M
Michael_Welter
Guest
Are you implying that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t do something for me, that would draw me closer to Him?
- Status
D
Damascus
Guest
I must unsubscribe from this thread, as this always happens unfortunately.
The persons who have this gift (or think they do) always end up showing me WHY I question it when they always end up getting like this, so bold to even speak for God in this case its time for me to say —
see ya!
Michael, you do no justice to this “gift” of the “Holy Spirit” with your most recent posts. You realize that the HS would be a dove?
Once again, and as always- I have never met a “peacefull” Charasmatic.
The persons who have this gift (or think they do) always end up showing me WHY I question it when they always end up getting like this, so bold to even speak for God in this case its time for me to say —
see ya!
Michael, you do no justice to this “gift” of the “Holy Spirit” with your most recent posts. You realize that the HS would be a dove?
Once again, and as always- I have never met a “peacefull” Charasmatic.
K
Keith_Strohm
Guest
In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings.
And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will. (Romans 8: 26-27)
The gift of prayer tongues not only draws us closer to God, but it is a way in which the Spirit helps us to pray for the sake of others. We don’t always know the specifics of what someone needs, but the gift of tongues allows the Spirit to guide our prayer for the sake of others.
This is powerful intercession and is every bit as valid as going out and physically doing something for someone else. Note that I did not say it was a replacement for doing so, but the gift of tongues is certainly not just inwardly directed babble. It is a gift that manifests in a person’s life for the sake of others. The fact that it draws the individual with this gift closer to God (like all charisms do when they are used) is secondary.
In Christ,
Keith
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Seems to me-- that for some people—having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit thru the sacraments is not enough to bring them closer to our Lord. This speaking in tongues is believed to be a way to “tap” into the Holy Spirit—which seems to imply the Church and Her sacraments are not sufficient.
K
Keith_Strohm
Guest
But it is through the sacraments–specifically Baptism and Confirmation–that we receive both the sanctifying graces (gifts of the Holy Spirit for our own sanctification Wisdom, Counsel, eg) and the gratuitious graces (the charisms or gifts for the sake of others–like healing, prophecy, encouragement, eg).
The sacraments are indeed sufficient, but they bring with them a charismatic dimension to our lives as Christians (and I don’t mean that which is specifically of the Charismatic movement). To deny the charisms is to deny the full arsenal of grace which God has given the Church to carry out its mission.
Even the catechism speaks of the reality of charisms in the life of the Church. They are meant to edify the Body and help us fulfill the priestly, prophetic, and royal mission of Christ.
Speaking in tongues is not a way to “tap” into the Holy Spirit . . .it is a gift of the Spirit given to aid in our prayer for others and for ourselves.
Like it or not, our Church is charismatic.
Keith
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The Church for centuries has offered the full arsenal of graces to Her people. The Church grew and florished and continued on Her mission without the need for anyone to break out in “tongues”. Now —the “speaking in tongues” which integrated itself from the protestants—is to edify the Church in Her mission----our history says otherwise.
D
DWPC
Guest
*From New Advent:
"Corinthian Abuses (I Corinthians 14 passim).—Medieval and modern writers wrongly take it for granted that the charism existed permanently at Corinth—as it did nowhere else—and that St. Paul, in commending the gift to the Corinthians, therewith gave his guaranty that the characteristics of Corinthian glossolaly were those of the gift itself. Traditional writers in overlooking this point place St. Luke at variance with St. Paul, and attribute to the charism properties so contrary as to make it inexplicable and prohibitively mysterious. There is enough in St. Paul to show us that the Corinthian peculiarities were ignoble accretions and abuses. They made of “tongues” a source of schism in the Church and of scandal without (14:23). The charism had deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10) with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which sometimes might be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). The Corinthians, misled not by insincerity but by simplicity and ignorance (20), were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit (pneuma), or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding (nous) of the Spirit of God (15). What today purports to be the “gift of tongues” at certain Protestant revivals is a fair reproduction of Corinthian glossolaly, and shows the need there was in the primitive Church of the Apostle’s counsel to do all things “decently, and according to order” (40). *
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Full disclosure: I am charismatic, and I am part of a charismatic parish.
Oddly, neither those who support speaking in tongues nor those suspicious of it, have referred to much Scripture. This is even more strange since there is an entire chapter in the Bible which talks about tongues.
But first, both those who are enthusiastic about charismatic manifestations and those who are suspicious or even hostile to them need to keep in mind Paul’s instructions in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 (NAB):
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good.”
We do not want to heed every person who claims to be a prophet, for false prophets have gone out into the world, but neither do we want to be like those who accused Jesus of doing his miracles by the power of Be’elzebub.
At its core, being charismatic means that one has an active relationship with the Holy Spirit, who dwells in each of us on account of our baptism and confirmation. 1 Corinthians 12 speaks of a number of gifts given to the church for the common good, for the edification of the church: prophecy, healing, discernment of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc.
Most of the time, when people complain about charismatics, it isn’t really about their speaking in tongues, although tongues is a convenient place to attach blame. What I see in the complaints is actually more of a complaint about the emotionalism that often accompanies these charismatic events. For good or for bad, many charismatics have happily pointed to verses talking about making a joyful noise to the Lord, banging cymbals, etc., There are reports of people noisily praying in tongues during the elevation, etc. I’m sure you all could supply an exhaustive (and exhausting) list.
However, the problem isn’t being charismatic – it’s having a poorly developed sense of what is appropriate for the liturgy. It can feel pretty good to be have lots of emotions, especially spiritually based ones, so some charismatics, still suffering from that ailment called a fallen humanity, conveniently forget that “the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control, since he is not the God of disorder but of peace.” (1 Cor 14:32-33 NAB).
As Ratzinger writes in “A New Song for the Lord”, which Damascus referred to earlier, there is a tendency (especially in our culture) to fall into a mode of worship which focuses on the experience of the transcendent and losing oneself in an ecstasy. This is reinforced by much of our modern music, which is intentionally trying to accomplish the same thing. Ratzinger contrasts this with Christian worship, which is Logos worship – we worship the Divine Word, Jesus Christ, and this worship is ordered and involves both mind and body, and is intended to raise the mind up to contemplate higher things, namely Jesus himself, who is the Truth.
I could write a lot more – I never got to 1 Cor. 14 – but I’ll have to end here and go to bed. As a note, my favorite music has no knowledge of the modern guitar and drums: music from the 16th century/late renaissance. Palestrina, Victoria, Byrd – give me that any day. Or some well done chant (one reason people don’t like some of the traditional music of the Church is that it has been attempted by those with insufficient skill or those with insufficient understanding of how it should be performed.)
As a charismatic, it is a great joy to pray before the Blessed Sacrament when no one else is around, with interspersed periods of silence, formal prayer such as the Rosary, spontaneous prayer, and praying in tongues, with singing any of those always being a wonderful option. I suppose that to clarify, I should say that I am a charismatic, marian, and eucharistic Catholic.
I’ll be like St. Thérèse and say “I choose all”. Whatever Jesus wants to give me, whatever he wants to call me to – I’ll take it, so help me God.
Oddly, neither those who support speaking in tongues nor those suspicious of it, have referred to much Scripture. This is even more strange since there is an entire chapter in the Bible which talks about tongues.
But first, both those who are enthusiastic about charismatic manifestations and those who are suspicious or even hostile to them need to keep in mind Paul’s instructions in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 (NAB):
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good.”
We do not want to heed every person who claims to be a prophet, for false prophets have gone out into the world, but neither do we want to be like those who accused Jesus of doing his miracles by the power of Be’elzebub.
Charismatics may have a tendency to claim the working of the Holy Spirit too much, but I myself get a little tired of the subtle (or not so subtle) insinuations that the devil might be behind charismatic expression.
I suspect that most people writing on this board are, in fact, charismatic, even those who would certainly not describe themselves in that way. Maybe you haven’t ever spoken in tongues or given a prophecy – but have you ever had a clear sense that God was asking you to do something in particular, such as pray for someone at a specific moment. Or maybe while in the midst of conversation with someone over an important spiritual matter, you were suddenly able to explain something to them with a clarity that surprised you. Insofar as those promptings come from God (and not our own feelings of devotion to God), it is the working of the Holy Spirit.At its core, being charismatic means that one has an active relationship with the Holy Spirit, who dwells in each of us on account of our baptism and confirmation. 1 Corinthians 12 speaks of a number of gifts given to the church for the common good, for the edification of the church: prophecy, healing, discernment of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc.
Most of the time, when people complain about charismatics, it isn’t really about their speaking in tongues, although tongues is a convenient place to attach blame. What I see in the complaints is actually more of a complaint about the emotionalism that often accompanies these charismatic events. For good or for bad, many charismatics have happily pointed to verses talking about making a joyful noise to the Lord, banging cymbals, etc., There are reports of people noisily praying in tongues during the elevation, etc. I’m sure you all could supply an exhaustive (and exhausting) list.
However, the problem isn’t being charismatic – it’s having a poorly developed sense of what is appropriate for the liturgy. It can feel pretty good to be have lots of emotions, especially spiritually based ones, so some charismatics, still suffering from that ailment called a fallen humanity, conveniently forget that “the spirits of prophets are under the prophets’ control, since he is not the God of disorder but of peace.” (1 Cor 14:32-33 NAB).
As Ratzinger writes in “A New Song for the Lord”, which Damascus referred to earlier, there is a tendency (especially in our culture) to fall into a mode of worship which focuses on the experience of the transcendent and losing oneself in an ecstasy. This is reinforced by much of our modern music, which is intentionally trying to accomplish the same thing. Ratzinger contrasts this with Christian worship, which is Logos worship – we worship the Divine Word, Jesus Christ, and this worship is ordered and involves both mind and body, and is intended to raise the mind up to contemplate higher things, namely Jesus himself, who is the Truth.
I could write a lot more – I never got to 1 Cor. 14 – but I’ll have to end here and go to bed. As a note, my favorite music has no knowledge of the modern guitar and drums: music from the 16th century/late renaissance. Palestrina, Victoria, Byrd – give me that any day. Or some well done chant (one reason people don’t like some of the traditional music of the Church is that it has been attempted by those with insufficient skill or those with insufficient understanding of how it should be performed.)
As a charismatic, it is a great joy to pray before the Blessed Sacrament when no one else is around, with interspersed periods of silence, formal prayer such as the Rosary, spontaneous prayer, and praying in tongues, with singing any of those always being a wonderful option. I suppose that to clarify, I should say that I am a charismatic, marian, and eucharistic Catholic.
I’ll be like St. Thérèse and say “I choose all”. Whatever Jesus wants to give me, whatever he wants to call me to – I’ll take it, so help me God.
M
mystified
Guest
I don’t have an opinion on this subject in a Catholic context.
I was once a visitor for a special event in a pentecostal church and a congregational leader kept wailing for someone to speak in tongues. I held mine, but was tempted to break out in liturgical Latin.
I was once a visitor for a special event in a pentecostal church and a congregational leader kept wailing for someone to speak in tongues. I held mine, but was tempted to break out in liturgical Latin.
P
palmas85
Guest
Are you prepared to say then the he cannot be behind ata minimum some of them? And are you further prepared to say that Satan is incapable of using this perceived gift to his own ends?
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Some of them are of God; therefore, they cannot be of Satan, though he may try to pervert them towards his own ends, as he does with all God’s gifts. Satan certainly uses many things in his attempts to deceive people, which is why this, as with all Christian practices, must be lived out in the heart of the Church in faithful obedience to the Magisterium, in union with the vicar of Christ, the Pope. The moment one puts their religious experiences at or above the level of authority of the Word of God and the Church is the moment they place themselves great danger. The Gospel of Matthew contains a stern warning (ch. 7 RSV)
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’”
That’s a scary verse. I could speak in tongues all day long and heal all sorts of people all day long, but I don’t know him, if I don’t follow his will – if I don’t love him, it’s worth nothing. Likewise, I could memorize all the Scriptures, the Catechism, every Encyclical every written (whew, that’s some memorization project!), and if I don’t know him, it’s nothing. I could go to mass every day of my life, daily pray all the mysteries of the Rosary, pray the Liturgy of the Hours, go to confession every week, but if I do not know and love him, it is all worth nothing.
If one desires to do so, one can easily cast doubt on all spiritual phenomenon, whether “charismatic” or not: miraculous healings, Eucharistic miracles, visions. The life and teaching of the mystics then becomes suspect. The miracles by which we recognize saints – perhaps the devil is using them towards his own ends?
How far shall we go with this skepticism?
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
That’s an interesting point. There are many, many spiritual aids, that help us grow as Christians, that are not needed. For example, can we live a strong Christian life without the rosary? Of course we can. People did so for centuries before we were given the rosary. In fact, Christians lived holy lives for centuries without the Bible. But I think we will admit that we are much better off with the Bible. The gift of tongues is like that. We can live a very holy life with it. But God gave me a gift that has been very useful in drawing me closer to Him, so I intend to continue using it.
D
DWPC
Guest
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Rosary provides discipline, focus, and structure. It becomes almost a meditation. It’s the 180-degree opposite of charismatic “tongues”; the product of undisciplined emotion.
The Bible is resource of knowledge to be carefully and thoughtfully considered. But the way scripture is now thrown around as do-it-yourself interpretative license of every behavior and belief exemplifies precisely why the early Church Fathers were so wary of its effects on an ill-educated laity.
You don’t follow your own words and explain your “tongues” as simply a spiritual aid. Instead, you *insist *it is God physically expressing himself through you. Its truly a holier-than-thou self-centrism that’s in direct conflict with the Church’s fundamental teachings of humility and discipline. That it appears in our Church now, in parallel with broad exposure to fundamentalist televangelism and the accellerating break-down of liturgical discipline should be clear enough indication of its transplanted Pentecostalist roots.
I have yet to read an *authoritative *unambiguous contemporary finding by the Church that in any way supports the charismatics’ contention that their ecstatic babbling is one-in-the-same with the sacred gift of the Holy Spirit to the Lord’s early disciples.
P
palmas85
Guest
I think that skepticism over this is well founded and quite proper. When you ay some of them are of God, therefore they cannot be of Satan, what exactly do you mean? If only some are of God then the others are of whom? You seem to be proving my point that not all of these manifestations of of the Holy Spirit. And if all are not then all must be viewed with skepticism wouldn’t you say? Satan is quite cunning and being from the angelis realm himself woulfd have little difficulity in using such things to his advantage.
Jim Jones was a speaker of tongues as was David Koresh. In fact in newspaper articles prior to his moving to Guyana Jones was held up to extensive praise. for his good works and nearness to Christ.
I ask simple questions. You artfully manage not to answer them. That is what is scary to me.
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
And I was trying to answer them. You do not give me the benefit of the doubt; instead, you are assuming that I am intentionally avoiding answering your questions. Rather than allow that perhaps I do not understand your question, or that I am not expressing myself clearly – maybe even charitably concluding that perhaps I lack the intelligence to respond adequately – you are suggesting that instead I am being devious in my responses. Why do you feel so comfortable making that rash judgment?
Now to supply some more devious non-answers:
Your first question:
To which I responded, some of them are of God, therefore they are not of Satan. This clearly means that I am saying that Satan cannot be behind at a minimum some of them. In case you don’t understand my answer, I am saying, “Yes” to your question.
Your second question:
I immediately continued my response with my answer:
This means that Satan will try to use God’s gifts to his own ends. Implied in that is that he is in fact successful in doing so. I didn’t write that, because I assumed it was obvious. In case you don’t understand my answer, I am saying “No” to your second question.
Why does anyone need to prove your point that “not all not all of these manifestations are of the Holy Spirit?” It’s pretty clear from Scripture, both OT and NT that there are and will be false prophets in the world. Not only will they proclaim false messages, but they will work miracles to “deceive even the elect”.
Thought knowing this danger, the Scriptures do not say, “Do not prophesy! Do not heed prophets!” Instead, they say, “Do not despise prophetic utterances.” Jesus does not say that all prophets are false prophets. Instead, he says that we will know them by their fruit.
In so far as being skeptical means to test everything before declaring it good. Being skeptical doesn’t mean being hostile, assuming that the devil is behind something unless proven otherwise.
You have no disagreement from me in that. However, who is God and who is the creation, the Holy Spirit or the devil? Some people (not necessarily you) seem to believe that on earth, the devil and his angels are more powerful than God and his angels. God can far more effectively use such things to his advantage (and that of the Church) than Satan can.
Which proves what? While it is interesting to look at the relationship between charismatic phenomena and such people, it is a) anecdotal evidence and b) not necessarily indicative of any causal link. What are you arguing here, that speaking in tongues caused them to act as they did? or that their speaking tongues and their actions were caused by the same evil spirit? I’ve heard very similar arguments about the Catholic Church in general, which usually amount to variations on “I know evil Catholics, therefore the whole Church is evil” or “Some Catholics treat Mary like a god, therefore praying to Mary must be idolatrous.” It may be good to ask why there was an evil bishop, or why the Virgin Mary has been absorbed into some of the syncretist religious practices, but they don’t really merit the conclusions people draw from them.
D
Damascus
Guest
“Test all things” paul warns,
My unanswered question has been Who tests this gift?
I am giving up on ever getting an answer here.
My unanswered question has been Who tests this gift?
I am giving up on ever getting an answer here.
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Damascus, it is impossible to respond to all things at once.
The individual must test. (not just the particular gift of speaking in tongues). One must pray about these things, ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, ask others, especially those with spiritual authority over a person, such as priests and bishops, and inquire into the wisdom of the Church.
In regards to speaking in tongues, I wanted to verify that what I was experiencing was in fact the gift of tongues and not just something of my own creation. So, I asked my priest, and he confirmed that it was in fact the gift of tongues. Also corraborating this was that a) it was under my control “The spirts of prophets are under their control” and b) using it was spiritually edifying, in that it was accompanied by good fruit, helping me to be more responsive to God’s will and helping me resist temptation.
I am acknowledging your question and I am attempting to answer it. If you need to expand your question/clarify it, feel free to do so, and I’ll try to respond in kind.
D
Damascus
Guest
I know its alot to ask now, but I have a minor emergency to attend to and cant list them all - could you review my posts again and see if you can help me out? So far you are the only one who has attempted to answer my questions satisfactorily.
Pro Ex!
Pro Ex!
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
Ouch. I apologize if I’ve given that impression. As I stated earlier in this thread, the gift of tongues has helped me, spiritually, over the years. But in no way do I think any more, or less, of anyone else who may, or may not, have, or even believe in, the gift of tongues. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I believe that you a faithful Catholic, obedient to the magisterium of the Church. If I’ve given you any reason to think otherwise, please accept my deepest apologies.
May our Lord’s blessings be upon you.
M
Michael_Welter
Guest
The Vatican has examined the gift of tongues in our current Church, and has given it’s blessing. There are many statements from Pope John Paul II giving his blessing, and approval, of the Charismatic renewal.
To my knowledge, the Church has never stated that the gift of tongues is not valid, or should be banned.
- Status