"charismatic Catholics" - Theology Debate

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313360013' post='2287785']
Glossa and laleo? I speak [a] tongue? Seems pretty close, as a greek term, to me.
[/quote]

I didn't say that the term itself wasn't greek, I said that it doesn't benefit charismatics.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313360076' post='2287787']
I didn't say that the term itself wasn't greek, I said that it doesn't benefit charismatics.
[/quote]


[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313203261' post='2286799']
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Samuel_Johnson_by_Joshua_Reynolds.jpg[/img]
[size=6][b]WAT[/b][/size]
[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

What is so complicated about what I wrote? I acknowledged that it was a greek term but that it doesn't provide evidence for the Charismatic position. It means tongue/language and speak/talk. Nobody here is saying that they don't believe in speaking in tongues, as St. Paul wrote about. I don't oppose what St. Paul wrote, but there is a huge difference between what St. Paul wrote and that of what the charismatics do.

[Amppax]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313360734' post='2287791']
What is so complicated about what I wrote? I acknowledged that it was a greek term but that it doesn't provide evidence for the Charismatic position. It means tongue/language and speak/talk. Nobody here is saying that they don't believe in speaking in tongues, as St. Paul wrote about. I don't oppose what St. Paul wrote, but there is a huge difference between what St. Paul wrote and that of what the charismatics do.
[/quote]

Its been said here (Bro Adam post 26) and else where (TPO) that they believe that the "speaking in tongues" that charismatics do is not, in their opinion, what St. Paul is talking about. TPO specifically called it prayer tongues in another thread, thus differentiating it from speaking in tongues.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your main objections to Charismatics are the speaking in tongues, and false prophecy? Do you have any other objections besides these?

[Sarah147]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313359294' post='2287778']
No offense intended to you, but that story sounds even goofier than even just glossolalia in its own right.
[/quote]

The issue is that when people go searching for special experiences, they open themselves up not just to God, but to bad forces, too.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1313361162' post='2287794']

Its been said here (Bro Adam post 26) and else where (TPO) that they believe that the "speaking in tongues" that charismatics do is not, in their opinion, what St. Paul is talking about. TPO specifically called it prayer tongues in another thread, thus differentiating it from speaking in tongues.[/quote]

What Charismatics do, weather "speaking in tongues" in a public church setting, or a private "prayer language" is not supported by biblical writings period and no individual here has been able to prove otherwise. As a matter of fact, this was meant to be a theological debate [as it says in the title bar] but so far, it's been rare for an individual that is for the charismatic beliefs to do so from a theological standpoint. It's almost always been "you should read this book", "I believe the Bible supports it" or "my experience", it's never been in definative terms. In contrast, my statements have been in definative terms.

Note: Charismatics believe in "speaking in tongues" and "prayer language" and practice both of them.

[quote]Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your main objections to Charismatics are the speaking in tongues, and false prophecy? Do you have any other objections besides these?
[/quote]

I'd say that prophesy is possibly the most important because of the seriousness of it, as the scriptures tell us. Amongst Charismatic circles often "speaking in tongues" as a "heavenly language" is linked to prophesy, so I'm particularly concerned with those, that's correct but I wouldn't limit it to those two specifically. I'd say that many of their other practices are still quite dangerous. There false interpretation is dangerous and particularly their claims of "the gift of healing", which has been called into question on more then one occasion.

As I have repeatedly said, I have nothing against miracles. When St. Mary appeared in Zeitoun and Assiut Egypt, there was and is no denying those miracles. They are documented extensively and have been researched by scientists, including those who are atheists. However Charismatics have a long rapsheet of faking miracles and healings, including telling people that it would be "doubting G-d" if they went to a doctor to find out for a scientific fact if they truly were healed.

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1313361665' post='2287796']

The issue is that when people go searching for special experiences, they open themselves up not just to God, but to bad forces, too.
[/quote]

Thank you, you make a great point.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1313361665' post='2287796']

The issue is that when people go searching for special experiences, they open themselves up not just to God, but to bad forces, too.
[/quote]
I agree with this, but the whole thing about one dude spewing gibberish and the other guy happening to speak that gibberish seems exceedingly silly.

[Sarah147]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313363163' post='2287810']
I agree with this, but the whole thing about one dude spewing gibberish and the other guy happening to speak that gibberish seems exceedingly silly.
[/quote]

In the Bible, there was an experience where everyone knew each others language. It's possible.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1313363760' post='2287817']

In the Bible, there was an experience where everyone knew each others language. It's possible.
[/quote]
Everything is within the realm of possibility. Probability is a different matter entirely.

[BG45]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313351447' post='2287723']
Umm how should I say this? Failure... there is much more evidence for the virgin birth, then there is for these supposed charismatic gifts.
[/quote]

I was trying to make a point about where we get all of the "evidence" actually. I mean yes, it is one thing to believe the numerous examples in the Bible, but the Bible was written by people and we're "taking their word for it" as it were.

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew both have birth narratives that tell us Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. We don't have any records of schisms in the Early Church over the teaching of the Virgin Birth (unlike now). Paul alludes to it in Galatians and at least one other letter I can't think of at the moment. Jesus alludes to it twice in the Gospel of John by calling Mary "woman", once at Cana and once upon the cross when giving her to the care of His beloved Disciple. Then we have prophecies from Isaiah.

But we get all of this evidence, Bible or Early Church, from the members of the Early Church themselves.
[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1313361665' post='2287796']

The issue is that when people go searching for special experiences, they open themselves up not just to God, but to bad forces, too.
[/quote]

Which is why we are told to test the Spirits and not automatically believe something is from God. That's part of my inherent reason to be skeptical, no matter what I might see when I go to a "charismatic" event. I had some poor friar furrowing his brow in shock when I didn't fall down after being prayed over once; it wasn't that I wasn't open to the Holy Spirit, but that I felt nothing more than I would when someone would normally pray for me. I know when I went to the Pentecostal place in undergrad, it was something totally different and I rarely felt the presence of God as much as I just did some outpouring of ego and energetic emotion.

[RezaMikhaeil]

For those that are familiar with charismatics and have been to their conferences [such as myself]. You might have remembered that often the theme at these events is that "the Holy Spirit is dwelling amongst Christians of all denominations", as if it doesn't matter if you're Protestant or Catholic, completely undermining the importance of being Catholic. When manchild [from marsill] became Roman Catholic, many Protestants were angry but I also heard Charismatics say, "some Catholics have the Holy Spirit too", which to me was also suggesting that those Catholics that aren't charismatic, don't have the Holy Spirit in their lives.

If you study the history of modern charismatics, you'll see that it didn't originate with the Roman Catholic Church, who is said to have the fullness of truth, not by the Orthodox Churches [Oriental and Eastern] but by Protestants, who have no foundation in the original church and are in rebellion against it. They do view these doctrines as penetrating the Roman Catholic Church and replacing the 2000 years of tradition with that of Protestantism. I'd agree with them, that getting the liturgies to be less traditional and more charismatic is conquering the traditions of the church, much like when Muslims converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, was a sign of victory.

They say that we've all been "renewed" in our own traditions. What do you think would be the perspective of the Bishops at Nicea if the Pauline Heretics would have tried to penetrate the church with such a doctrine, being heretics and in rebellion against the Church? I'll answer that question for you, they'd have condemned it. They wouldn't even accept baptisms performed by the Pauline Heretics, let alone considered them to be valid on the discussion of the Holy Spirit. The Pauline heretics are no different then the Protestants that founded the charismatic movement.

I'm an Orthodox Christian so I'm going to address this from an orthodox perspective but I'm assuming that Roman Catholics agree. Bishop [St.] Theophan the Recluse wrote of the gift of the Holy Spirit being given, "precisely through the Sacrament of Chrismation". Charismatics cite the same verses that we use to talk about the Holy Spirit and Christmation as evidence of their "baptism of the holy spirit". Either those verses are referencing the Holy Spirit and Chrismationi or the Charismatic doctrine of "baptism of the holy spirit", it can't be both because the scriptural context doesn't leave that option open. Bishop [St.] Theophan the Recluse goes on to write, "We all - who have been baptized and Chrismated - have the gift of the Holy Spirit".

Why do I put so much emphasis upon their doctrine of "speaking in tongues" and "prayer language"? That is a simple answer, because that is where they put the most emphasis upon. Above all other "gifts" [as they call them], they emphasize this being for all Christians. Many famous charismatics have wrote that this is "the first sign" of a believer having the holy spirit. David Du Plessis is someone who particularly was instrumental in bring the charismatic doctrines to Roman Catholic circles and in his own words, "The practice of praying in tongues should continue and increase in the lives of those who are baptised in the spirit, otherwise they may find that the other manifestations of the spirit come seldom or stop altogether".

Kevin Ranaghan, a Charismatic Catholic, an American religious scholar on this subject, who also happens to be a decon is slightly more cautious in saying that, "the gifts of the Holy Spirit" tongues "is often but not always the first recieved. For many it is thus a threshold through which one passes into the realm of the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit".

The fruits of the Holy Spirit huh? According to St. Paul [Galatians 5:22-23] the fruits of the spirit are "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [sup][b][size="2"]23[/size][/b][/sup] gentleness and self-control." The fruits of the Spirit that Ranaghan talks about are those of the Charismatic "gifts" and once again he puts tongues first on the list so in the proper context he is saying that one recieves the "gift" of "speaking in tongues", then he can go onto do things like healings. However when St. Paul lists gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28, he puts tongues last and the gift of healing before that. St. Paul lists them as such, "apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues."

Note: The Desert Fathers in Egypt, who were recorded to have been so filled with the Holy Spirit that they raised men from the dead were never recorded as having spoken in tongues and actually there is no record of it whatsoever amongst any of the Saints in the first 1500+ years.

In the Acts of the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, people did speak in tongues but not as Charismatics parade. The scriptures are clear that the people at Pentecost spoke in different languages, yet unlike the Tower of Babel, there was not confusion. G-d is not the author of confusion and according to our Orthodox liturgy, the day of Pentecost was the opposite of that which had taken place at the Tower of Babel. It was complete communication between G-d and his Church. However if you go to a Charismatic event, it's complete chaos in which everyone speaks in their own "prayer language" or "tongue" and nobody understands each other, yet they claim this is the same as the day of Pentecost out of Acts.

I will write more later.

[Amppax]

Ahhh ok, reading your post, it seems our experience of Charismatics is very, very different.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1313367281' post='2287861']
Ahhh ok, reading your post, it seems our experience of Charismatics is very, very different.
[/quote]

I've kind of experienced it all... I've gone to radical charismatic churches and those more moderate. I'd also attended a Protestant Bible College that was moderate about it in the sense that only one or two professors were for it, where as the overwhelming majority were not. However in that situation, it was becoming more prevelant because the new president was charismatic and so he was moving to get more charismatics to teach there.

[ThePenciledOne]

Well, at this point I have nothing left to say that except that you apparently have a crusade against the Charismatic Renewal, which is regrettably sad.

And in my experience Charismatic Catholics have been the most well founded and well read and authentic Catholics I have met.

Otherwise, Peace be with you and I hope you find peace within your own spirituality.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1313380833' post='2288165']
Well, at this point I have nothing left to say that except that you apparently have a crusade against the Charismatic Renewal, which is regrettably sad.

And in my experience Charismatic Catholics have been the most well founded and well read and authentic Catholics I have met.

Otherwise, Peace be with you and I hope you find peace within your own spirituality.
[/quote]

Well first there is no "crusade", as it were, against the Charismatic "renewal", rather - in stark contrast - there is a testing of the spirits both spiritually and theologically, as the scriptures tell us to do in 1 John 4:1, which reads, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." That is what I have done and that's why I'd posted in the title of this thread "theological debate".

Since the beginning of this thread all that people have written is, "read this book", "I think the Bible..." and my personal favorite, which you said, "in my experience". If I'd wanted your "experience", I'd have asked for that, but I didn't. From the get go, I was specific and direct, this is a theological debate. I'm looking for theological evidence, for which none of you have yet been able to present. This thread has gone on for over 134 posts, in which rarely ever did someone dig into the actual theological evidence.

Prior to post #131, I'd posted small theological comments but hadn't chosen to dig deep into it because I wanted to give everyone the opportunity with time to present their theological arguments in support of it. I'd only posted #131, after somebody had said that I was in no position to disagree because I haven't presented a theological stance myself. This is how debates are intended to function. I post the initial thread, people response and I counter, until the truth is shown. An old sociology processor, who was Ukranian Catholic and recognized the Pope, once told me, "an old philospher once said, 'the truth is born through dialogue.'"

In #131 I'd posted theological evidence and so far no Charismatic is interested in having a theological debate. They only want to post about their feelings, emotions and experiences. Why am I unconcerned with people's individual experiences? First and foremost because if I wanted those, I could go to individuals within my own family, who are charismatics. However individual experiences are not necessarily evidence. I have met many Muslims that tell me of miracles in their lives, in which they consider to be evidence that their faith is true. The scriptures themselves tell us that the devil tries to performs miracles that often try and replicate themselves after those that come from Jesus Christ in order to decieve. This is the importance of putting them to the test.

St. Paul once wrote that in 2 Corinthians 11, "[b][sup][size="2"]3[/size][/sup][/b] But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. [sup][b][size="2"]4[/size][/b][/sup] For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Just as what Muslims believe, what Mormons believe, and what Protestants believe is very different then that of the historic churches. It is without a doubt that the Charismatic interpretation of scriptures is different, so is the way in which they partake in liturgy, and their traditions. Sure you can find "similarities", but the same is true for Islam, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Protestantism. However that doesn't make it the same.