Detecting FAKE Tongues in Charismatic

[TTM]

Now, to answer some of your claims:

If the Holy See has approved it and given it its blessing, I do not see what the problem is.

Show me how and where the Holy Father approved this movement, its teachings and practices. You cannot, because this simply does not exist. What the Holy Father said did not relate to the Charismatic Movement as you have been led to believe.

I’d like to quote what has been posted before by Pani Rose in post #140:
Pope John Paul II:

TO GROUP OF RENEWAL IN THE HOLY SPIRIT Pope John Paul II
CHARISMATIC RENEWAL IS GIFT TO THE CHURCH

…Yes! The Renewal in the Spirit can be considered a special gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in our time. Born in the Church and for the Church, your movement is one in which, following the light of the Gospel, the members experience the living encounter with Jesus, fidelity to God in personal and community prayer, confident listening to his Word and a vital rediscovery of the Sacraments, not to mention courage in trials and hope in hardship.

Love for the Church and submission to her Magisterium, in a process of maturing in the Church supported by a solid permanent formation are relevant signs of your intention to avoid the risk of favouring, unwittingly, a purely emotional experience of the divine, an excessive pursuit of the “extraordinary” and a private withdrawal that may shrink from apostolic outreach.

… In our time that is so hungry for hope, make the Holy Spirit known and loved. Help bring to life that “culture of Pentecost”, that alone can make fruitful the civilization of love and friendly coexistence among peoples. With fervent insistence, never tire of praying “Come Holy Spirit! Come! Come!”.

May the Blessed Mother of Christ and of the Church, the Virgin at prayer in the Upper Room, always be with you! May the Blessing I cordially impart to you, and to all the members of Renewal of the Holy Spirit, also go with you!

So again, I’ll say, “if the Holy See has approved it and given it its blessing, I do not see what the problem is”.

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

And with regard to the Prodigal Son analogy, you stated:

Well of course, but just think for a minute, the Father runs outside to take the prodigal son into His house. The prodigal son is already! on his way to the FatherÕs house. The Father does not go down to the foreign land and does not enter the sty where the prodigal son has been residing. If we use your analogyÉ then the Catholic clergy and religious went down to the sty to get anointed by the prodigal son. See how ludicrous this analogy is?

I used this analogy with the awareness that Protestants do not necessarily seek to join the Catholic Church. The analogy is still valid, however, since in the eyes of the Father, the Protestant Christians of today cannot be charged with the sins of separation, and so are given back their sonship, as in Luke 15:22 (“But the father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet”), as also the Catechism states:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . .Ê.Ê. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

So I would suggest that the analogy is still a very good one.

 

[TTM]

I’m afraid I would not be able to post anything substantial for a while. I must concentrate on my studies. In the mean while, I humbly ask you all to present your arguments without belittling others.

As Saint Augustine said,
“Love, and do what you like.”

God bless you all,
TTM

 

[TTM]

A HARVARD BOOK BY PHILO

ÒOn The Confusion Of TonguesÓ

A Harvard linguistic study included over ten thousand incidents of modern tongues speaking. They listed several reasons why they came to the conclusion that modern tongues speaking is not an actual language…

That’s a good one (looks objective enough). Can you post the link to this study, which would allow for further analysis of this?

God bless,
TTM

 

[tru_dvotion]

TTM,

This may well be the case, but can not be sure, can we? I’ll throw back to you your own question in a modified form. “If somebody could converse in the language of angels, how would you disprove it?”.We know that if he spoke in the tongues of Angels, it would be the equivalent of “resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” - in other words, an incomprehensible noise.

This is a stupid argument. No such thing is on this Earth. God never dealt with humanity in such an oblique way, it was always direct and clear to understand. Jesus was of lowly birth, born in a manger, he was clear and precise in his doctrine. The angels are God’s messengers, pure and simple. Mankind has nothing to do with their language. This is new age nonsense, and nothing more. But you are also wrong in your analogy. A clashing cymbal is not “incomprehensible” as you call it. There is nothing incomprehensible about it. Its noisy and it conges empty.

I do see your point though, regarding II Cor 12:4, which you quoted as, “caught up to Paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter”. I was intrigued, and looked up the passage in other translations, and here they are:

RSV:
“and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.”

**Explanation: man should NOT utter it. **

ASV:
“how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

Explanation: it is not lawful for man to utter.

BBE:
“How he was taken up into Paradise, and words came to his ears which may not be said, and which man is not able to say.”

Explanation: which may not be said, and which man may not able to say.

BWE:
“This man heard things which cannot be told. No person on earth can speak them.”

Explanation: cannot be told. No person on earth can speak them.

KJV:
“How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

**Explanation: unspeakable words, which is not lawful for man to utter. **

continued

 

[tru_dvotion]

So, based on the above passages, it would seem that BBE and BWE are similar to your translation, but the RSV, ASV, and the KJV (which are the more literal translations, I think) clarifies the meaning of this passage, and that is that the words that came to his ears were not “one that must be beyond the capacity of human beings to reproduce or to communicate with”, as you say, but rather it would be “unlawful” to do so.

Does it make any difference if it was beyond human capacity or unlawful to do? Are you saying is it possible? It is clearly NOT, but than why would you do something which is UNLAWFUL according to Paul? You condemn your whole reasoning with that, because really… there is no way out of this one.

The Family Bible notes explains this passage as follows:

“12 4 Paradise; the place of celestial blessedness. From the Scriptures, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we may learn as much about heaven as it is best we should know while on earth. We should therefore be contented with, and grateful for our present means of information, and so use them as to become wise to salvation, and thus be prepared to grow in the knowledge, holiness, and bliss of heaven for ever. De 29:29, 1Co 2:9,”

So be grateful for what you know and do not seek the far and beyond, but live your life to the best of your ability.

So, it would seem that the passage you have referred us to is not talking about the ability to reproduce their speech, but rather the obligation placed on a human person not to pass on the information in this circumstance.

Information? If that is all you got out of these passages, you so carefully researched, you are as blind as a bat.

I may quote back to you what you have said to me at this point. “This is the problem with interpreting Bible passages in isolation. First of all, the translation may vary; second, the part you are referring to contains only part of the picture and not the whole picture.”

**You did not get what I said with the above statement. Interpreting Bible passages in isolation means simply, that you fail to look at other passages, aside from the occasional variations occurring between different translations. You do not have to look at different translations, you look at other passages in the same translation and you cross reference and check out the meaning that way. What you have done makes little sense, (looking at different translations of the same passage), unless one is conducting an in debt study.) But you cannot ignore passages that seem to contradict, because they serve as a guide, a sort of measure to arrive at the true intent of the passage in question. **

 

[tru_dvotion]

Regarding my statement: The Bible does not command us to edify ourselves. Self-edification is a negative thing (Romans 15:2-3; 1 Corinthians 10:23-24; 10:33; 13:5).

This is not an exhortation to speak in tongues in order to communicate to God. It is rather a rebuke for speaking publicly in a language that no one understands, for the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is public speaking. Yes, it does become a rebuke afterwards, but at this point it is only descriptive.

What becomes descriptive? 1 Corinthians 14? I do not think so.

---

Quoteictionary.com defines edification as follows:

Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.

Edification is given this, self-edification can not be a negative thing in itself. That is why Paul speaks in tongues (1 Cor 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all), and wants everyone to do the same. However, what Paul is saying is that if the gifts get in the way of the edification of others, or if the edification of the Church is neglected, it would a bad thing. Romans 15:2-3 which you point to, does not rebuke edification itself (because it is intrinsically a good thing), but pleasing himself at the expense of the edification of the Church. The same goes for 1 Corinthians 10:23-24.

There is a BIG difference between edification, one being edified, say by enlightenment, private study, contemplation and prayer, and between edifying the self. You do not seem to comprehend the difference, which makes your whole reasoning faulty.

 

[tru_dvotion]

As I have stated, the gifts have to be used in the right way. The gift of tongues are not intrinsically bad. Quite the opposite. But, we must use them wisely.

You cannot use something the right way which no longer exists. Or have you not heard? Biblical tongues have ceased to exist.

There are two separate issues here:

1. The validity of the Charismatic Renewal
2. The correct use of Charisms

This one and the same. In order for the renewal to be valid, the charisms have to be valid as well, since the entire renewal is based on a pseudo sacrament, which distributes the said charisms.

Tru_dvotion, you seem to use the second point to invalidate the first. This does not work. As we have already stated, the abuses of any gifts do not invalidate the work of the Holy Spirit. Let me quote what MarkerTeacher has already stated on this (see post #101):

Quote: Again, the Pope has addressed and continues to address various abuses in ALL lay apostolate movements. Abuses within a movement do not invalidate the entire movement any more than a few perverted priests destroy the entire Catholic Church.

**That would be a correct statement, if the gifts were genuine. But since we are not talking about genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit, but in fact these gifts come either from a false spirit or from people’s vivid imagination, it hardly applies. Besides, this statement cannot validate each and every movement in the Church, because if that was the case, the Church would be in greater peril than it really is. And since when do we quote Marker Teacher as a credible source? **

---

I shall continue later.

 

[tru_dvotion]

*Regarding the “off-topic” copyright issue (which is no longer so off-topic), *****

Carry on TTM, go right ahead and carry on if this gives you satisfaction.

*I proposed reconciliation for two reasons.

1. I felt that your bias was perhaps due to some negativity coming from our part. The objective of reconcilliation, as I said, was to enable a dialogue where we could “…pursue an objective dialogue, where the aim is not to force one’s views onto the other party, but to find the Will of God for us, his Church”*

**This would be an amazing proposal TTM, except for one very big oversight. I have no personal issue with the renewal, or anybody in it, except for the damage it has done to the Church. I doubt it very much you have the capacity, or any individual would have the capacity, to facilitate what you are proposing. Regarding God’s word, I have been trying to show you how utterly unbiblical and contrary to God’s word your renewal truly is. But so far, all you were able to come up with is in support of what I have been trying to tell you in the first place. Matter of interpretation? Hardly possible, if you refuse to stay with the true definitions of the spoken word and alter its meaning! For instance, edification and self edification are two very different words, yet, you are unable to differentiate between these two. **

*This, after you have accused us of lacking in humility: *

I wrote: "Are charismatics really more authentic than most Catholics? I would really like to meet any charismatic who faithfully follows the Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis, or the True Devotion to Mary, according to St Louis de Monfort. The truth is, to follow any of these devotions requires far more humility and obedience than a charismatic would be willing to give."

---

TTM, you come up with one individual, who is actively participating in the Charismatic Renewal, and is faithfully, meeting the daily requirement of either one of the above devotions. Both cannot be done TTM, because doctrinally these devotions contradict the renewal. There is nothing smug about this observation, and I challenge you to consider following either and then tell me if my observation was correct. It is, but since you are on unfamiliar territory, you accuse me of smugness. Learn TTM, learn!

Regarding the Holy See approving the renewal, you quoted Pani Rose’s speech. I red that TTM, remember? I posted an entire interview with the Holy Father’s theologian in response, and with references. Obviously, the content escaped your understanding.
So again, I’ll say, “if the Holy See has approved it and given it its blessing, I do not see what the problem is”.*

Well, I do. This speech neither proves nor disproves the renewal. It is just a speech. Plus, he may not even had a hand in writing it. Read the interview!

 

[tru_dvotion]

And with regard to the Prodigal Son analogy:

I used this analogy with the awareness that Protestants do not necessarily seek to join the Catholic Church. The analogy is still valid, however, since in the eyes of the Father, the Protestant Christians of today cannot be charged with the sins of separation, and so are given back their sonship, as in Luke 15:22 (“But the father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet”), as also the Catechism states: 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . .Ê.Ê. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

**TTM, you are doing it again, quoting out of context. My analogy with the prodigal son had nothing to do with Protestants chance for salvation. Of course, Protestants have a chance to go to heaven. But this does not negate what you left out: my quote from the same Catechism which also states: **

“Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic Church: “The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: ‘For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.’” Pg. 215, #816

**Let’s look at it another way. #818 states, Protestants are also incorporated into the Body of Christ. So if we look to # 818 IN ISOLATION, your assertion could be correct. But we cannot look to # 818 in isolation. In order, for your assertion to be correct, it should not contradict # 816 either. But it does. There is a difference where we go for grace, or where that “anointing” originates. There is not even a hint in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Protestant denominations are on equal footing with the Catholic Church. In fact, the opposite is explicitly spelled out in # 816!

**Furthermore, t****he 1994 catechism reaffirms the existing teaching of Vatican II, that salvation can be obtained only through the Roman Catholic Church. The catechism leaves no doubt that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation: “…all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…” Pg. 224, #846

 

[tru_dvotion]

Past popes have taught this doctrine, as have previous catechisms and church fathers. But here is a recent example… On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth in Damascus that “you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ.” Although, this was a speech , this statement deals with Doctrine! So this comment is important!

**The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church ALONE, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.” **

(846) How are we to understand this? This means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (Page 244)”

**So in other words, the Catholic Church is the one true church, it contains all the graces necessary for salvation and though other Christian denominations do contain some truth, they do not contain all truth, as the Catholic Church does. **

---

**So I am asking again: **

---

Why go to a vastly inferior source? This goes against not only logic, but it also violates Catholic Scripture and Catholic Tradition.** For us to go to Protestant sects for anointing and for learning is utterly ludicrous!**

---

 

[tru_dvotion]

TTM:

That’s a good one (looks objective enough). Can you post the link to this study, which would allow for further analysis of this?

You have to request it and pay for it. I posted all that was available to quote on line.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

tru_dvotion:

Catholic4aReasn:

Huh??

Nancy

**, **

**Obviously you were not around during the sixties when Catholics, including many nuns, left the Church in large numbers for Pentecostal denominations. Even today, new converts to the CCM complain bitterly of “dead” Sunday liturgies. **

Coulda been around if it was after 1965.

I thought you were making that blanket statement about Catholic worship being lifeless without tongues. Didn’t know you were speaking about a minority opinion.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[tru_dvotion]

TTM:

I’m afraid I would not be able to post anything substantial for a while. I must concentrate on my studies. In the mean while, I humbly ask you all to present your arguments without belittling others.

Studies? Am I conversing with a child, a teenager or a very young adult? If that is the case, I wish I knew…

**I am afraid; it would have taken an iron will to respond to YOUR belittling posts without loosing one’s patience… And I certainly have lost mine! But I was under the impression I was conversing with an adult, and not a young person, who is perhaps at an age when he/she thinks he/she knows everything better than anyone else. **So sorry TTM! I like young people very much, but I do not take what they say terribly seriously. I am 55 years old and have seen much in the world, in my Church, in different countries around the world. If I knew you were a young person, I would not have embarked with you on this dialogue. Feel free to respond… I will not, not unless you reassure me, you are not really a young pup. God Bless!

 

[tru_dvotion]

Catholic4aReasn:

Coulda been around if it was after 1965.

I thought you were making that blanket statement about Catholic worship being lifeless without tongues. Didn’t know you were speaking about a minority opinion.

I was quoting charismatics about the mass. Charismatics, thankfully, are still a minority, so I suppose it would apply.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

tru_dvotion:

Catholic4aReasn:

Coulda been around if it was after 1965.

I thought you were making that blanket statement about Catholic worship being lifeless without tongues. Didn’t know you were speaking about a minority opinion.

I was quoting charismatics about the mass. Charismatics, thankfully, are still a minority, so I suppose it would apply.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I pray in tongues and don’t find Mass to be the slightest bit lifeless.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[TTM]

you are as blind as a bat.

This is a stupid argument.

There is no need to result to ad hominem attacks and derogatory comments. In fact, you have an obligation to converse in a fair and respectable manner. I have tried to do this, to the best of my ability. If you can quote me anywhere which indicates that I had not done so, as you claim, please point them out. I think you’ll find that all of my comments were fair and not uncalled for.

So far, you are doing a good job in providing a counter-testimony to your own position, by the manner in which you act. All the Charismatics I have met so far testified to the validity of the movement by the way in which they live out their life, preaching the Gospel without words. Although the manner in which you act does not invalidate your position, it does speak volumes.

I am afraid; it would have taken an iron will to respond to YOUR belittling posts without loosing one’s patience… And I certainly have lost mine! But I was under the impression I was conversing with an adult, and not a young person, who is perhaps at an age when he/she thinks he/she knows everything better than anyone else. So sorry TTM! I like young people very much, but I do not take what they say terribly seriously. I am 55 years old and have seen much in the world, in my Church, in different countries around the world. If I knew you were a young person, I would not have embarked with you on this dialogue. Feel free to respond… I will not, not unless you reassure me, you are not really a young pup. God Bless!

Yes, I am a student, studying at a post-graduate level. It matters not how old I am. If the arguments I present are valid, you have an obligation to reply fairly. And no, I do not think that I “know better than anyone else”. Like I have said previously, my only concern is to find the truth of the matter. If the Charismatic Renewal is not valid, I would stop being involved in it, and actively discourage people from taking part in it.

God bless you, as always,
TTM

 

[Pani_Rose]

Personally, I am concerned because Tru_devotin seems to have such anger concerning this matter or towards someone involved with it. I believe this is the underlying cause of all she has said, even though she is trying to be objective in the way she presents her criticism. I have not posted because I fell she does not have ears to hear or eyes to see, doing so, she is missing a great treasure in the life of the Church. So no matter what is said, or how it is said, there will not be a resonalbe view from her, only an attitude of I’ll show them.

After 25 years in the Charismatic Renewal, I can only thank God for it. See, Jesus didn’t do one and then the other. When he brought us into the Church, God did both at the same time. The priest guided us through learning about the Church and the fullness of all the Holy Spirit desires to give us at the same time. He gave us awesome men and women of God, to teach us faith, love, and service. Devotion to Eucharist, Mary, and all the saints. To live the fullness of the Church that it has to offer. My husband is a deacon now, too. As we began attending Church, we began attending the praryer meetings. So Charismatic Renewal has always been a vital part of our life and work whether we were living in Steubenville or Irondale. The Church and it’s Renewal are how Jesus has led us.

Pani Rose

 

[tru_dvotion]

Pani Rose:

Personally, I am concerned because Tru_devotin seems to have such anger concerning this matter or towards someone involved with it. I believe this is the underlying cause of all she has said, even though she is trying to be objective in the way she presents her criticism. I have not posted because I fell she does not have ears to hear or eyes to see, doing so, she is missing a great treasure in the life of the Church. So no matter what is said, or how it is said, there will not be a resonalbe view from her, only an attitude of I’ll show them.

Actually, Pani Rose I found the level of discussion mildly irritating and through it all I kept asking myself, how old is the person I am conversing with? So it is a young person after all, and he/she has a way to go before maturing period. But for a post graduate, I would have expected a little better comprehension. It was quite unfortunate; nobody was able to stay on the topic, as invariably the conversation kept drifting back to personal attacks. Obviously, I wasted my time here, if your only observation is my “anger”. I am frank, and I do not suffer fools easily, but I am not angry. I gave a lot of my time answering TTM, but there too, focus was on copyright and such and on some of the frustrated comments I made. Your analysis of me could not have been further from the truth. I follow the True Devotion to Mary, I am a daily communicant, I go to confession regularly, I have been an extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist for several decades, I give comfort to and I visit the dying and I am well aware of the great treasures in my Church. I am passionate about this particular topic, because it is an alien movement and as I said earlier, it has weakened the Body. Like other false movements people followed and believed in, this too will be expelled eventually. I feel a bit of a failure here, but the level of dialogue can be as good as its weakest link, so I accept the outcome. God bless you all.

 

[robertaf]

Greetings,

I have been in discussion groups on the internet for many years. I am continually amazed at how completely the true person is hidden.

I truly thought Tru_dvotion was very young, maybe just entering college. At 68, I admit most folks look young to me but 55!!!

I figured TTM to be a little older and further along in schooling.
Having spent over 35 years as a Professional and also a Spiritual Counselor, I have always thought I could judge a persons age. It is just really hard on line.