Questions for charismatics

[Les_Richardson]

Elainevw:

Hi All,

Thought this might be an interesting read. Simple enough to start with anyway, it is only a part found in the Catholic Encyclopedia
about the charismata. But since the discussion was on tongues
thought might be of some help to discuss it better rather then just
our own personal understandings, maybe, maybe not.

God Bless,
Elaine

1. The gift of tongues and (5) the interpretation of tongues (collectively known as glossolalia) are described at length in I Cor., xiv. In what did glossolalia exactly consist?

• It was speaking, opposed to being silent (I Cor., xiv, 28), yet
• not always in a foreign tongue. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles did indeed speak the various languages of their hearers, but the still unbaptized Gentiles in the house of Cornelius “speaking with tongues, and magnifying God” (Acts, x, 46) and the twelve newly baptized Ephesians speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts, xix, 6) had no reason for using any strange tongue. Again, instead of the expression “speaking with tongues” Paul uses the alternative phrases, “speaking in a tongue”, “by a tongue”, “with a tongue” (I Cor., xiv, 2, 4, 13, 14, 27).

The object of the gift was not to convey ideas to listeners, but to speak to God in prayer (ibid., 2, 4), an object for which a foreign language is unnecessary. Lastly – and this argument seems conclusive – Paul compares glossolalia, as regards its effect, with talking in an unknown language; it is, therefore, not itself an unknown language (ibid., 11).

• It was an articulate language, for the speaker prays, sings, gives thanks (ibid., 14-17).
• The speaker was in a kind of trance – “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit [pneuma] prayeth, but my understanding [nous, mens] is without fruit” (ibid., 14).
• on unbelievers glossolalia made the impression of the marvellous; perhaps it recalled to their mind the religious ravings of hierophants: “Wherefore (i.e. because unintelligible) tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. If . . . all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?” (I Cor., xiv, 22, 23).
• The gift of tongues is inferior to that of prophecy: “Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification” (ibid., 5).
• The charisma of interpretation is, then, the necessary complement of glossolalia; when interpretation is not forthcoming, the speaker with tongues shall hold his peace (ibid., 13, 27, 28). Interpretation is the work either of the speaker himself or of another (ibid., 27). It takes the form of an intelligible address; the explanation was to follow the speech with tongues as regularly as the discerning of spirits succeeded prophecy (I Cor., xiv, 28, 29).

By the way, St. Paul spoke in tongues, and he said not to forbid it, which is why I have avoided doing so.

Here’s as good a summary of the gifts as I’ve ever seen;
saint-mike.org/library/Rule/Excerpts/spiritual_gifts.html

 

[Church_Militant]

Mysty101:

Most of us here belong to authentic Catholic groups, under authentic Catholic leadership.

FYI…I’m a cradle catholic, come home from the cold.
I was at one time a deacon is the A/G …hence my knowlege & experience. Why the pounce? maybe check my profile next time, huh?

P.S. I’m also M.I.

 

[gnome]

Mysty101:

Gnome,
Of course there can be an abuse of anything. People are trying to point out the legitimate things, to help spot abuses.

Mysty, but what people considered as legitimate things are not in
any pastoral guidelines anywhere. In other thread, another poster (and me) asking for pointer to where the Pope supports tongues, baptism in the Spirit, slain by the spirit, etc., but no answer yet.

 

[gnome]

Les Richardson:

The CCR in his view, and mine, is the discovery of that fact on the part of many who hitherto had participated in that “shell of practise.” For them it may well have been an empty liturgical shell. When they truly made the commitment to Jesus Christ at that personal level, it was an assent to the Holy Spirit to activate them. The tongues and the falling have been superimposed on the real event by mistaken theology, called Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and have sadly become the sign or standard by which the action of the Holy Spirit is measured. Indeed, tongues are taught in some places by some groups. However, as Fr Cantalamessa points out, this is really something that should have happened anyway but didn’t. For the convert from paganism, it happens usually at the time of the conversion, or the baptism or the confirmation.

this is consistent w/ Paul saying tongues is only for the unbelievers, NOT for the believers.

 

[gnome]

RichT:

Perhaps if you would scroll up and read my lengthy replies to Les, you would see that I have attempted to answer as many of his questions as possible. I only answered where I have experience, so some questions may not have been answered.

RichT, I apologize I didnot read your reply carefully. Thanks.

 

[gnome]

Mysty101:

Why is humming, or any music for that matter audible to anyone else?

It is a private prayer, in the sense that it is a personal prayer, but it is also either for praise, or petition (usually healing) It is private in the sense that is is not liturgical, but can be prayed out loud for the edification of an individual for whom it is offered or for the group in group praise.

According to Paul:

7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make
sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what
you are saying?

And here Paul’s statements stress “understanding” and edification of the Church, not the individual:

15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also
pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can the others, who are now put in the same situation as an inquirer,can say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?
17 You are giving thanks well enough, but the others are not edified.

 

[Mysty101]

Go to the USCCB site, and read the foothotes to !Cor. Perhaps this will help you to see the Church’s interpretation of that letter, rather than your an individual interpretation.

 

[Les_Richardson]

It seems that my original intention on this thread has been minimally successful. Much as it may seem so to some, my purpose was not to throw rocks at charismatics for sport. Based on the questions I asked I was hoping to draw some into an examination of some aspects of the movement, from a starting point that charismatics had suggested themselves. Why?
Many years ago, early in the movement, some of the leaders did not want to seek official recognition or even give the movement a name. Their feeling was that this would only bring codes, directives and rigidity to a movement of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Catholics. I think that the Holy Father understands this and has only given general approbation, trusting in the Holy Spirit and the leaders of the movement. Therefore, any change in focus, theological or otherwise, must come from within the movement. This forum is one approach to those people.
Many within the Church, Fr John Corapi as an example, the Holy Father as well, have a vision of a Church-wide renewal, a new springtime, a new vitality and spirituality based on personal In-filling of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Catholic Christians. That is what Vatican II was about. It seemed to many, in the beginning at least, and maybe still in the minds of some that the CCR may be the movement that would go the distance in the great renewal. The means, of course, would be evangelization, within and without the Church. Pope John-Paul II has written extensively on that subject. And the CCR is known in many of its ministries for very effective evangelization.
However, along the way, something has happened. All one has to do is examine the posts on these forums to get various descriptions of what actually happens in charismatic churches and meetings within or on the periphery of the CCR. This is in the words of the enthusiastic participants, not the detractors. Most every debate here on the issues of tongues and other manifestations results in a post, sooner or later to this effect: “Well it’s not for everyone.”
If the CCR is to be the movement by which the entire Church is re-vitalized, it must “be for everyone.” The fact that it is not at this time could be passed off, and has been, that detractors either know nothing about it, or their spirituality is somehow different.
I think that many of the long time leaders of the movement have the larger vision. But I would contend that a study of Church history, renewal history in particular will show that in the long run, the vast majority of Christians have little or nothing to do with the manifestations that have characterized the movement so far. Even the contentious passages from St. Paul were directed at the one charismatic church out of many churches. Yet the others were filled with the Holy Spirit as much as the Corinthians. Is this movement then, the catalyst only? Is it the shock treatment of the Holy Spirit to mobilize the rest of us? Perhaps. We do not know the mind of God.
I do know two things. Any renewal happens one person at a time, the agent is the Holy Spirit and I know this can and does happen totally outside of the charismatic movement, and I know that a large percentage of Christians react negatively to widespread tongues, spoken or prayer. Like me, they are skeptical. And I think anyone on this forum would agree that gifts such as tongues are not intended or given universally anyway. That idea we know is a Protestant sectarian distortion.
Perhaps the change in emphasis is already happening and I am behind the curve. My studies are by no means exhaustive. But if the posts here are any indicator, the movement has a large segment that is growing insular, and desires nothing more than to be just another movement within the church.
It is worth some thought, but from inside the movement. I had hoped to stimulate thought, but obviously I took the wrong approach.

 

[Lucija]

Mysty101:

Just remember one thing. Your pastor is responsible for you as well as everyone in the Parish, and he does have authority over you. He is right, regardless of what you think. Remember how all protestant sects began—someone thought he knew more than his legitimate authority.

I think you have to be careful before you start judging me and others . I have a priest friend and he knows exactly what I am going through . He told me that I am on the right track and not to be discouraged and keep going .
One day when things do not go right with you , you might play a different tune
I thank all the others that wrote words of encouragement and prayers for our group, it meant a lot to me and it helps to have others pray for you .
God Bless

 

[1_Maria]

Les Richardson:

It seems that my original intention on this thread has been minimally successful. Much as it may seem so to some, my purpose was not to throw rocks at charismatics for sport.

Les, your thread is a gift and I believe many of us are grateful for your efforts in seeking a clear understanding concerning the CCR.

I am always puzzled by a few, fortunately a very CCR people here who refuse to enter in to charitable dialog, and instead will immediately resort to one rude retort after another, including talking down to those of us who are sincerely seeking to understand what the CCR is all about.

Their attitude and rudeness cannot possibly be representative of the movement the Pope approves of. We need to see the thrust towards holiness that he speaks of.

The CCR as the Pope sees it, should be attracting people to the Church, and when and if the thrust towards personal holiness finally kicks in, that’s probably what will happen around the world. <<<

Maria

 

[Makerteacher]

Les Richardson:

. Most every debate here on the issues of tongues and other manifestations results in a post, sooner or later to this effect: “Well it’s not for everyone.”
If the CCR is to be the movement by which the entire Church is re-vitalized, it must “be for everyone.”

This is an interesting thought,. Les, but I would like to clarify it a bit. I’m not sure I agree with it as it is written.

The Church is for everyone. She’s a big house and there’s room inside for old people, young people, quiet people, exhuberant people, rich and poor people, big and small people, smart and simple people, black and white and red and peachie people, people who like Latin hymns with incense and people who like guitars and African folk music.

Just because we all belong to Her however does not mean we all have to be exactly alike. We are* Una Familia*: one family. Like any family, we have differences between us. Brothers do not have to be identical to still be brothers. The CCR is merely one lay apostolate within the Big House of the Church. **It is NOT for everyone, and that’s OK. ** Neither is Franciscan spirituality for everyone, or Opus Dei, or any number of other valid and effective lay apostolates within the Faith. There’s room in Mother Church for us all, and we need to accept that our brother who like folk guitar music is just as validly Catholic as the one whose Mass is completely without music of any kind, and as Catholic as the one whose Mass has revered old hymns sung in Latin, or the one whose Mass is entirely sung throughout in Greek.

We in the Charismatic Renewal truly hope to be a part of the ongoing and continual renewal of the Church, but only the Holy Spirit effect that: we are only a part of the Church, not all of it by any means. I honestly do not think it is fair to imply that we were “supposed to be” the ones to renew the face of the Church, and that we fail by virtue of the fact that the movement is not for everyone.

Una Familia: not identical twins, but certainly part of one family. Charismatics have never claimed to be THE answer, THE one unificator of the Faith. We’re just one part of the best family on Earth.

 

[Mysty101]

gnome:

Mysty, but what people considered as legitimate things are not in
any pastoral guidelines anywhere. In other thread, another poster (and me) asking for pointer to where the Pope supports tongues, baptism in the Spirit, slain by the spirit, etc., but no answer yet.

The Pope supports the movement. These things are all part of the movement. The Preacher to his household prays in Tongues, and wrote a lengthly article about Baptism in the Spirit.

You honestly think he doesn’t approve?

 

[Mysty101]

Lucija:

I think you have to be careful before you start judging me and others . I have a priest friend and he knows exactly what I am going through . He told me that I am on the right track and not to be discouraged and keep going .
One day when things do not go right with you , you might play a different tune

I think there is a misunderstanding here—when you posted

All pastors are different , one could lead you to be rich in spirit , and the other could do the opposite. I never thought this could be possible as in the past we always had a priest , but now I see it does happen in some churches as we are going through it ourselves .

I thought you were saying that your Pastor disapproved of your group. Since he is your Spiritual leader, I was suggesting that you seriously consider why he was not encouraging you.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and pray for your group.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_11.gif

 

[Mysty101]

Makerteacher:

Just because we all belong to Her however does not mean we all have to be exactly alike. We are* Una Familia*: one family. Like any family, we have differences between us. Brothers do not have to be identical to still be brothers. The CCR is merely one lay apostolate within the Big House of the Church. It is NOT for everyone, and that’s OK. Neither is Franciscan spirituality for everyone, or Opus Dei, or any number of other valid and effective lay apostolates within the Faith. There’s room in Mother Church for us all, and we need to accept that our brother who like folk guitar music is just as validly Catholic as the one whose Mass is completely without music of any kind, and as Catholic as the one whose Mass has revered old hymns sung in Latin, or the one whose Mass is entirely sung throughout in Greek.

We in the Charismatic Renewal truly hope to be a part of the ongoing and continual renewal of the Church,
Una Familia: not identical twins, but certainly part of one family. Charismatics have never claimed to be THE answer, THE one unificator of the Faith. We’re just one part of the best family on Earth.

 [smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_17_206.gif](http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm41447US)

 

[gnome]

Mysty101:

Go to the USCCB site, and read the foothotes to !Cor. Perhaps this will help you to see the Church’s interpretation of that letter, rather than your an individual interpretation.

ok here’s an excerpt of the footnotes from USCCB.
Is there anything I said that is not inline with these footnotes??
yes I believe His words that when you pray, go to your room and close the door, it’s between you and God. Outside of that, it “must be intelligible” in order to build up the Church, which is the main theme of Paul’s letter, right?

2 [2-3a] They involve two kinds of communication: tongues, private speech toward God in inarticulate terms that need interpretation to be intelligible to others (see 1 Cor 14:27-28); prophecy, communication with others in the community.

3 [3b-5] They produce two kinds of effect. One who speaks in tongues builds himself up; it is a matter of individual experience and personal perfection, which inevitably recalls Paul’s previous remarks about being inflated, seeking one’s own good, pleasing oneself. But a prophet builds up the church: the theme of “building up” or “edifying” others, the main theme of the letter, comes to clearest expression in this chapter (1 Cor 14:3, 4, 5, 12, 17). It has been anticipated at 1 Cor 8:1 and 1 Cor 10:23, and by the related concept of “the beneficial” in 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23; 12:7; etc.

4 [6-12] Sound, in order to be useful, must be intelligible. This principle is illustrated by a series of analogies from music (1 Cor 14:7-8) and from ordinary human speech (1 Cor 14:10-11); it is applied to the case at hand in 1 Cor 14:9, 12.

 

[robertaf]

Makerteacher:

We in the Charismatic Renewal truly hope to be a part of the ongoing and continual renewal of the Church, but only the Holy Spirit effect that: we are only a part of the Church, not all of it by any means. I honestly do not think it is fair to imply that we were “supposed to be” the ones to renew the face of the Church, and that we fail by virtue of the fact that the movement is not for everyone.

We’re just one part of the best family on Earth.

Makerteacher, Once again a beautiful post. I only quoted part of it, should have included the entire post as it was perfect.
I think you speak very well for most of us in the Charismatic Renewal. Please keep it up.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_14.gif

 

[1_Maria]

robertaf:

Makerteacher, Once again a beautiful post. I only quoted part of it, should have included the entire post as it was perfect.
I think you speak very well for most of us in the Charismatic Renewal. Please keep it up.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_14.gif

I second Roberta’s comment.

MakerTeacher appears to be the only spokesperson for the CCR on this message board who has the maturity needed to build bridges for the good of the entire Church.

Maria

 

[Mysty101]

1 Maria:

I second Roberta’s comment.

MakerTeacher appears to be the only spokesperson for the CCR on this message board who has the maturity needed to build bridges for the good of the entire Church.Maria

Mary,
I do agree that Maker has contributed much to this discussion, but she is not the only one.

Roberta and a few others also make excellant contributions.

 

[Mysty101]

Gnome,

You are only quoting part of the foot notes. You are leaving out my entire argument
The introduction, which emphesizes thatt Paul is speaking to the Church in Corinth.

P

aul’s first letter to the church of Corinth provides us with a fuller insight into the life of an early Christian community of the first generation than any other book of the New Testament. Through it we can glimpse both the strengths and the weaknesses of this small group in a great city of the ancient world, men and women who had accepted the good news of Christ and were now trying to realize in their lives the implications of their baptism .

And the reason he did caution the Corinthians about tongues

1 [1-5] 1 Cor 14:1b returns to the thought of 1 Cor 12:31a and reveals Paul’s primary concern. The series of contrasts in 1 Cor 14:2-5 discloses the problem at Corinth: a disproportionate interest in tongues, with a corresponding failure to appreciate the worth of prophecy. Paul attempts to clarify the relative values of those gifts by indicating the kind of communication achieved in each and the kind of effect each produces.
9 [26-33a] Paul concludes with specific directives regarding exercise of the gifts in their assemblies. Verse 26 enunciates the basic criterion in the use of any gift: it must contribute to “building up.”

No one here has the autority to make this judgement about any of the authentic Catholic Charismatic groups of today or to sttate with any validity that St Paul is saying that they have the same problems

 

[gnome]

Mysty,
therefore, after footnote #1, note #2 and #3 (which I quoted) explains what are the 2 kinds of communication, and what are the 2 kinds of effect. As you said… go see the interpretation of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and I did.

Your points in this thread contradict with footnotes #2, #3, and #4.