Tongues- Gift Of The Holy Spirit?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='25 May 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1274823298' post='2117582']
I have read one of his books on the papacy (the title alludes me at the moment), which I think is a polemical treatise that ignores anything that would speak against the Vatican I definition on papal authority, and I read his book [u]Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism[/u], in which - like in his other books - he attacks Eastern Christian theology (e.g., he rejects the [i]ekporeusis[/i] of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and the doctrine of energies, to name just two things). I see no harm in reading his books, although I see no real value in doing so either.
[/quote]

Of course as a Catholic he would reject the the Eastern Orthodox teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, for it is heretical and contradicts the Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The same is true in regard to the Eastern Orthodox teaching on divine energies; he would reject it because it is contrary to the Catholic teaching on absolute divine simplicity.

In regard to papal primacy, would you really expect a Catholic who actually believes in the teachings of the Church not to defend the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I in a treatise on the pope?

Edited May 25, 2010 by Resurrexi

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='25 May 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1274823730' post='2117589']
The Church has never spoken authoritatively in favor of practices such as "speaking in tongues" and "being slain in the Spirit". While individual churchmen may have given their personal opinions in favor of the subject, it is important to note the following: The personal opinions of individual churchmen ≠ the teachings of the Church.

I have absolutely no respect for practices such as "speaking in tongues" or "being slain in the Spirit," nor do I have any reason to have respect for them.
[/quote]

Well, no, the Church hasn't done so explicitly, though the Church has tolerated the Charismatic renewal for some time now. Honestly, I don't even know if all of the bishops know about what goes on in Charismatic circles, but that's not even the point. The snarky, self-righteous attitude that people have gotten from you has gone on far too long. Some people find it endearing. Personally, I find it disgusting. I'm not asking you to do anything but kick that habit. Is that too much for you? That's the only concern I had in my first post on this topic. Everything else was secondary. We can agree to disagree. You and others have made up your mind and I'm okay with that. Your behavior, however, is just a [i]little[/i] too much. You may think you're being Christ-like when you use disrespect as a virtue to combat the things with which you disagree, but really, you're just being offensive. I'd refer you back to post #50. That is all.

Edited May 25, 2010 by iheartjp2

[Selah]

[quote]you're just being offensive.[/quote]

If I could give you a +1 for that, I would...but I wasted it in the lame board

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='25 May 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1274824248' post='2117604']
Of course as a Catholic would the the Eastern Orthodox teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone . . .
[/quote]
Just like with Mr. Likoudis . . . it is no secret that you and I disagree on a large number of theological issues, but happily we do agree on the issue under discussion in this thread, i.e., that modern Pentecostalism is not compatible with Apostolic Tradition.

[Mikaele]

As far as I remember, 'glossolalia' has never been used by a Saint. Vincent Ferrer had the real gift of tongues, the ability to speak and be heard in another language which you have no knowledge of. If it was a gift of the Holy Spirit, then the Saints (at least some,) would have had the same gift. Yet it only came into the Church in the 1960s.

The gibberish that charismatics call the gift of tongues, and being slain in the Spirit both have no root in history.
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">
</h1>

[Selah]

I agree. I was just objecting to the whole "satan does it lulzzz" argument. Do we not think that God could bless someone with the gift of speaking an unknown language to lead someone to God?

To quote a passage from one of my favorite books, "do you think all power is of the devil?"

That said, no I don't like the whole "slain in the spirit" think. It's more of...can't think of the word, but basically, it's sleight of hand...nothing more, nothing less.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mikaele' date='25 May 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1274829832' post='2117665']
As far as I remember, 'glossolalia' has never been used by a Saint. Vincent Ferrer had the real gift of tongues, the ability to speak and be heard in another language which you have no knowledge of. If it was a gift of the Holy Spirit, then the Saints (at least some,) would have had the same gift. Yet it only came into the Church in the 1960s.

The gibberish that charismatics call the gift of tongues, and being slain in the Spirit both have no root in history.
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">
</h1>
[/quote]
I totally beat you to that one. All St. Vincent Ferrer knew was Valencian.

[JustJump]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='25 May 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1274821862' post='2117530']
I've researched this topic numerous and countless times. Again, the devil is behind everything wicked and disordered. Sorry that upsets you. But Satan is very very real and he wishes to devour your soul, as well as mine. He is a real enemy, and we are at war with him.



...The thought that we cannot know the truth clearly or say that another person is in great error when they are in great error.
[/quote]


Uh, slightly confused by the first "Satan is out to get you" bit. Last time I checked I was Catholic and not a trying to fulfill a bible belting protestant stereotype. From my understanding Satan turned away from God, right? I mean Dante had him encased in ice in the last circle of hell...the furthest away from God's love. You think he roams the earth like the boogie man looking for souls to devour? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif[/img]

I'm not saying that there isn't temptation and sin. We are all tempted and we all sin. But to think that some other being is behind us sinning? Well isn't it sort of like saying there is a good God and a bad god? I don't know... [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

God created everything. And he gave it the freedom to choose. To choose Him or to choose to be away from Him. Turning away from God's love is to live a life in the dark and cold and suffering. Satan turned from God. We all do when we sin. I don't think Satan [i]causes [/i]us to do that. I think that's our free will. We make a descision. Perhaps by viewing actions like Satan's we are tempted to sin.

Adam and Eve bit the apple, but Jesus still came to us, thier sons and daughters, and died for us. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/signofcross.gif[/img]


oh and edited because I forgot to ask what the last fragment of a sentence was trying to say?

Edited May 26, 2010 by JustJump

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JustJump' date='25 May 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1274833316' post='2117721']
Uh, slightly confused by the first "Satan is out to get you" bit. Last time I checked I was Catholic and not a trying to fulfill a bible belting protestant stereotype. From my understanding Satan turned away from God, right? I mean Dante had him encased in ice in the last circle of hell...the furthest away from God's love. You think he roams the earth like the boogie man looking for souls to devour? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif[/img]
[/quote]

It isn't for nothing that after Low Mass we pray, "Tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude."

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JustJump' date='25 May 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1274833316' post='2117721']
Uh, slightly confused by the first "Satan is out to get you" bit. Last time I checked I was Catholic and not a trying to fulfill a bible belting protestant stereotype. From my understanding Satan turned away from God, right? I mean Dante had him encased in ice in the last circle of hell...the furthest away from God's love. You think he roams the earth like the boogie man looking for souls to devour? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif[/img]

I'm not saying that there isn't temptation and sin. We are all tempted and we all sin. But to think that some other being is behind us sinning? Well isn't it sort of like saying there is a good God and a bad god? I don't know... [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

God created everything. And he gave it the freedom to choose. To choose Him or to choose to be away from Him. Turning away from God's love is to live a life in the dark and cold and suffering. Satan turned from God. We all do when we sin. I don't think Satan [i]causes [/i]us to do that. I think that's our free will. We make a descision. Perhaps by viewing actions like Satan's we are tempted to sin.

Adam and Eve bit the apple, but Jesus still came to us, thier sons and daughters, and died for us. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/signofcross.gif[/img]


oh and edited because I forgot to ask what the last fragment of a sentence was trying to say?
[/quote]
Satan certainly does have an active role in our world. There is temptation, yes, and there are also extraordinary actions that he takes in order to attack and win souls. He is is defeated once and for all by Christ, but God still allows him power in this world, and he does use it.

Possession, for instance, is not just some fundie/medieval superstition. It's real, and it happens, even today.

[KnightofChrist]

"Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat"

- Jesus Christ

"Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour."

- Pope Saint Peter

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Selah' date='25 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1274830105' post='2117667']
I agree. I was just objecting to the whole "satan does it lulzzz" argument. [/quote]


If it is actually spiritual and not angelic it is demonic.

[quote name='Selah' date='25 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1274830105' post='2117667']Do we not think that God could bless someone with the gift of speaking an unknown language to lead someone to God? [/quote]

The original purpose of tongues was to grow the Church, then there were few members compared to now. Few members means few languages the Church could speak naturally. The gift of tongues was so the Apostles could speak and have all types of people understand their teaching. When the Church grew that need was gone.

Any supernatural claim, each supernatural claim of tongues should be investigated by the Church. With the same level of standards and criticism any other claim of supernatural activity.

[quote name='Selah' date='25 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1274830105' post='2117667']To quote a passage from one of my favorite books, "do you think all power is of the devil?"[/quote]

The devil is not the direct cause of every disorder or error and I have not said this, you have seen it by projecting it. These so called gifts may be just as Pope Paul thought they were, nothing more than psychological emotionalism.

[quote name='Selah' date='25 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1274830105' post='2117667']That said, no I don't like the whole "slain in the spirit" think. It's more of...can't think of the word, but basically, it's sleight of hand...nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I agree, and if it is truly spiritual, that is truly supernatural it is either demonic or angelic. It could also just be psychological emotionalism. Both justifiable reasons the Church should investigate these claims, someone claiming to be speaking for God, or that God has directly spoke to them, should prove their claims to the Church.

If she did I'm sure that most if not all claims would be disproven. Supernatural gifts have always been rare, to show their importance, it seems illogical to believe that only in the last 20 years of the 2,000 year history of the Church that all of a sudden supernatural gifts have become an everyday occurrence.

[Selah]

[quote]If it is actually spiritual and not angelic it is demonic. [/quote]

Well, I think we need to agree to disagree here. I think to jump to that conclusion so suddenly is...for lack of a better term, foolish. But that's just me.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Selah' date='25 May 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1274839703' post='2117868']
Well, I think we need to agree to disagree here. I think to jump to that conclusion so suddenly is...for lack of a better term, foolish. But that's just me.
[/quote]

Unless your leaving the Church also means you've accepted other gods, or you deny the existence of the devil, you should agree. There are only two types of spirits good and evil. There's no such thing as a halfway spirit.

There is nothing foolish about what I'm saying. IF these gifts are truly [i]spiritual[/i] they are either good (angelic) or evil (demonic), they can't be both. If there not spiritual then it's just something of the mind. If in the mind it is either a lie, or just mistaken emotional experiences for spiritual ones. This is a rather logical and fair look at it.

Edited May 26, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Luigi]

Let's see... Pentecost/Whitsunday was two days ago... I assume we all prayed for the gifts/fruits of the Holy Spirit... So far we've had about 120 posts arguing about whether tongues is a gift of the Spirit or not, which led to whether charsimatic worship is licit/valid/papally approved/permitted/demented/demonic...

How many fruits of the Holy Spirit you can count in the preceding posts? Just as a reminder, those would be:
Charity
Joy
Peace
Patience
Benignity
Goodness
Long-suffering (patient suffering over an extended period)
Mildness
Faith
Modesty
Continency
Chastity

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Taken from New Advent(The online Catholic Encyclopedia)

The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues (collectively known as glossolalia) are described at length in 1 Corinthians 14. In what did glossolalia exactly consist?

•It was speaking, opposed to being silent (1 Corinthians 14:28), yet
•not always in a foreign tongue. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles did indeed speak the various languages of their hearers, but the still unbaptized Gentiles in the house of Cornelius "speaking with tongues, and magnifying God" (Acts 10:46) and the twelve newly baptized Ephesians speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts 19:6) had no reason for using any strange tongue. Again, instead of the expression "speaking with tongues" Paul uses the alternative phrases, "speaking in a tongue", "by a tongue", "with a tongue" (1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 27). The object of the gift was not to convey ideas to listeners, but to speak to God in prayer (ibid., 2, 4), an object for which a foreign language is unnecessary. Lastly — and this argument seems conclusive — Paul compares glossolalia, as regards its effect, with talking in an unknown language; it is, therefore, not itself an unknown language (ibid., 11).
•It was an articulate language, for the speaker prays, sings, gives thanks (ibid., 14-17).
•The speaker was in a kind of trance — "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit [pneuma] prayeth, but my understanding [nous, mens] is without fruit" (ibid., 14).
•on unbelievers glossolalia made the impression of the marvellous; perhaps it recalled to their mind the religious ravings of hierophants: "Wherefore (i.e. because unintelligible) tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. If . . . all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?" (1 Corinthians 14:22, 23).
•The gift of tongues is inferior to that of prophecy: "Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification" (ibid., 5).
•The charisma of interpretation is, then, the necessary complement of glossolalia; when interpretation is not forthcoming, the speaker with tongues shall hold his peace (ibid., 13, 27, 28). Interpretation is the work either of the speaker himself or of another (ibid., 27). It takes the form of an intelligible address; the explanation was to follow the speech with tongues as regularly as the discerning of spirits succeeded prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:28, 29).


Among the Fathers it is sententia communissima that the speaking with tongues was a speaking in foreign languages. Their interpretation is based upon the promise in Mark 16:1, "They shall speak with new tongues", and on its final fulfilment in the gift of tongues to the apostles (Acts 2:4). A new tongue, however, is not necessarily a foreign language, and a gift which had a special use on the day of Pentecost appears purposeless in meetings of people of one language. There are, besides, textual objections to the common opinion, although, it must be owned, not quite convincing [see the second point above]. Many explanations of this obscure charisma are proposed, but not one of them is free from objection. It may indeed be that there is some truth in all of them. St. Paul speaks of "kinds of tongues", which may imply that glossolalia manifested itself in many forms: e.g. in the form of foreign languages when required by circumstances, as with the Apostles; as a new language — "a kind of speech distinctive of the spiritual life and distinguished from common speech, which to the exuberant feeling of the new faith appeared unsuitable for intercourse with God" (Weizsacker); or as the manifestation of the unspeakable groanings of the Spirit, asking for us, and causing us to cry, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15, 26).

[Ziggamafu]

I believe that sola scriptura is illogical and heresy - really, plainly stupid - but I believe that it is more reasonable to believe in sola scriptura than it is to believe in glossolalia as the gift of tongues. At least the proponents of sola scriptura can twist a [i]bunch [/i]of scriptures and historic quotes out of context; far more numerous and far more substantial than the few hairs that glossolaliacs have to grasp at.

Once again I would point to the fact that glossolalia (that is, babel-prayer) receives no support from the councils and no formal acknowledgment whatsoever from the authority of the Church, and it only appears explicitly within a heretical Protestant context. If it makes you feel good, fine. But I think it is wrong to refer to it as a gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit, and I think it is wrong to use it in religious assemblies (as if it were a defined aspect of Catholic Tradition).

[Slappo]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='26 May 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1274874367' post='2118100']
I believe that sola scriptura is illogical and heresy - really, plainly stupid - but I believe that it is more reasonable to believe in sola scriptura than it is to believe in glossolalia as the gift of tongues. At least the proponents of sola scriptura can twist a [i]bunch [/i]of scriptures and historic quotes out of context; far more numerous and far more substantial than the few hairs that glossolaliacs have to grasp at.

Once again I would point to the fact that glossolalia (that is, babel-prayer) receives no support from the councils and no formal acknowledgment whatsoever from the authority of the Church, and it only appears explicitly within a heretical Protestant context. If it makes you feel good, fine. But I think it is wrong to refer to it as a gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit, and I think it is wrong to use it in religious assemblies (as if it were a defined aspect of Catholic Tradition).
[/quote]

[Slappo]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='25 May 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1274819760' post='2117481']
It cannot be related to this scripture because St. Paul is speaking to the [b]faithful[/b] at Corinth, while the Prophets were speaking to [b]unbeleivers[/b]. [b]Plus it says NO MAN heareth(or understandeth).[/b]
[/quote]

The Old Testament prophets spoke to a lot more than just unbelievers. Like.... a lot lot more. For instance... the Israelites were not unbelievers (although they were not very faithful), and Moses was a prophet. That's just one of many examples.


And Roman's says that no man is without sin, but we all know Mary and Jesus were sinless.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Slappo

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='26 May 2010 - 05:46 AM' timestamp='1274874367' post='2118100']
I believe that sola scriptura is illogical and heresy - really, plainly stupid - but I believe that it is more reasonable to believe in sola scriptura than it is to believe in glossolalia as the gift of tongues. At least the proponents of sola scriptura can twist a [i]bunch [/i]of scriptures and historic quotes out of context; far more numerous and far more substantial than the few hairs that glossolaliacs have to grasp at.

Once again I would point to the fact that glossolalia (that is, babel-prayer) receives no support from the councils and no formal acknowledgment whatsoever from the authority of the Church, and it only appears explicitly within a heretical Protestant context. If it makes you feel good, fine. But I think it is wrong to refer to it as a gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit, and I think it is wrong to use it in religious assemblies (as if it were a defined aspect of Catholic Tradition).
[/quote]
Once again a solid post. Your contributions to this thread have been very helpful.

If I had a positive vote to give . . . you would get it.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Apotheoun