S
spello
Guest
To praise God to offer Him a sacrifice of praise. To speak in the language of the angels is a gift. If in loving God you are given to speaking in the language of angels, what do you think Jesus would say?
- Status
P
palmas85
Guest
Well Hermanito, you finally did it. While trying diligently to send me down to abject defeat and final humiliation, you actually pointed out scriptural references that support what I have been saying. I direct your attention to Matt 10:20, as you quoted above
You yourselves will not be the speakers, The Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you.
Now Hermanito, if the one speaking is the Holy Spirit, then what control can you possibly have over what He says or does?? And if the speaker is you, then the passage is inaccurate. Unless of course, you want to claim that you are in fact the Holy Spirit. So which is it?
Of course since that passage referred to something entirely different it might not even apply to the tongue argument at all…
It is also interesting that in the passage from Acts you quoted, it specifically says they began to speak in foreign tongues, not angelic tongues or spiritual tongues. In fact the assembled multitudes all heard them speaking in their own languages and marvelled that Galileans could speak their languages… The point is they were speaking in human languages other than their own, which coincidentally is exactly what I have maintained actually happened
Interestingly the passage ends with Peters Discourse, telling of the Prophet Joel, who said And it shall come to pass that in the last days, says the Lord, that I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams. And morever upon my servents and upon my handmaidens in those days will I pour forth my spirit and they shall prophesy.
No mention of tongues at all mi hermanito.
As far as prophecy and healing, I have no doubts as to their validity, but then again theyhave been around throughout the Churchs history and did not emerge with the Pentecostal Charismatic movement as did the bulk of the tongue talking. Hard to fake those two you know, prophecy and healing, very hard. Not as easy to manipulate as speaking in tongues could be… Wouldn’t you agree hermanito?
I am impressed that you admitted speaking in tongues can be from ones ego as well. I always knew that it could be, and quite probably mi hermanito, .often is.
J
Joysong
Guest
Dear Palmas,
Regarding this particular scripture, note verse 19 which precedes verse 20, says: “Do not be anxious how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given to you in that hour.”
This suggests to me that you are not experientially familiar with how the Holy Spirit “gives you what to speak in that hour.” He does not take over our heads, once again, where we have no control. Kindly study my last post where I explained how God’s thoughts are infused as light, but the speaker uses his own language to convey them. They are aware that the “light” which shows them what to speak did not originate from themselves, for often it is something that they were not even thinking of, but it always fits the situation at hand. The person speaking sees the fruit after his words are transmitted, for the person listening is often affected by what they hear.
Palmas:
I trust this will be helpful to you.
Carole
Your first sentence … satire, I hope?
Regarding this particular scripture, note verse 19 which precedes verse 20, says: “Do not be anxious how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given to you in that hour.”
This suggests to me that you are not experientially familiar with how the Holy Spirit “gives you what to speak in that hour.” He does not take over our heads, once again, where we have no control. Kindly study my last post where I explained how God’s thoughts are infused as light, but the speaker uses his own language to convey them. They are aware that the “light” which shows them what to speak did not originate from themselves, for often it is something that they were not even thinking of, but it always fits the situation at hand. The person speaking sees the fruit after his words are transmitted, for the person listening is often affected by what they hear.
Palmas:
Using isolated texts from scripture to defend one’s words is similar to fundamentalism, my friend. What does this prove, may I ask, that there will be no such things as tongues in the latter days? I trust you believe in the teaching authority of the Church? If so, then I refer you to the Catechism.
- Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them, and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit; that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.
- There are furthermore *special graces, *also called *charisms *after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” Whatever their character – sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues – charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Chuirch. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
I trust this will be helpful to you.
Carole
N
netmilsmom
Guest
If you are truly Holy, the Devil does not try to make you uncomfortable but extremely happy.I am impressed that you admitted speaking in tongues can be from ones ego as well. I always knew that it could be, and quite probably mi hermanito, .often is.
While I believe that some may have this gift, I also know that conditioning can make one believe they are given a gift by God that may be from somewhere far different or no gift at all.
I had a friend who walked into my house and believed that God had sent her a gift of the Scent of Roses in the middle of winter. In reality, I had a lightbulb ring with rose oil in it.
In the same way, my Psychiatrist ex-boss believed that any religious halucination could be overcome by a Haldol shot. One time he was proven wrong. That lady, despite psychotropic drugs continued to see Our Mother. He believed and so do I.
I don’t mean to offend anyone by this, but I have seen people influenced by cults or “group think” mentality. Because of this, it gives me pause.
I have to ask, if the original gift was given so that people could witness to foreigners, why don’t those with the gift, who speak in Holy Mass, speak to anyone? What would be God’s purpose in a gift if no one is gifted by it but the speaker? And if the purpose is to the individual, why not keep it to one’s self as Porthos11 does?
J
Joysong
Guest
Dear Netmil(name removed by moderator),
Whereas we learned previously that Cardinal Vidal ordered silence at the consecration, it was not mentioned at all that he likewise ordered cessation of tongues during other parts of the Mass, suggesting to me that he, like so many other celebrants, had no objection to tongues at Mass. They are widely accepted throughout charismatic communities, and as such, should be confined to charismatic celebrations of the liturgy.
My feeling is that there seems to be, at this point in time, no official document concerning this issue that is available within the Church’s teaching — whether charismatics are allowed or disallowed to pray in tongues at a charismatic mass. I have never witnessed this at a regular Sunday liturgy, even though charismatics attend them. They wisely know when to withhold their public use of tongues and reserve this for their own specific liturgies.
Until it becomes an unlawful abuse, discerned by those who petition for legislation to remove them, tongues are thereby lawful in their liturgies for the time being. What celebrant is able to discern whether the multitude of worshippers who pray in tongues are using a lawful gift as opposed to those who are deluded in thinking they have been given the gift? How would he single anyone out? Does he prevent their lawful use in order to hinder those who are under illusion? Does he chastise them?
St. Paul tried to provide sound education to help those in Corinth, and it seems this is the better way — to catechise those using the gift and hope that those who are mistaken will also benefit.
Someone here made a good point previously, that tongues are used to edify the person praying. Part of discernment then, would be for the person to determine whether or not their inner spirit is being edified (built up, gladdened with joyful praise, exhuberant) as they exercise the gift. If they are merely following the crowd, trusting that what they do is true, there will be outward noise, but no spirit within. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman, and would never direct anyone to point fingers to them and say, I detect that YOU are not using the Spirit’s gift. Never does He disclose another’s sins, unless to a saintly person who has the charity to privately correct such a one under His prompting.
There is another use of praying in tongues, which some call “groaning.” This, too, does not leave the inner spirit in emptiness just proclaiming words, but the spirit is deeply moved with an intense emotion that voices its prayer to God. Sometimes it can be so deep as to be unable to express words, whether one is moved by joy or grief. In that case, tears may well up and overflow abundantly, yet softly, from the spirit.
God’s peace and joy,
Carole
That is highly possible, but how many among us have the gift of “discernment of spirits” to chastise anyone we encounter who exercises the “gift?” As Gusmano said so well earlier, "The challenge of discernment is to determine where the inspiration, in us the speaker, is coming from."
Whereas we learned previously that Cardinal Vidal ordered silence at the consecration, it was not mentioned at all that he likewise ordered cessation of tongues during other parts of the Mass, suggesting to me that he, like so many other celebrants, had no objection to tongues at Mass. They are widely accepted throughout charismatic communities, and as such, should be confined to charismatic celebrations of the liturgy.
My feeling is that there seems to be, at this point in time, no official document concerning this issue that is available within the Church’s teaching — whether charismatics are allowed or disallowed to pray in tongues at a charismatic mass. I have never witnessed this at a regular Sunday liturgy, even though charismatics attend them. They wisely know when to withhold their public use of tongues and reserve this for their own specific liturgies.
Until it becomes an unlawful abuse, discerned by those who petition for legislation to remove them, tongues are thereby lawful in their liturgies for the time being. What celebrant is able to discern whether the multitude of worshippers who pray in tongues are using a lawful gift as opposed to those who are deluded in thinking they have been given the gift? How would he single anyone out? Does he prevent their lawful use in order to hinder those who are under illusion? Does he chastise them?
St. Paul tried to provide sound education to help those in Corinth, and it seems this is the better way — to catechise those using the gift and hope that those who are mistaken will also benefit.
Someone here made a good point previously, that tongues are used to edify the person praying. Part of discernment then, would be for the person to determine whether or not their inner spirit is being edified (built up, gladdened with joyful praise, exhuberant) as they exercise the gift. If they are merely following the crowd, trusting that what they do is true, there will be outward noise, but no spirit within. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman, and would never direct anyone to point fingers to them and say, I detect that YOU are not using the Spirit’s gift. Never does He disclose another’s sins, unless to a saintly person who has the charity to privately correct such a one under His prompting.
There is another use of praying in tongues, which some call “groaning.” This, too, does not leave the inner spirit in emptiness just proclaiming words, but the spirit is deeply moved with an intense emotion that voices its prayer to God. Sometimes it can be so deep as to be unable to express words, whether one is moved by joy or grief. In that case, tears may well up and overflow abundantly, yet softly, from the spirit.
God’s peace and joy,
Carole
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
This does nto mean that all who have the gift of tongues are capable of discerning the spirit within them. Rather, that discernment is likely to come from others. However, how many who exercise tongues during Holy Mass would be willing to set aside the practice should one, who is legitimately gifted in discernment, tell the person his tongues are coming from within himself? How do we know that the very people who are objecting to a particular use of tongues are not those who are called to discernment and are being prompted by the Holy Spirit to bring about cessation, such as in Holy Mass?
Bingo - and thus the point of this thread. There is nothing to clarify the use of tongues in Holy Mass. How can you know that by raising this issue, even in a forum such as this, that it is not a prompting from the Holy Spirit (not that it is, but who is to say that it is not).
I look at it two ways: When I send forth my letter to the CDW with my argument they will more than likely provide us with one of two answers (as opposed to setting it aside in a neutral position). Either the Holy Spirit is prompting and condones tongues in Holy Mass or He does not. When the CDW speaks, it will be the Holy Spirit speaking through it one way or the other. Will all who are engaged in the practice be able to accept cessation if the ruling is against tongues in Mass? Will all those who are against the practice be able to accept a continuation of it, more regulated hopefully, should the ruling be favorable?
I believe the Holy Spirit will guide the church through the CDW. And the fact that such contentious arguments have been made here in this thread alone proves that the CDW needs to speak on the subject.
J
Joysong
Guest
Dear Net,
I just realized I forgot to reply to your last questions:
We might ask, how did he know? The same way we know how a puppy loves us, to use a crude example. There is accompanying his excited “yip” a wagging of the tail and an exhuberant display that leaves little doubt how the dog feels towards us. St. Paul, being a saintly man filled with the Spirit, says elsewhere that a spiritual man discerns many things that an unspiritual man cannot. The household was “magnifying God” simultaneously, in union with one another.
This is what occurs when the household at a charismatic Mass unites in praise of God, simultaneously and in unison. God is glorified, magnified, praised, loved, adored. Those who have not the gift of tongues, pray in their own language, but you hear the same words, “Glory to God, Praise You, Jesus,” etc. The moment is electric with spiritual edification. I doubt the Lord would want it suppressed in the name of preferring “proper silence.” It is very proper to the culture of charismatic worship.
Carole
I just realized I forgot to reply to your last questions:
I can understand your confusion, for yes, the Pentecost miracle was a different manifestation of tongues, for a different purpose of God. When St. Peter was bearing witness to Cornelius’ household, the Holy Spirit fell upon his listeners and they began to speak in tongues, “magnifying God.” These were not foreign tongues as in Pentecost, because both Paul and the others spoke the same language. Paul discerned the Holy Spirit behind the manifestation, and ordered that these men be baptized. Acts 10:46.
We might ask, how did he know? The same way we know how a puppy loves us, to use a crude example. There is accompanying his excited “yip” a wagging of the tail and an exhuberant display that leaves little doubt how the dog feels towards us. St. Paul, being a saintly man filled with the Spirit, says elsewhere that a spiritual man discerns many things that an unspiritual man cannot. The household was “magnifying God” simultaneously, in union with one another.
This is what occurs when the household at a charismatic Mass unites in praise of God, simultaneously and in unison. God is glorified, magnified, praised, loved, adored. Those who have not the gift of tongues, pray in their own language, but you hear the same words, “Glory to God, Praise You, Jesus,” etc. The moment is electric with spiritual edification. I doubt the Lord would want it suppressed in the name of preferring “proper silence.” It is very proper to the culture of charismatic worship.
Carole
J
Joysong
Guest
Hi Diane,
There are many things we personally do not care for in liturgy, as many are vocal in expressing on the forum, but it is a matter of respect and charity to bend our will to accomodate the desires of others, sometimes. We do this in marriage, the proving ground in our own family circle, of what patience should require in the larger circle of the Church. Husbands and wives spend a lifetime learning to accept the differences in one another’s preferences. Sad to say, those who cannot, wind up in divorce. So that could be the case if a ruling does come about.
When I visit in Florida, there is always a Spanish Mass on Sunday evening, for that particular group of Catholics. Now if I attend and become irritated because I cannot have my own style of worship as common to the morning liturgies and hear the mass in English, I have the feeling the pastor might say, “Then why not go to the morning Mass?” And if I cannot go to any other Mass but this one due to my personal schedule, then should I not accept their lawful culture of worship?
Many blessings and peace to you,
Carole
Very apropo! To the first question, if they are authentic, I would say “yes,” for the Spirit would inspire obedience. To answer your next question, I doubt it would satisfy everyone, but those who love the Church would comply. It still puzzles me why it would concern this second group of people whatsoever, unless they themselves regularly attend charismatic liturgies. I would think that if it bothers them so greatly, that they have the option to attend other liturgies, commonly known as “The People’s Mass.”
There are many things we personally do not care for in liturgy, as many are vocal in expressing on the forum, but it is a matter of respect and charity to bend our will to accomodate the desires of others, sometimes. We do this in marriage, the proving ground in our own family circle, of what patience should require in the larger circle of the Church. Husbands and wives spend a lifetime learning to accept the differences in one another’s preferences. Sad to say, those who cannot, wind up in divorce. So that could be the case if a ruling does come about.
When I visit in Florida, there is always a Spanish Mass on Sunday evening, for that particular group of Catholics. Now if I attend and become irritated because I cannot have my own style of worship as common to the morning liturgies and hear the mass in English, I have the feeling the pastor might say, “Then why not go to the morning Mass?” And if I cannot go to any other Mass but this one due to my personal schedule, then should I not accept their lawful culture of worship?
Many blessings and peace to you,
Carole
J
Joysong
Guest
A couple of posts ago, I mentioned St. Peter’s visit to Cornelius’s household, but I concluded the paragraph with the insertion of St. Paul’s name rather than St. Peter. My mistake — it should have all read “St. Peter.”
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
It’s simple. Any single liturgical abuse, if tongues during Holy Mass were to be classified as such, affects the entire Mystical Body. When a priest changes the words that are specified in the rubrics he does not hurt only those who are there, he affecs the entire Mystical Body through his actions. When lay people are allowed to speak during the homily, certainly those present are hurt when such an abuse takes place, but it also affects the larger Mystical Body.
Should a special Mass be developed to allow lay people to preach? Or, so that priests can be allowed to ad lib as they see fit? These things have already been deemed liturgical abuse by the CDW. Tongues has not, as far as I can see…yet.
There is no comparing and contrasting it to Masses held in other languages for a large group of people where Spanish, for example, may be the vernacular.
J
Joysong
Guest
It seems that it might be a good idea to review the CCC’s teachings on the diverity in liturgies and cultures. What some may perceive as an abuse in their own cultural liturgies are likely permissible in another’s.
I was an organist in the Maronite church, and their liturgy was so different from that of the RC Church, that I had to search for direction as to whether my Sunday Mass was valid, and whether or not I could receive communion there. And of course, it is perfectly valid in every way, though quite foreign to my way of celebrating in our rite.
Yet the essential mysteries, no matter the language or form, are immutable.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1c2a2.htm#1200
As Holy Mother Church wisely counsels in 1206, In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity.
May God speak to our hearts,
Carole
I was an organist in the Maronite church, and their liturgy was so different from that of the RC Church, that I had to search for direction as to whether my Sunday Mass was valid, and whether or not I could receive communion there. And of course, it is perfectly valid in every way, though quite foreign to my way of celebrating in our rite.
Yet the essential mysteries, no matter the language or form, are immutable.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1c2a2.htm#1200
Many people who prefer the traditional mass would be uncomfortable in the charismatic mass setting, understandably; just as I would be uncomfortable in a teen mass with cultural musical accompaniments and hymns. These variations do not alter the immutable mysteries, and may not be what some would consider an “abuse” because the parts that can be changed, are differently celebrated than one is accustomed to.
As Holy Mother Church wisely counsels in 1206, In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity.
May God speak to our hearts,
Carole
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Mr. Gusano, your words:
gusano:
Has not the New Covenant already been revealed thru the Church.
gusano:
gusano:
The Eastern Rite Catholics! The Eastern Orthodox!
Hasn’t our Lord revealed to us everything that is to be revealed to us thru the Church.
What knowledge do you alude to that has not already been revealed to us, that has been hidden or misunderstood.
But then, we are in the dark, with no AUTHENTIC LITURGICAL WORSHIP, no new knowledge, since we do not follow the new prophet, Kiko Arguello and his Neocatechumenal Way.
Hasn’t the Church already exposed to us the accurate teachings of Christ.
Has not the New Covenant already been revealed thru the Church.
We are misled, in a vacuum, in sin, because by your words we stifle the Spirit.
Do we not have AUTHENTIC LITURGICAL WORSHIP!
The Eastern Rite Catholics! The Eastern Orthodox!
Hasn’t our Lord revealed to us everything that is to be revealed to us thru the Church.
What knowledge do you alude to that has not already been revealed to us, that has been hidden or misunderstood.
But then, we are in the dark, with no AUTHENTIC LITURGICAL WORSHIP, no new knowledge, since we do not follow the new prophet, Kiko Arguello and his Neocatechumenal Way.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Carole,
When the Holy See refers to diverse cultures, it is not refering to diversity of likes and dislikes, and a variety of tastes. Here is a prime example as covered by Cardinal Arinze concernign “Dance in the Liturgy”. Note his words carefully…
Concretely: there are cultures in which this is possible insofar as dancing is still reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them. Such is the case of the Ethiopians. In their culture, even today, there is the religious ritualized dance, clearly distinct from the martial dance and from the amorous dance. The ritual dance is performed by priests and levites before beginning a ceremony and in the open are in front of the church. The dance accompanies the chanting of psalms during the procession. When the procession enters the church, then the chanting of the psalms is carried out with and accompanied by bodily movement.
The same thing is found in the Syriac liturgy by means of chanting of Psalms.
In the Byzantine Liturgy, there is an extremely simplified dance on the occasion of a wedding when the crowned spouses make a circular revolution around the lectern together with the celebrant.
Such is the case of the Israelites: in the synagogue their prayer is accompanied by a continuous movement to recall the precept from tradition:
“When you pray, do so with all your heart, and all your bones.” And for primitive peoples the same observation can be made.
However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.
Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.
For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.
Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation.
Therefore, there is a great difference in cultures: what is well received in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture.
The traditional reserve of the seriousness of religious worship, and of the Latin worship in particular, must never be forgotten.
If the proposal of the religious dance in the West is really to be made welcome, care will have to be taken that in its regard a place be found outside of the liturgy, in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical.
Many things have been introduced into the liturgy that have no business being there, all in the name of diversity. That is how this happened:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/clown.jpg
When the Holy See refers to diverse cultures, it is not refering to diversity of likes and dislikes, and a variety of tastes. Here is a prime example as covered by Cardinal Arinze concernign “Dance in the Liturgy”. Note his words carefully…
Concretely: there are cultures in which this is possible insofar as dancing is still reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them. Such is the case of the Ethiopians. In their culture, even today, there is the religious ritualized dance, clearly distinct from the martial dance and from the amorous dance. The ritual dance is performed by priests and levites before beginning a ceremony and in the open are in front of the church. The dance accompanies the chanting of psalms during the procession. When the procession enters the church, then the chanting of the psalms is carried out with and accompanied by bodily movement.
The same thing is found in the Syriac liturgy by means of chanting of Psalms.
In the Byzantine Liturgy, there is an extremely simplified dance on the occasion of a wedding when the crowned spouses make a circular revolution around the lectern together with the celebrant.
Such is the case of the Israelites: in the synagogue their prayer is accompanied by a continuous movement to recall the precept from tradition:
“When you pray, do so with all your heart, and all your bones.” And for primitive peoples the same observation can be made.
However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.
Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.
For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.
Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation.
Therefore, there is a great difference in cultures: what is well received in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture.
The traditional reserve of the seriousness of religious worship, and of the Latin worship in particular, must never be forgotten.
If the proposal of the religious dance in the West is really to be made welcome, care will have to be taken that in its regard a place be found outside of the liturgy, in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical.
Many things have been introduced into the liturgy that have no business being there, all in the name of diversity. That is how this happened:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/clown.jpg
J
Joysong
Guest
Diane,
It is difficult to tell where the Cardinal’s words end, so I’m assuming all of the blue belongs to him. It is also difficult to see how his comments on dancing pertains to our discussion of tongues. I noted that Cardinal Vidal, who is the head of the charismatic community in the Phillipines, would have apparently permitted the use of tongues at Mass, except in the consecration, so maybe that is a point our priest/celebrants might consider universally and come into agreement thereon in the rubrics.
Charismatic worship is a Mass celebrated lawfully world-wide and those in attendance have used tongues since the very beginning. Our pastors who celebrate this Mass in every diocese are not scandalized by their use, or something would have been brought to the attention of the hierarchy in the thirty-plus years since its inception. So that tells me there must be something peculiar to their culture that does not forbid it, nor is it presently considered an abuse, except in the eyes of persons who are intolerant or discern that “some” are not authentically using the gift.
I realize how offensive this is to you, since you enjoy a contemplative solemn setting — well and good! That is your choice. We are at an impasse on this subject, I think, for my modest words have little power to accomplish much. That is a job for the Holy Spirit and/or the teaching authority of the Church, should She choose to promulgate directives in this regard. Meanwhile, you are free to stay within worship that you feel comfortable with, and to submit questioning to the Church for clarification. I’m hoping you spoken with someone at the Archdiocese of Detroit, for they may have information available on this.
Peace,
Carole
It is difficult to tell where the Cardinal’s words end, so I’m assuming all of the blue belongs to him. It is also difficult to see how his comments on dancing pertains to our discussion of tongues. I noted that Cardinal Vidal, who is the head of the charismatic community in the Phillipines, would have apparently permitted the use of tongues at Mass, except in the consecration, so maybe that is a point our priest/celebrants might consider universally and come into agreement thereon in the rubrics.
Charismatic worship is a Mass celebrated lawfully world-wide and those in attendance have used tongues since the very beginning. Our pastors who celebrate this Mass in every diocese are not scandalized by their use, or something would have been brought to the attention of the hierarchy in the thirty-plus years since its inception. So that tells me there must be something peculiar to their culture that does not forbid it, nor is it presently considered an abuse, except in the eyes of persons who are intolerant or discern that “some” are not authentically using the gift.
I realize how offensive this is to you, since you enjoy a contemplative solemn setting — well and good! That is your choice. We are at an impasse on this subject, I think, for my modest words have little power to accomplish much. That is a job for the Holy Spirit and/or the teaching authority of the Church, should She choose to promulgate directives in this regard. Meanwhile, you are free to stay within worship that you feel comfortable with, and to submit questioning to the Church for clarification. I’m hoping you spoken with someone at the Archdiocese of Detroit, for they may have information available on this.
Peace,
Carole
P
palmas85
Guest
Not satire at all. My good friend and hermanito Worm, Gusano to most, Worm to me, and I have what could be called an ongoing dialogue in this area. I imagine he thought he had me on the ropes with this one.
As far as your definition of “tongue talking”, a true case of it would probably be that way, I agree. I just doubt that the vast majority of talkers today are genuine thats all.
I am indeed glad that you brought up the issue of using the isolated scriptural quotes to defend a position. I have long abhorred that practice, taking things out of context and formulating a belief from them. In the instant case you mentioned, I merely responded to Worms presentation using his quotations. Noting more or less. I did not bring any new ones into the fray and simply demonstrated that his could be interpreted differently. Avtually the entire Protestant experience has come about due to mans differing interpretations of verious scriptural verses. I have often chided my hermanito Worm about that.
One thing that the catechism says that you posted but seem to overlook is when it says:
“provided they are really genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic prompting of the same spirit”
From that statement it is obvious to me that the Church recognizes that grave abuse is possible and even probable in this area, otherwise they would not havwe included it.
So given that I will make a proposition to you. If you TRULY BELIEVE that each and every occasion of “tongue talking” is in fact a faithful manifestation of the presence of the Holy Spirit, then I will agree to attend charismatic masses and see for myself and be completely open to the experience. Remember though, you cannot have any doubt as to the validity of ANY EPISODE none whatsoever, and you have to be truthful.
I think it sounds like a good deal.
J
Joysong
Guest
Bless your heart, Palmas! Of course I agree with you! There are going to be those who “think” they are praying in tongues, and those who truly are praying in tongues. But it is not our business, nor the Celebrant’s, to distinguish or to admonish anyone, nor to eliminate all such prayer because of it.
It occurred to me that this goes on all the time in our Sunday liturgies as well. There are those who truly pray in spirit with the liturgy, and those who “think” they pray because their mouths move and they recite the prayers by rote while they think about getting home to watch football, or some other distraction. Who’s to say? And who’s to point out that they are not authentic? It doesn’t only happen with tongues, but with English as well, huh?
Just a thought ~~~
Carole
It occurred to me that this goes on all the time in our Sunday liturgies as well. There are those who truly pray in spirit with the liturgy, and those who “think” they pray because their mouths move and they recite the prayers by rote while they think about getting home to watch football, or some other distraction. Who’s to say? And who’s to point out that they are not authentic? It doesn’t only happen with tongues, but with English as well, huh?
Just a thought ~~~
Carole
G
gusano
Guest
I think He would say something like…
"Out of the mouths of children comes perfected Praise !"
gusano
G
gusano
Guest
Jesus is building His Church to do exactly that ;
To expose the accurate teachings of Christ… but,
how many christians know CHRIST’S TEACHINGS accurately ?
The Church is continually, by the power of the Holy Spirit, revealing the New Covenant, …but,
how many christians know what the New Covenant is ?
is it 100%…70%,…35%…
5%…?
What makes you think those are my words ?
I can’t answer that… I have never attended any of your Liturgies.
You should be able to discern the presence and power of The Holy Spirit in your Rites.
If you have the Gift of discernment.
He is patiently wanting to reveal it to us…
He has deposited this Wisdom in the Teaching Authority of His Church …but who really listens to the THE MESSAGE?
We read and speak words, but …
have not looked for The Son to Reveal to us. (Matt.11:27)
This knowledge;’
"If anyone thirsts, let him come to me; let him drink who believes in me.
Scripture has it:…‘From within him rivers of living water shall flow’ " here He was referring to The Spirit… (John 7: 37)
The Holy Spirit comes to reveal the New Covenant in us;
(1) THE MESSAGE
(2) THE FELLOWSHIP
(3) THE EUCHARIST
(4) THE WITNESS
Has the Spirit revealed experientially to you what all this is…
or do you know only the words ?
That is a poor excuse.
"Then from the cloud came a voice which said: ‘This is my belived Son, my Chosen One. Listen to Him.’ "
(Luke 9: 35)
Does that voice tell you to listen to some "new prophet "?
How will you be able to discern one “prophet” from another “prophet” ?
unless The Holy Spirit leads you into all the Truth. ?
The world is overflowing with “new prophets”
Why do you promote Kiko ?
I think I smell a sower of weeds.
gusano
G
gusano
Guest
you know as well as I that whatever Inspiration The Spirit breaths in us, we are free to ignore, and often do.
In the Gifts of The Spirit, He speaks in us …We , because we believe it is He, may speak or act it out with confidence. …if we are not sure, it is best to leave it alone.
in this case, I’d say you are not sure.
Well, …that could almost qualify you to be called a “prophet” !
The point is; The Tongues they spoke were “FOREIGN” to those who spoke. do we agree on that ?
The main thing I am happy about is, that as much as you dislike Scripture and those who quote it…
You were finally (right here) persuaded to QUOTE SCRIPTURE !
I wouldn’t know how hard that would be, since I have never tried to fake any Gifts of The Spirit.
Wouldn’t that cause some kind of insanity, or grieving of The Holy Spirit ?
It takes courage for “hermanitos” like you and I,I am impressed that you admitted speaking in tongues can be from ones ego as well. I always knew that it could be, and quite probably mi hermanito, .often is.
to admit we are among the top 10% “ego-istas” of of our time ?
But The Spirit gives us courage to look at ourselves while He holds us in His Love.
ALLELUIA !
gusano
P
palmas85
Guest
Why would you ignore any inspiration that the Holy Spirit chose to bestow upon you? If he came to me. I think I would do whatever he wanted me to do.you know as well as I that whatever Inspiration The Spirit breaths in us, we are free to ignore, and often do.
In the Gifts of The Spirit, He speaks in us …We , because we believe it is He, may speak or act it out with confidence. …if we are not sure, it is best to leave it alone.
The point is; The Tongues they spoke were “FOREIGN” to those who spoke. do we agree on that ?
The main thing I am happy about is, that as much as you dislike Scripture and those who quote it…
You were finally (right here) persuaded to QUOTE SCRIPTURE !
I wouldn’t know how hard that would be, since I have never tried to fake any Gifts of The Spirit. Wouldn’t that cause some kind of insanity, or grieving of The Holy Spirit ?
It takes courage for “hermanitos” like you and I,
to admit we are among the top 10% “ego-istas” of of our time ?
But The Spirit gives us courage to look at ourselves while He holds us in His Love.
ALLELUIA !
gusano
I have never for one second doubted that the early fathers of the Church spoke in languages other than their own. It is clearly written in scripture that they did and that others understood what they were saying. Never doubted that one at all.
Not persuaded to quote scripture hermanito, I merely finished the quote you started, putting in the part that you neglected or overlooked.
I don’t dislike scripture, just people who try to manipulate it to their own ends. Scripture is wonderful, and when used properly, can open avenues and vistas unparalled. Used incorrectly and selectively however it can lead to situations such as Jim Jones and Georgetown Guyana , David Koresh and Waco, Texas, Heavens gate here in San Diego and others who have read and interpreted scripture to their own ends. It is very easy to twist Scripture hermanito, as Satan and his minions know only too well.
I believe that you would not fake it hermanito, but apparently the Church feels that there are those who might, and so do I. I just said that prophecy and healing would a lot harder to fake than talking in tongues. Wouldn’t you agree?
In any event I still maintain that the proper place for tongue talking would be in a prayer meeting or at home. Not during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
- Status