the same today? Could not the Protestants who were pleasing to God have found a deep relationship with Him through His Spirit? It seems so, for it inspired the Duquesne group to seek Him also. Praise God! Cornelius had not

been baptized nor received the sacraments at the time of this anointing by God. It was not a *prerequisite *to receiving God’s Spirit, for Cornelius was baptized with water, AFTER his baptism in the Holy Spirit. Don’t you find it a little sad that in 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit the Dusquesne group sought out Protestants when the teaching was there in front of them all along?

Therefore, those who are scandalized by the Protestants being first to receive this outpouring in our day, might do well to examine their own complacency as the Duquesne group did. They were very wonderfully surprised when God answered their intense prayer, which is very scriptural. Lk. 11:13, "If you, with all your sins, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask

Him."What’s really sad is that there have been many down through Catholic history that have asked and received and it changed their lives and those around them, but because they didn’t manifest extraordinary or spectacular gifts (ie. tongues) we didn’t notice or have forgotten them.

Incidentally, how did you fare with that forum? Did any come to believe the Truth? Or did they persist in their obstinancy, as I suspect. There are none so blind as those who think they have the entire handle on divine truth.

Amen!

 

[Les_Richardson]

Mysty101:

Les,

This article is on the SF Spirit site

I am reposting the entire article, Hopefully this will show you that you have never experienced authentic CCR.
sfspirit.com/info.htm

I’ve read it already. It elucidates nothing on the issue I have raised, only confirms what you and others have said about what happens at a charismatic prayer meeting.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Mysty101:

Amen Roberta,

Private interpretation of scripture is the protestant teaching, which was forbidden to us Catholics. It is still in error to put your own interpretation over that of someone in teaching authority over you(and I certainly do not mean myself, but the Catholic authority I quote.)

And if two authorities of equal ranking within the Church disagree on an issue we are then free to follow either? Do we wait for the ultimate authority to decide the issue without debate on it, or is there room to look at the sources that we have and debate them while we wait for the infallible document?

I notice that Fr. John Hampsch uses an interpretation of Acts that is not universal, and not taught by the Magesterium, while others with equal authority teach another interpretation. If I chose the other side am I not free to express that opinion until there is infallible pronouncement on the interpretation of Acts or I Corinthians, with respect to the issues Fr. Hampsch is teaching? And if I express that point of view, why is it assumed that it is my private interpretation? Is it a question of numbers on either side, or is it a question of truth?

 

[Mysty101]

I hope this is the last time I will say this.

The Pope has approved CCR, and supported it on many occasions during conferences where there was much praying in tongues. He has never condemned praying in tongues. Why do you feel that you have the authority to condemn something the Pope has never condemned, and he has been present for many manifestations?

 

[1_Maria]

From Cardinal Arinze to a meeting of CCR delegates:

“Communion arises from the Eucharist and is manifested in it,” he said. This means, in the first place, “communion with Jesus himself,” because “to receive the holy Eucharist is to enter in profound communion with Jesus … who says to us: 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

The Eucharist is also “source and manifestation of ecclesial communion” because “in the Eucharistic mystery, Jesus builds the Church as communion” and “fosters communion among all of us because we receive the same body and blood of Christ,” Cardinal Arinze continued.

“At the end of the Mass,” he added, “we are sent … to live what we have heard, meditated, sung, prayed.”

“The Eucharist sends us on mission,” the cardinal told the Charismatic delegates. “It sends us also to promote justice, peace and harmony in society.”

“All apostolate in every state of life – bishops, priests, consecrated persons, married couples, the single – arises from the Eucharist and receives strength from it,” he said.

I would imagine that eventually the delegates, if they were receptive to what Cardinal Arinze told them, will be able to help the rest of faithful of the CCR movement to re-direct their energies from ‘tongues’ to the Eucharist.

Maria

 

[Joysong]

Dear Les,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I see the wheels are still churning as you raise more questions than one can anwer with a short dialogue.

May I put to rest the idea that the Duquesne group adopted Protestant theology. They merely saw the Spirit moving powerfully in these brethren and realized with much reflection and discussion among themselves that they wanted, similarly, a deeper prayer life and walk with the Lord. When they prayed, I doubt they asked the Lord for tongues. Indeed, they did not know how He would answer their prayer - they just left it up to God as they prayed together for His grace. God uses infinite ways to wake us from our routine and sluggishness, and if He chose to use the faith of these Protestants, as I said — so what? May many more of us open our hearts anew to God!

Tongues was an unexpected result, just as it was with Cornelius’s household. I don’t believe Cornelius asked God to give him tongues, and he probably did not know anything about them. Why people insist that God cannot give this gift in our day, is foreign to my understanding. And if He does bestow it, it is scrutinized by the unlearned as though it were an evil.

For my part, I have to witness that the group in my area did not teach “tongues.” Some use them, but many do not. It is not my judgment to analyze this unless I want to incur God’s displeasure with me, as though I have the right to question God or His working in another. It keeps those of us who do not aspire to be theologians in great peace. :yup:

As to the analogy of the babe, you are right that they do not use baby talk as they mature, obviously, but I think you missed my point in using it. I attempted to show that there are other methods of conveying love and thought besides using language, and I could have used other analogies. As I pointed out, it is not the words alone that matter between God and the person praying, but the affection and love that are communicated, no matter what vehicle is used. A deaf mute would be handicapped to use tongues, no? Yet he, too, can profess his love to God in his own manner.

What good does it do to discuss this endlessly? As St. Paul maintained, and as I will repeat, it is not tongues or charismata that the Church examines for proof of sanctity - it is the virtues. It is the love in the heart that matters to God, no matter what method anyone chooses to communicate it to Him. I dare not judge another christian - he may be as wrong as can be if he walks in error, but whose sin is it after all? His or mine? It would surely be mine if I applied my own finite judgment about it.

Enough for now, as I have to go back and read your messages again. This issue seemed to be foremost on your mind for the moment.

 

[Joysong]

Dear Mary,

I would imagine that eventually the delegates, if they were receptive to what Cardinal Arinze told them, will be able to help the rest of faithful of the CCR movement to re-direct their energies from ‘tongues’ to the Eucharist.

Again, another negative connotation that CCR members are not faithful to the Eucharist. Is Cardinal Arinze’s address your only answer to providing documentation to your quote below? I have previously concurred that the Pope would have spoken about Eucharist. It is the basis of our communion and our faith.

But what about the other points you insist on repeating - rosary, and social programs. Can you provide the document source, not from the Cardinal, but from the Pope. It is he whom you continually quote in your charges that CCR members are not listening.

[Ah, Mary, you must pray for us poor renegades!]

I think many of us are tiring of your pointless charges. I suppose you think that by repeating it over and over, somebody will listen to it. But it is without foundation, and very cruel.

Mary:

Also, I cannot understand why the things the Pope has highlighted for the CCR, are ignored by people here, who continuously refer to themselves as being ‘authentic’.

These things have also been documented on more than one occasion so Ill just mention three; **promoting the Church, the Eucharist and the Rosary.
**

Joysong:

Once again, you are charging that people here are ignoring the Pope’s message. Where is your proof that they are ignoring the Pope? Where is your charity in making such a radical judgment? Would you kindly document the Pope’s statement, for I have not seen it “on more than one occasion.” I have never seen it at all.

 

[Mysty101]

1 Maria:

I would imagine that eventually the delegates, if they were receptive to what Cardinal Arinze told them, will be able to help the rest of faithful of the CCR movement to re-direct their energies from ‘tongues’ to the Eucharist.
Maria

How dare you say such a thing?? How on earth would you know where our energies are directed???
You really need to take the boulder out of your eye and stop judging the actions of others, especially with no knowledge or authority.
I will pray that you will be open to the Holy Spirit before you speak again. I sincerely hope you find a way to make restitution for all you have said against your brothers and sisters in Christ involved in the CCR movement.

 

[Joysong]

Les,

Quote (Joy): Whether or not the charismatics are in error about the issue of tongues is something we should never be debating.

Do you really think that any teaching or doctrine practiced under the name of Catholic cannot be legitimately debated? You ought to tell Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating.

Correction, replace my word “debating” with “judging.” Until the magisterium pronounces that it is a serious abuse or error of doctrine, none of us have the right to assume these people are on a wrong path. Why do you infer that I should tell our wonderful apologists? Do you imply that I object to their worthy work?

Quote (Joy): Who of us can judge that it is demonic, as I have seen some dare to assert.

I believe there are godly people who can. I’m not one of them but I met 3 missionaries when I was a kid who were so filled with holiness and the power of the Holy Spirit that their presence and their silent prayer in a meeting could shut down anything happening that wasn’t of the Holy Spirit.
Irrelevant. Until we have been blessed with such extraordinary discernment, we have no right in God’s eyes to judge the hidden activity of another person’s prayer or heart, as I alluded to in my quote.

Does this (tongues) happen when they are alone, or only in the group setting? And are they in control of it? If they are not, I would have some doubt, because of everything else that we know about how God saves us and works in our lives through the Holy Spirit tells us that He never overrides our free will.

This has been discussed many times. They are always in control.

Apples and oranges. If some Catholic organization (in the making) got fired up about their faith after making contact with some Protestant group, and we found later they were teaching Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide we might try to point out the error for their sake as well as other Catholics less versed. And we would be right to call it Protestant doctrine.

Irrelevant. Until we find out they are teaching such doctrines, why should anyone object to the fact that they were inspired to seek the Lord as a result of another group’s devotion. This obligation to oversee Catholic movements belongs, not to us, but to those God has placed in authority as our Shepherds. This is why SuZ has openly insisted we stay under authentic Church leadership.

What’s really sad is that there have been many down through Catholic history that have asked and received and it changed their lives and those around them, but because they didn’t manifest extraordinary or spectacular gifts (ie. tongues) we didn’t notice or have forgotten them.

The holiness of another is easily recognized by those whom God quickens interiorly to observe their charity - with or without extraordinary gifts. If God prefers that they remain hidden, their glory will shine in heaven. Meanwhile, as part of the Body of Christ, it cannot fail that the entire Body will benefit from their holiness, for the sap flows through the entire vine, enriching all.

St. Therese of Lisieux was one who preferred to remain hidden and found particular joy in it. I do, too, and would follow in her footsteps if it were my choosing. But it is far better to let God choose whether we are in the foreground or background, according to His perfect will.

Les, I have undertaken to assist SuZ who has borne much of the weight of all this discussion without written support from the rest of us. It has been my joy to help those who honestly seek understanding, such as yourself, by sharing and witnessing to what I know about the CCR.

Beyond that, it disturbs me to have my sentences interpreted with innuendos of alternate meanings that I never intended. While I recognize that words are only a conveyance of one’s thoughts, and may on occasion be hard to understand, it is not prudent to maintain debates about nonessentials and enter defense mode. I sense that with all we have shared with you, nothing has changed. Perfectly ok!

You have wonderful resources to search out the truth, for we do not seem to be the vehicle that God is using to reach you:

• the internet
• Catholic forums, though the laity here do not carry much weight in your eyes
• books on the topic of your interest - there are many
• prayer to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment, most of all

Never have I seen the Holy Spirit fail to teach one who is earnestly seeking, though it may take a little time and prayer. God bless you and give you His light.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Joysong:

Dear Les,
May I put to rest the idea that the Duquesne group adopted Protestant theology. They merely saw the Spirit moving powerfully in these brethren and realized with much reflection and discussion among themselves that they wanted, similarly, a deeper prayer life and walk with the Lord. When they prayed, I doubt they asked the Lord for tongues. Indeed, they did not know how He would answer their prayer - they just left it up to God as they prayed together for His grace. God uses infinite ways to wake us from our routine and sluggishness, and if He chose to use the faith of these Protestants, as I said — so what? May many more of us open our hearts anew to God!

I don’t disagree that we can learn on occasion from our separated brethren. Evangelization is one area that comes to mind, in my opinion. My understanding of the origins of the CCR comes from reading what members and leaders have said, as well as critics. If it was as you say, then something has changed along the way.

Tongues was an unexpected result, just as it was with Cornelius’s household. I don’t believe Cornelius asked God to give him tongues, and he probably did not know anything about them.

Absolutely.

Why people insist that God cannot give this gift in our day, is foreign to my understanding.

That is something I have never said, nor do I believe, contrary to what my own protestant upbringing taught me. Theology again.

And if He does bestow it, it is scrutinized by the unlearned as though it were an evil.

That is why St. Paul set down his guidelines, for the sake of the unlearned but for the sake of the unsaved primarily.

For my part, I have to witness that the group in my area did not teach “tongues.” Some use them, but many do not. It is not my judgment to analyze this unless I want to incur God’s displeasure with me, as though I have the right to question God or His working in another. It keeps those of us who do not aspire to be theologians in great peace. :yup:

You don’t have to aspire to be a theologian to aspire to the first of the cardinal virtues, prudence. As C.S.Lewis put it, in Mere Christianity,* …as St. Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in intelligence: on the contrary. He told us to be not only ‘as harmless as doves’, but ‘as wise as serpents’.*

As to the analogy of the babe, you are right that they do not use baby talk as they mature, obviously, but I think you missed my point in using it. I attempted to show that there are other methods of conveying love and thought besides using language, and I could have used other analogies. As I pointed out, it is not the words alone that matter between God and the person praying, but the affection and love that are communicated, no matter what vehicle is used. A deaf mute would be handicapped to use tongues, no? Yet he, too, can profess his love to God in his own manner.

But that second example raises an interesting point, one I’ve made before, that prayer tongues being a private communication with God through the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t need to be vocalized. If then a particualar priest or Bishop were to insist on St. Paul’s rules of order in parish sponsored prayer meetings, as an example, it would not quench the Spirit one iota, now would it?

What good does it do to discuss this endlessly?

My hope is that some who haven’t posted but just read the posts would think about the issues raised and gain confidence in their own spiritual life and realize there is no necessity or urgency to become “a charismatic” to receive the filling of the Holy Spirit in their lives. But you are right, every discussion has an end.

As St. Paul maintained, and as I will repeat, it is not tongues or charismata that the Church examines for proof of sanctity - it is the virtues. It is the love in the heart that matters to God, no matter what method anyone chooses to communicate it to Him. I dare not judge another christian - he may be as wrong as can be if he walks in error, but whose sin is it after all? His or mine? It would surely be mine if I applied my own finite judgment about it.

Let’s not confuse judgement with exhortation, which St. Paul advocates, as well as searching the scriptures. That raises another point.

Mysty101, for the record, private interpretation of scripture is not forbidden, provided it does not conflict with established teachings of the Church. Of course, that is a heavy responsibility, because before making a statement we need to know all that the Church(Holy Tradition, Magesterium) does teach on any given passage or issue. That’s why I keep researching this issue.

 

[Joysong]

Les,

But that second example raises an interesting point, one I’ve made before, that prayer tongues being a private communication with God through the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t need to be vocalized.

:banghead: Groan… of course not. You might have been one of those advocates of the silent mass, I suspect, where the priest does it all.

When one is in a public action of shared prayer, such as a prayer meeting or even our mass, one prays out loud and does not sit passively by while others do the active participation of adoring with their voices, posture, heart, mind and spirit. Assuredly though, some opt to sit silently in prayer, and nobody would object to that. However, if it is done in a mass, it is not liturgically correct or worthy to be a bystander. Vocal participation is always encouraged.

My understanding of the origins of the CCR comes from reading what members and leaders have said, as well as critics. If it was as you say, then something has changed along the way.

Shall we begin a thread and debate it? Your sources vs. mine? Futile, and not relevant how it began - only that it did, and the fruit is what we should observe as to its validity.

You don’t have to aspire to be a theologian to aspire to the first of the cardinal virtues, prudence. As C.S.Lewis put it, in Mere Christianity,* …as St. Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in intelligence: on the contrary. He told us to be not only ‘as harmless as doves’, but ‘as wise as serpents’.*

I agree, but once we have investigated and found that it is approved by the Church, we dare not place our private judgment above that of our Shepherds and publicly censure the participants. We’ve seen this reiterated time and again on this thread.

 

[1_Maria]

Mysty101,

I’m sorry you are upset by what I’m saying, but all you have to do is re-read all your posts and see the many ways you are driving people away from any sort of trust in the CCR.

Here’s one for starters.

Mysty101:

“Sincere prayer is always pleasing to God—God knows our heart—he doesn’t need our words. This is why Praying in Tongues is so beneficial—our humanness does not get in the way”

Contrast that with what Jesus Himself taught us about praying, in Matthew 6:5-14.

"But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.

Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

"This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread;

and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;

and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.

You cannot cancel out the Words of Jesus, nor those of St. Paul and replace them with your own preferences and then teach others to do the same…

Maria

 

[Mysty101]

1 Maria:

Mysty101,

I’m sorry you are upset by what I’m saying, but all you have to do is re-read all your posts and see the many ways you are driving people away from any sort of trust in the CCR.

Here’s one for starters.

Contrast that with what Jesus Himself taught us about praying, in Matthew 6:5-14.

Maria

You will have much to answer for. I can’t believe you are persisting in this unfounded babble.

You cannot cancel out the Words of Jesus, nor those of St. Paul and replace them with your own preferences and then teach others to do the same…

What about any other prayers??? Your private interpretation is just that.

 

[Mysty101]

Les,

Mysty101, for the record, private interpretation of scripture is not forbidden, provided it does not conflict with established teachings of the Church. Of course, that is a heavy responsibility, because before making a statement we need to know all that the Church(Holy Tradition, Magesterium) does teach on any given passage or issue. That’s why I keep researching this issue.

For the record quote me correctly–I said-

Private interpretation of scripture is the protestant teaching, which **was ** forbidden to us Catholics. It is still in error to put your own interpretation over that of someone in teaching authority over you(and I certainly do not mean myself, but the Catholic authority I quote.)

Yes, you research, but discount anything that does not agree with your interpretation.

 

[Mysty101]

Mary or Maria,

You still have not given any documentation for your claims (other than incorrect private interpretation), nor have you answered my questions about your theory of 2 CCR movements, and under whose authority is the group of you and your friends.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Mysty101:

Les,

For the record quote me correctly–I said-

Thanks for the correction but it doesn’t change the point. Protestant teaching is Sola Scriptura which leads to endless debates over whose interpretation is right, all claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whereas we have the Church to make any final determinations. And that is what I said. However, it might surprise you how few scriptures the Church has had occasion to make a final, infallible, determination on.

Yes, you research, but discount anything that does not agree with your interpretation.

Not really, but I won’t debate the point with you. Most of what you have given me doesn’t bear on the issue I was discussing.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Joysong:

Les,
:banghead: Groan… of course not. You might have been one of those advocates of the silent mass, I suspect, where the priest does it all.

When one is in a public action of shared prayer, such as a prayer meeting or even our mass, one prays out loud and does not sit passively by while others do the active participation of adoring with their voices, posture, heart, mind and spirit. Assuredly though, some opt to sit silently in prayer, and nobody would object to that. However, if it is done in a mass, it is not liturgically correct or worthy to be a bystander. Vocal participation is always encouraged.

And you’ve missed my point entirely.

I agree, but once we have investigated and found that it is approved by the Church, we dare not place our private judgment above that of our Shepherds and publicly censure the participants. We’ve seen this reiterated time and again on this thread.

What exactly is approved by the Church? Public censure? Show me. I think you are mixing me up with someone else.

 

[Mysty101]

As was said in today’s reading
(from a daily communicant member of CCR, who prays the Rosary, the Liturgy of the Hours and whose prayer group meets in Church before the exposed Blessed Sacrament)

Beloved, do not trust every spirit
but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God,
because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
This is how you can know the Spirit of God:
every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh
belongs to God,

We praise Jesus Christ in words and sounds

our most common word praise is
“Praise You, Thank You, Jesus”

I know of the Holy Name of Jesus (today’s optional Feast)

CCR accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and is proud to proclaim it.