I
InquisitorMax
Guest
Assuming that is an accurate translation and it means what you imply, what then is the use of a babel no one but the speaker understands? Assuming the speaker understands it themselves.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
This is the whole point of one of the varieties of tongues, but not all.
1 Cor 12:28-31
8 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
The variety of tongues mentioned here:
1 Cor 14:2
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Clearly is not intended for others to understand.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think by “it came” you are referring to the third person of the Trinity?
Yes, He came to them, but, though they may have been cowering in fear, yet they were praying and open to God. It is not as if they were there shuddering in fear and saying “I will NEVER ask!” We know this because the Blessed Mother was there with them. She had already been filled with the Spirit, and was there to give them consolation from God.
Why would you say these things are not from God?
Is there some reason you think that God would not want to heal the emotions of a person?
How do you tell the difference?
I am glad that at least you are willing to admit that God can still do miracles. On the weekend, someone told me this does not happen anymore. It was very sad.
John 14:12-14
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Where do yo get the impression that the works of the HS in us should be “rare”?
I I think the rarity is a result of something else:
Matt 13:58-14:1
58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.
Can you please show where the Church teaches that God only does miracles in “rare cases”?
This is not my understanding at all of the criteria used by the Church to establish a miracle.
Yes, the mind of man, made in the image and likeness of God, is capable of some very frightening things.
**
Could you please also tell me where the gifts such as laughing and resting in the spirit came from since I dont see any references in the early Church and can only see it in Pentacostalism.**
Laughing and crying are just common human expressions of overwhelming emotion. Even the most somber people can be overcome with feelings once and a while. The fact that people cry at funerals is not “anti-God”. When God is working in a person, sometimes they experience powerful emotions. Anyone who reads the writings of the mystics will see this very clearly.
As far as the “falling phenomenon”, the power of the human person to stand up when the HS washes over them sometimes becomes inadequate. The Word of God can rush upon a person so strongly that they fall down.
John 18:3-7
4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When he said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
That being said, I can testify that I have seen this faked as well.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a very good question, since the Apostle strictly instructed that this gift should not be abused during the church gathering.
I urge you to find this scripture in you own bible, so that you can be confident that the translation is accurate.
Clearly the verse states that the person speaks mysteries. What might be the purpose of communicating with God?
1 Cor 14:13-19
13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Paul is saying that, when the Church gathers, using this kind of tongues does not benefit the body. Using it, one blesses with the Spirit. He says that it is important to pray with both the mind, and the spirit. But speaking mysteries in the Spirit to God without using the mind belongs in a private devotion, not a gathering. Using this form of tongues is for the building up of the individual, not the building up of the Body.
1 Cor 14:2-5
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.
Private prayer time is for the strengthening of the believer in his relationship with God. We all need to edify ourselves with our private devotion, and speak privately to God both “with the mind, and with the Spirit also”. This particular gift is most abused in Pentecostal gatheings, causing the babel I think you are speaking of. It is a direct violation of the Apostolic instruction.
Saying that the gift of a private prayer language does not exist, though, is not consistent with the Apostolic instruction either.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
@Heuchler: Maybe the man who cried out “Forgive me!!!” really had been living in a state of serious sin, and at that point he was given such a grace to understand the depth of the wickedness he had done, and cried out to God begging for mercy and forgiveness! I think God does work like that sometimes, to make us want His mercy so much we’re ready to scream for it. It’s often that feel like God couldn’t possibly forgive them for their wickedness, and desperately cry out for mercy. The laughing and sobbing certainly didn’t edify you, but you don’t know the circumstances of those peoples’ lives! That may indeed be what God was using to bring them closer to Himself. But it may also have been emotional. You can’t just rule it out as one or the other without knowing the details of the individual person. For me, I can control when I speak in tongues or not. I just open my mouth and it comes out.
From the limited experience of the Charismatic Renewal I have seen, it does fit in with Scripture. It depends where you go. I know of places where the Renewal is more mature. I know of other places where it really is very immature. Individual humans make mistakes and aren’t perfect. I think the movement itself is going to eventually die out, once its message of experiencing Pentecost and the charismatic gifts are absorbed once more into the Church. In some places its very immature yet. We need to be patient with the faults and imperfections of people.
Just because there are problems with how the message is being told doesn’t mean the message itself is flawed.
From the limited experience of the Charismatic Renewal I have seen, it does fit in with Scripture. It depends where you go. I know of places where the Renewal is more mature. I know of other places where it really is very immature. Individual humans make mistakes and aren’t perfect. I think the movement itself is going to eventually die out, once its message of experiencing Pentecost and the charismatic gifts are absorbed once more into the Church. In some places its very immature yet. We need to be patient with the faults and imperfections of people.
Just because there are problems with how the message is being told doesn’t mean the message itself is flawed.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
@ InquisitorMax: please read the Bible. Acts and Corinthians anyway. Obviously it wasn’t always understood - read what Paul is saying!
J
john_aurelius
Guest
There no reason to doubt the translation. It happens to be NASB perhaps you’d prefer the latin?
Qui enim loquitur lingua, non hominibus loquitur, sed Deo; nemo enim audit, spiritu autem loquitur mysteria.
It still amounts to the same thing
ouk anthropois lalei alla theo; oudeis gar akouei, pneumati de lalei musteria.
not to men he speaks but to God; no-one for he hears/ understands, by the Spirit/ in the spirit but he speaks mysteries
Paul says its to edify themselves, just like any personal prayer. For others to understand it needs interpretation.
So why do it? Significantly because God the Holy Spirit is its author.
C
CatholicGuy22
Guest
Traditionalist seriously need to stop picking on Charismatics. They worship the same thing you do but just in a different way than you! You are no more Catholic than they are! BTW Im not a charismatic i tend to be more traditional.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
In any case, I think what everyone needs to understand (regardless of any abuses of the Charismatics) is that we’re all supposed to be living in the power and reality of Pentecost. Some manifestation of the Holy Spirit is given to all of us - the charismatic gifts, specifically. We need to use our gifts for the up-building of the Church.
J
john_aurelius
Guest
The church does approve every miracle, thats true. So if it does approve of the Charismatic movement then what does that tell you?
Mary wasnt so much helping Jesus as herself. She was honouring Jesus and yes thats the reason Scripture says Judas said it but he said something which at least had a veneer of truth.
There are many references to the Joy of the Lord being our strength or the bitterest sighings and the full emotional range is on display in the psalms. The number 1 quoted book by the NT church. Rejoice in the Lord always. I hope they havent finished being glad in their salvation.
John falls down as if dead in the Apocalypse. That is sometimes the impact God has. As do the Priests at the inauguration of the Temple. The glory of God is an amazing thing.
finally, because the time difference means its the middle of the night here.
The H.S. did not come immediatley to the Apostles. They had to wait for more than a week in the upper room between the promise of Jesus and its fulfilment at Pentecost.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Yeah, I don’t know the Greek, but I do know Latin!There no reason to doubt the translation. It happens to be NASB perhaps you’d prefer the latin?
Qui enim loquitur lingua, non hominibus loquitur, sed Deo; nemo enim audit, spiritu autem loquitur mysteria.
It still amounts to the same thing
ouk anthropois lalei alla theo; oudeis gar akouei, pneumati de lalei musteria.
not to men he speaks but to God; no-one for he hears/ understands, by the Spirit/ in the spirit but he speaks mysteries
Paul says its to edify themselves, just like any personal prayer. For others to understand it needs interpretation.
So why do it? Significantly because God the Holy Spirit is its author.
Indeed why wouldn’t you want to speak in tongues? It’s an opportunity of great grace, literally doing what Paul calls “praying in the Holy Spirit”, letting the Holy Spirit use you are an instrument of worship.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I’ll stop picking on Charismatics when they stop trying to show that Charismaticism is somehow traditional, or can be reconciled with the Latin Mass and the traditional sacraments. Don’t the Charismatics have a subforum of their own? If not then they should start thier own and leave traditionalists alone. I would have no interest in going to a Charismatic subforum and bothering them.
Even though Charismatics cannot be reasoned with (which goes with the territory of speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, etc.), I’ll not stop trying to point out that Charismaticism is not traditional. It is a novelty. Even if popes have given their personal support to it, it’s still a novelty based on Protestantism.
S
Solemn_Sheep
Guest
I agree which would make it wdjd (What did Jesus do?).I think you have it backwards, Solemn. It is we who need to consider how we would conform ourselves to his perfect actions.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Um… how? Could you maybe substantiate the claim that it’s not traditional? Like… show me in the Acts of the Apostles where they don’t speak in tongues at Pentecost, and where it doesn’t say we should use the charismatic gifts?
D
Denise1957
Guest
Vardaquinn, it’s been explained to you over and over again on this thread, and you seem blind to what has been explained. You pay absolutely no attention whatsoever. But that’s what I’ve come to expect from Charismatics.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Just because it’s a novelty based on Protestantism, does that make it bad? Christianity is only 2000 year old novelty based on Judaism (and the charisms are at least as old as that - older, really, look at the Prophets).
What is Protestantism? Protestantism is the Protest of aspects of the Catholic faith. John Paul II notes that the charismatic dimension of the faith is essential to the nature of the Church. If you protest the charismatic dimension of the faith… well…
Pentecostalism is pretty new in the world of Protestant denominations. And just because its Protestant, does that mean that it’s totally wrong? To claim that is completely irrational.
In any case, the charisms have always been present in the Catholic Church. It’s traditional as anything is traditional in the Catholic Church.
What is Protestantism? Protestantism is the Protest of aspects of the Catholic faith. John Paul II notes that the charismatic dimension of the faith is essential to the nature of the Church. If you protest the charismatic dimension of the faith… well…
Pentecostalism is pretty new in the world of Protestant denominations. And just because its Protestant, does that mean that it’s totally wrong? To claim that is completely irrational.
In any case, the charisms have always been present in the Catholic Church. It’s traditional as anything is traditional in the Catholic Church.
V
vardaquinn
Guest
Please, let’s keep this rational and civil.
S
Solemn_Sheep
Guest
This is the problem I think we are running into with this topic. Someone reads “charismatics are not traditional” they think people are saying that charisms are not traditional or that people having them is not traditional which is not the case. I think what this person means by saying “Charismatics are not traditional” is that the actions, services and demeanor of the individuals in the Renewal itself is not traditional. Basically stating that the CR practice a spirituality that is not Catholic in tradition or nature but more Protestant like the Pentecostals/Baptists.
J
john_aurelius
Guest
So the joke about “Is the pope a Catholic?” will have to change as he is now a Protestant
G
gtrenewed
Guest
I am curious about the highlighted part above. I could understand if you said that the Charismatic Renewal is not for you but if the leader appointed by the Holy Spirit approves of it then it must be Catholic. After all, they are not requiring you to be a part of it.
To cast your opinion above theirs seems to be arrogance. Isn’t there a slight chance that they are right and you are wrong?
While there may be excesses that are seen also in protestants; to say it is based on protestantism is your own brand of protestantism - protesting against what the church has confirmed.
Are we not obliged to say I don’t understand but I will follow my pope as he follows Christ. Do we not assume he will not lead us into heresy? Is that not what the papacy rests on? Is it not a cop out to say ‘only faith and morals’? At that I would argue that the Renewal is about the original deposit of faith, which some followed in excess and had to be corrected.
- Status