Detecting FAKE Tongues in Charismatic

[tru_dvotion]

I know what you mean Roberta! I certainly would not have thought of you as a professional, after insisting that I clarify non existing details from one of my paragraphs.

 

[robertaf]

THAT was unexpected.
But I suppose you are agreeing with me.

You do go for the jugular, don’t you?

 

[tru_dvotion]

robertaf:

You do go for the jugular, don’t you?

You mean, of course, am I recognizing true intent? Yes I do.

 

[Annunciata]

Catholic4aReasn:

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

Catholic4aReasn,
I am in total agreement with you on the above.
I know I shouldn’t post when I’m angry, but the way this other poster has been disputing it, methinks he/she doth protest to much!..Soooo I’ll just give my support of speaking in tongues… they are REAL!
Bless you,
Annunciata

 

[tru_dvotion]

Annunciata:

Catholic4aReasn,
I am in total agreement with you on the above.
I know I shouldn’t post when I’m angry, but the way this other poster has been disputing it, methinks he/she doth protest to much!..Soooo I’ll just give my support of speaking in tongues… they are REAL!
Bless you,
Annunciata

**I have been as guilty as anyone else on this thread, resorting to finger pointing and to accusations. But can we set aside personalities and agree on not to take potshots at one another? Perhaps get down to have a dialogue of some sort… and discuss the topic… after all, this is not a survey who believes what. It would serve a more useful purpose to discuss the reasons why do we believe what we believe and how it holds up to Catholic Tradition and to the word of God. **

**For instance, could you Annunciata explain why do you believe contemporary tongues are for real? **

 

[Annunciata]

tru_dvotion:

**For instance, could you Annunciata explain why do you believe contemporary tongues are for real? **

I could…but I won’t. Quite frankly, I really think this topic has been exhausted…
God Bless,
Annunciata

 

[robertaf]

Thank You Annunciata.

I am in agreement.
There is a decided lack of Charity here and as far as I can see, nothing positive can come out of this.

Possibly it is because it started out with a negative title.

This will be my last post in this thread.

Happy Birthday Blessed Mother and
Praise to the Holy Trinity!
AMEN

 

[mark_a]

Catholic4aReasn:

I think I was expecting it to sound scary and harsh, like a record playing backwards, all weird and creepy. Her langauge was about the most beautiful thing I had ever heard. It sounded middle eastern in a way…it was just lovely.

Nancy

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Did you understand the prayer? If not, was she able to interperet her prayer for you?

 

[TTM]

Hello again!

…but I am not angry

In which case, can you please not resort to ad hominem attacks and derogatory comments? They are hurtful, whether you’re angry or not.

I would have expected a little better comprehension

Isn’t it a little hypocritical of you to accuse me of a lack of comprehension, when you yourself failed to comprehend certain issues? The purpose of the copyright dialogue, for example, or the fact that the “tough love” that you say you act out of does not justify ad hominem attacks (which you have failed to even acknowledge with a single apology).

I would like to demonstrate something. My understanding is that you condemn any “prayer tongues”, and deny their existance, saying that “self-edification is a negative thing”.

You said:

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.

Now, you say that being edified by prayer is a good thing. That’s the point I was making, and thus is does not make my “whole reasoning” faulty.

Self-edification, is different from self-gratification. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with edifying the self (which involves activities which you listed), for it brings you closer to God (whereas self-gratification involves activities which often take you away from God). If you comprehend this better than I do, I ask you to define the intrinsic wrongness of self-edification. I understand that self-edification can be bad when it is done at the expense of the edification of others, which is what Paul is speaking about, but I disagree with your claim that self-edification is intrinsically bad. I think it is a good thing.

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

Now, therefore, we understand that when Paul says “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”, we take it in context to mean that “yes, it is a good thing but,” followed in the next few verses by “what is the point, when others are not edified, or even put off by it?”.

Therefore, again, it comes down to the correct use, rather than validity, of the gift of tongues (afterall, the Corinthians had valid tongues, but used them incorrectly - the same could apply today)

Let us study the following verses:

1. Cor 14:17 “For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.”
   1 Cor 14:5 “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.”
   1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. "
   1 Cor 14:4 “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church”

I think we see that tongues in themselves are indeed helpful in bringing the believers closer to God, as it allows one to give thanks to God with the help of the Holy Spirit, which would be naturally edifying for the person speaking.

Now, the real issue here is the appropriateness of using the tongues in a group situations. I have already expressed my reservation at the gift being used during Mass. However, I am not sure that it should be discouraged in a closed Charismatic meeting, where all know about the charisms (through Life in the Spirit seminar, for example), where forms of group-edification predominate (praying in native tongue, etc).

The real issues are:

1. To make sure the Church is built up through the meeting, and
2. To make sure that those without understanding of the charisms would not be put off by them.
   If these could be resolved, I do not see any problems. I think St. Paul would be happy. Of course, here is where the problem is - it isn’t all that easy to resolve. I have only seen one case, in ICPE, which seems to handle this very well. I can not comment on the other Charismatic groups, however.

…focus was on copyright and such and on some of the frustrated comments I made.

1. I have clarified the motive in discussing the copyright issue. You have not yet responded to my claims, that you assumed wrongly that anything without copyright markings were OK for you to take and post as your own comments. So far, you have only avoided this claim, by accusing me of going off-topic, when it had everything to do with this discussion, and your credibility.
2. the “frustrated comments” you made had to be commented on, simply because they were uncalled for, and were hurtful. All the more because an apology was sought, but rejected.

[continued…]

 

[tru_dvotion]

TTM:

Self-edification, is different from self-gratification. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with edifying the self (which involves activities which you listed), for it brings you closer to God (whereas self-gratification involves activities which often take you away from God). If you comprehend this better than I do, I ask you to define the intrinsic wrongness of self-edification. I understand that self-edification can be bad when it is done at the expense of the edification of others, which is what Paul is speaking about, but I disagree with your claim that self-edification is intrinsically bad. I think it is a good thing.

---

---

Self-edification differs from self-gratification.
Here is the definition of edification from Websters:

Edification
(Ed`ifica"tion) n. [L. *aedificatio: cf. F. édification. See Edify.]

“The act of edifying, or the state of being edified; a building up, especially in a moral or spiritual sense; moral, intellectual, or spiritual improvement; instruction.”

Self-edification is, therefore, building up the self by the self in terms of moral, intellectual or spiritual improvement. (Self-gratification means something entirely different altogether.) One can improve oneself morally, with the resolve not to sin, or intellectually with study. But one cannot improve oneself spiritually, which is the topic here. That department remains with God, and it is not ours to meddle with. In fact, those, who do attempt the practice of self-edification, attempt to become their own god, and sin against the first commandment. Therefore spiritual self-edification is inherently wrong and it is a sin.

 

[TTM]

It is just a speech. Plus, he may not even had a hand in writing it. Read the interview!

Yes, I have read parts of your reply to this. I have to agree with robertaf, that you tend to ignore the Holy Spirit’s work in all this. Do you really think that the Holy Father and his advisers would lack so much discernment as to bless a false movement? (Please be careful not to belittle the Holy Father!)

That was another point - that the Bishops are indeed charged with discernment, but obviously they can not attend every meeting. What they can do is to discern the movement itself. They have done this already. The Holy Father, his Preacher Fr. Cantalamessa (wonderful preacher he is too), and the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops all approve it. Is it not you who are going against their discernment, and yet charging us of a lack of it? Let me quote them:

ÒI want to say to the faithful, to bishops, to priests, not to be afraid. I don’t know why there is fear. Perhaps, in some measure, because this experience began in other Christian confessions, such as Pentecostals and Protestants.

…Nor should Charismatic Renewal be regarded as an “island” where some emotional people get together. It is not an island. It is a grace meant for all the baptized. The external signs can be different, but in its essence, it is an experience meant for all the baptized.Ó

ÉAs experienced in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal baptism in the Holy Spirit makes Jesus Christ known and loved as Lord and Savior, establishes or reestablishes an immediacy of relationship with all those persons of the Trinity, and through inner transformation affects the whole of the Christian’s life. There is new life and a new conscious awareness of God’s power and presence. It is a grace experience which touches every dimension of the Church’s life: worship, preaching, teaching, ministry, evangelism, prayer and spirituality, service and community. Because of this, it is our conviction that baptism in the Holy Spirit, understood as the reawakening in Christian experience of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit given in Christian initiation, and manifested in a broad range of charisms, including those closely associated with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, is part of the normal Christian life.

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

Pope John Paul II:

1. 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!

Here is a quote from Dr. Peter Kreeft, a famous Catholic Philosopher (peterkreeft.com/message.htm):

The Catholic Church will not be strong until she recaptures the source of her strength that the earliest church found…until the charismatic movement becomes invisibleÑbecause all Catholics are charismatics.

Peter Kreeft
11/7/03

Let me quote you this too:
Markerteacher:

Catholic Charismatics involved in the Charismatic Renewal are completely in submission to the Pope and to our local bishops. We are an approved lay apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church and we have the blessing and support of John Paul II and many of the bishops and cardinals. This has been posted repeatedly, yet no one who is opposed to the Charismatics has had the courtesy to acknowledge this fact. I find that distressing.

Now,

Paul wrote: “if there are tongues, they will cease” (1 Corinthians 13:8).

Dave Armstrong, the famous Catholic apologist and the author of “a Biblical Defence of Catholicism”, refutes this argument. You can read the full article here: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ35.HTM . Here is the summary:

1. If tongues has ceased, then so has knowledge, for 1 Cor 13:8 states: “Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.”
2. The “perfect” which comes, he suggests, is the afterlife.

I guess the Pope agrees with Dave.

 

[TTM]

Therefore spiritual self-edification is inherently wrong and it is a sin.

But the only way a Christian could edify himself is to place God in the centre. Therefore, the sense in which you use this is inapplicable, since St. Paul obviously never meant it in the sense that you define the term to be. It’s within 1 Cor 14:4 which we are trying to define this term, I understand? By “edified himself”, it seems clear to me that Paul means that the act, which is that of thanksgiving and communication with God), edifies the man. Is that not fair enough? I think prayers of thanksgiving would edify me.

 

[TTM]

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!

Of course. If you knowingly reject the Church that Jesus founded on Peter, you’d be rejecting Jesus himself, and you could not be a Christian.

However, that is not the issue here. The Church recognises that the Christians of today do not knowingly reject the Church, since they have no sufficient knowledge to realise that it is indeed the One True Church. Otherwise, most Christians would be Catholic already.

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!

Because it is possible for the Holy Spirit to work in them:

The Catechism states:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Anyway, off to bed. God bless,
TTM

 

[tru_dvotion]

**There was a Catholic Pope, Pope Urban VIII, who on his deathbed commiserated that he almost brought down the entire Church by following a false mystic. That was just a false seer, and not an entire movement. We have no way of proving one way or another, if our current Pope truly embraced this movement, yes I red the speeches myself, but one thing is for sure, there are important bishops and cardinals supporting it and so does a certain section of the laity. The Catholic Bishops either in the United States or elsewhere are responding to the push from above and from below. (meaning the laity of course) Any college of bishops will not be completely unanimous in the communiqués they put out. The majority wins. Sometimes the wrong majority wins and sometimes they win for the wrong reasons. They have made mistakes in the past and they will make mistakes in the future. There were false movements in the Church, that were embraced by the majority of the hierarchy as well as the laity, but eventually they were expelled, as the Church will not be abandoned by the Holy Spirit, although, from time to time, both the leadership and the laity can be seduced with false movements. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is always and ever present, but He is not a magic formula or a “spell check” over everything that is put forth by the colleges of bishops or by the leadership of the Vatican. We must also keep in mind, that these communiqués and speeches are not binding DOGMAS. Nobody can mess with dogmas. And this is where people make the big mistake; they equate these communiqués with Catholic Dogma. These communiqués are not binding for anybody. These are not dogmas or part of the Canon or such directives, that the Church should adhere to faithfully. Besides, let’s face it, there are many, many serous directives from the Holy See, which are consistently ignored the college of bishops in your country and elsewhere. Yes, I DO advocate obedience to one’s superior, even when I am certain he is wrong, with the exception of moral sin, since ultimately God is the one who is in charge over him as well. At the end all will be evened out and all will be well. But there is a rocky road ahead of us all, as Church and as individuals. **

 

[Therese_Martin]

**Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated.**