tongues

[tru_dvotion]

How arrogant can a person be who persists in an error of interpretation, when the Pope, and many Bishops and Priests refute?

Dear Mysty,

The above is an untrue statement. The Pope has not given an interpretation or a teaching on the Charismatic Renewal. It has not been looked into debt, it has not been scrutinized (it cannot be after all) and so it has not been discerned with Catholic discernment.

 

[Mysty101]

PS I edited my post after you responded

 

[tru_dvotion]

Where is this infallible affirmation of your interpretation of Scripture?

There is no infallible affirmation on something that does not exist. This is an illogical proposition.

On the other hand if an infallible affirmation would exist it would be the responsibility of the individual to produce such affirmation who is proposing its existence. But it cannot be produced, because no such infallible affirmation is in existence.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

I hope this will be the last I say on this matter.

How arrogant can a person be who persists in an error of interpretation, when the Pope, and many Bishops and Priests refute?

Show me the error of interpretation.

And whcih Bishops or Popes refute my supposed interpretation? Do you think that their endorsement is somehow justifying the Charismatic position and thereby refuting my suppose interpretation of 1Cor 14:27-28?

On what ground do these Bishiops and Popes refute 1Cor 14:27-28 to accomodate the tongue that Charismatics practive in the midst of believers?

 

[tru_dvotion]

you do not have the right to slander legitimate Catholics and clergy and the approved movement they choose to embrace.

Please look up the definition of slender in the dictionary. It would become clear I have not slandered the movement or the individuals who participate in it.

 

[Mysty101]

Your response to my questions is

“I don’t need to prove my interpretation of scripture, and the Pope was wrong in approving the Charismatic movement”

What is wrong with that picture???

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Tru,
My rejection of your interpretation is backed by the Pope’s approval of the movement, and many Bishops and priests.

Aproval from Pope is neither authoritative nor infallible.

Where is this infallible affirmation of your interpretation of Scripture?

It plainly says what it says. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

BUT–you do not have the right to slander legitimate Catholics and clergy and the approved movement they choose to embrace.

We have every right to show the errors embraced by anyone.

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Your response to my questions is

“I don’t need to prove my interpretation of scripture, and the Pope was wrong in approving the Charismatic movement”

What is wrong with that picture???

Who said that?

 

[tru_dvotion]

I will leave now, because it is not fair to Mysty having to carry a two way debate. That would be bombardment.

 

[Joysong]

Beng:

Approval from Pope is neither authoritative nor infallible.

This statement reveals a total lack of respect for the teachings of the Pope and lacks a humble spirit of submission to the highest teaching authority in the Church.

I am aware of only two infallible pronouncements, the Dogma of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

All other papal encyclicals and apostolic letters impose a serious responsibility on the faithful to give religious adherence and assent. To ignore or disregard any of these solemn declarations (and dare to profess it publicly!) on the grounds that the teaching is not infallible demonstrates a spirit of disobedience.

Carole

 

[1_Maria]

SPOKENWORD:

Tru, I pray that only we will do our best. My prayer even before I come on this site, is to ask the Lord that I may speak words of kindness and gentleness.That I may respond with His Spirit which lives in me. I pray that if I cannot speak in love that my lips will be sealed.We are one body in Christ Jesus. We are united in Jesus Christ. Let us give Glory to Jesus Christ and not bring tears to His eyes. God Bless you.

Word, if I may call you that:

Excellent post, thanks. That’s something we should all be doing.

I believe we will all have to give an accout in purgatory for every time we have criticized or talked down to Jesus in our brothers and sisters, especially behind their backs.

Maria

 

[beng]

Joysong:

This statement reveals a total lack of respect for the teachings of the Pope and lacks a humble spirit of submission to the highest teaching authority in the Church.

That statement is correct and there’s no error in it. If you feel that there’s an error direct me to it.

I am aware of only two infallible pronouncements, the Dogma of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

Let’s get this right.

Those are two ex Cathedra pronoucements by Pope outside of the General Council. Beside that we have tons of infallible pronouncement. Buy Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ludwig Ott

All other papal encyclicals and apostolic letters impose a serious responsibility on the faithful to give religious adherence and assent. To ignore or disregard any of these solemn declarations (and dare to profess it publicly!) on the grounds that the teaching is not infallible demonstrates a spirit of disobedience.

Carole

Encyclicals are quite authoritative, and so do apostolic letters.

The so called endorsement the Charismatic like to push is usually from news article by L’osservatore Romano or other non-encyclicals letter.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Joysong:

This statement reveals a total lack of respect for the teachings of the Pope and lacks a humble spirit of submission to the highest teaching authority in the Church.

I am aware of only two infallible pronouncements, the Dogma of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.

All other papal encyclicals and apostolic letters impose a serious responsibility on the faithful to give religious adherence and assent. To ignore or disregard any of these solemn declarations (and dare to profess it publicly!) on the grounds that the teaching is not infallible demonstrates a spirit of disobedience.

Carole

Dear Carole,

That is because you are reading it as an absolute statement. Beng did not make an absolute statement. Please read further back. We are discussing a lay movement. There are no encyclicals, apostolic letters or solemn declarations from the Magisterium regarding the charismatic movement. The question of infallibility only came up, because proponents of the movement insist we all have to fall in line, we are not be allowed to critique the movement and if we do we are offending the Magisterium somehow. Beng never advocated the disobedience against papal encyclicals, apostolic letters and solemn declarations. I believe you misunderstood.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Elainevw:

And by the way…one doesn’t know God by reason Beng, everything He has ever done or will ever do is so far beyond man’s reason and so far beyond man’s understanding man can do no less then bow in his ignorance and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten not his mind, but his spirit in the ways of the Lord…which do you fear more enlightenment or the charismatics or is it both because one leads to the other.

God bless,
Elaine

There’s my first objection with charismatics, stated as plainly as I could have.

 

[Mysty101]

Beng & Tru,
You are Orthodox Catholics. I remember as a young child --pre Vatican II–we were told we were not allowed private interpretation of scripture. And the reason was that people would read a passage, and think they could apply it to another situation. Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, and addressing their problems. He was speaking of teaching, not praying.

**

**Ephesians 6
**

8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Well, I guess I can keep slaves as long as I don’t threaten them.

And have more than one wife as long as I am not a Bishop (and can have one wife as a Priest or Bishop)

Is there another way to interpret these passages?**

 

[beng]

Mysty101:

Beng & Tru,
You are Orthodox Catholics. I remember as a young child --pre Vatican II–we were told we were not allowed private interpretation of scripture. And the reason was that people would read a passage, and think they could apply it to another situation.

That is also the teaching of the Bible:

2Pet 1:20
Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, and addressing their problems. He was speaking of teaching, not praying.

Ephesians 6
8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Well, I guess I can keep slaves as long as I don’t threaten them.

And have more than one wife as long as I am not a Bishop (and can have one wife as a Priest or Bishop)

Is there another way to interpret these passages?

What are you saying here?

You jumped from private interpretation to Corinthians briefly and then Ephesians and then about interpretation of slavery. …???

Stick to the point. Give me other interpretation of 1 Cor 14:27-28.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Beng & Tru,
You are Orthodox Catholics. I remember as a young child --pre Vatican II–we were told we were not allowed private interpretation of scripture. And the reason was that people would read a passage, and think they could apply it to another situation. Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, and addressing their problems. He was speaking of teaching, not praying.

Well, I guess I can keep slaves as long as I don’t threaten them.
**
And have more than one wife as long as I am not a Bishop (and can have one wife as a Priest or Bishop)**

Is there another way to interpret these passages?

Hm. This is rather convoluted but I will try to address what I think may be the point here?

But keeping slaves is against the law these days or have you heard? There is no more slavery, not even in the good ol’ USA! I suppose taking the Bible out of its time line, out of context and interpreting the parts in isolation AND literally pose problems for the credibility of the renewal. So you have a good point there longing for the good old days. I suppose it would be fair to caution you against interpreting anything, not only because I have not seen any logical proposition coming out from that corner of the universe we call the CCR, but might I add, Mysty, you are not much help to them. God bless.

---

 

[Mysty101]

beng:

Stick to the point. Give me other interpretation of 1 Cor 14:27-28.

My point is that you cannot apply scripture to a different situation on your own authority. (which is illustrated by all those remarks)

You have slandered the preacher to the papal household, as well as many others, You expect us to take your erroneous application, with no documentation, while disregarding the approval of the pope and confirmation of Bishops and Priests. Your arrogance is appalling.

And yes, I do know the definition of slander

1. law. Damaging defamation by spoken words, or by looks or gestures.

 

[Mysty101]

tru_dvotion:

But keeping slaves is against the law these days or have you heard?

Oh, so it is only when YOU see that the situation has changed, or is different that the application is different?

I think I will listen to the Pope.

 

[Joysong]

Beng,

I believe the point SuZ was trying to make is that you are interpreting a verse of scripture literally and using it as a basis for condemning an entire movement within the Church, including its members.

You have consistently demanded an explanation of the two verses in Corinthians, as though everything in the movement was dependent upon proper understanding of those verses.

Let’s go a few verses further into 1 Cor. 14:34, “According to the rule observed in all the assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. They may not speak.”

If we apply your rigidness to this verse, all women would incur the same diatribe as you have issued in this thread, for daring to speak in assembly. You probably loosely interpret that verse as applied to the culture of the times, but fail to interpret other verses with the same understanding. My guess is that you have a preconceived, unfavorable opinion and have looked for a scripture to back it up.

Moving on to verse 39: “Set your hearts on prophecy, my brothers, and do not forbid those who speak in tongues, but make sure that everything is done properly and in order.”

The problem Paul was having with the fascination with this new gift, was that everyone wanted to speak simultaneously and it was creating chaos and disorder. As a matter of discipline, he was attempting to bring order into the gatherings, and was not strictly forbidding tongues, but limiting the structural use of them.

If you stop and think about it, St. Paul might apply a discipline in this thread to prevent the very disorder you are creating with your one-sided, unrelenting charge of error. I can picture him saying, in connection with verses 27-28, “Unless there is an authoritative interpretation of my words, I charge you to keep silence.”

One might question whether or not you have the mind of St. Paul to know why he gave that discipline, in that culture, for those assemblies.

The assumption you make of pure error based on your private interpretation, is seemingly taken by you to include grave sinfulness on the part of charismatics. When anyone considers the three conditions for serious sin, I see nothing here to charge anyone who prays in tongues in a public place, with any sin whatsoever – I might add, it may not even be an imperfection.

So I really question the motivation of this discord you have maintained here, which seems to be far greater an evil than that with which you accuse the charismatics. Does the prosecution ever rest its case? Haven’t we seen enough? Is anyone seriously listening to your argument?

Carole