"charismatic Catholics" - Theology Debate

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1312847151' post='2283568']

If I'm correct, your argument stems off of the underlined portion, right?

However, if someone receives the Gift of Tongues, that doesn't mean they run around the church like a chicken with its head cut off yelling things nobody else understands to seek attention from others. It seems like most people who are against the Charismatic movement view Charismatic Catholics this way- viewing them as obnoxious, boisterous, unruly, self-centered, and showy. And quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I define myself as charismatic. I have been to a fair share of Catholic charismatic events, and none of them have ever gone on the way that some people (usually those who look down upon charismatics while never actually witnessing their spirituality firsthand) talk about. Never have I seen people dancing around and doing jumping jacks, standing on chairs and speaking in tongues so everyone can hear them, riding their unicorn off the choir loft, etc.

The charismatic movement, at least to my understanding in a nutshell, is about being open to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. BG45 said something earlier along the lines of "if you deny the Holy Spirit, you deny the Trinity." Props to that. Believe it or not, one can be charismatic AND follow the Church. I think people forget that charismatics and traditionals are both Catholic. There's no reason to hate.

As for the emotions argument....you've got to be kidding me. I can easily say that trads are ruled by their emotions and personalities too. If one says that charismatics are ruled only by their emotions, then they're clearly not a charismatic nor have they gotten through their heads that being charismatic means being open to the [i]Holy Spirit[/i], being open to [i]God [/i]and centering our lives on how [i]He [/i]wants to work within us--it does [u]not [/u]mean praising God how [i]we [/i]want to because [i]we [/i]like it better, etc. But I digress.

The edit-- I'd just like to add that because [b]some [/b]charismatic groups (mostly those who aren't even Catholic) take it "too far" and show off what the Holy Spirit might have given them (the whole writhing on the floor, shouting made up tongues, and telling everyone about it, etc) does not mean that that's how the entire charismatic movement works. In my opinion, those groups have the concept wrong themselves. It's like saying the entire Church is horrible because some priests have molested children. It's not right.
[/quote]

I am not completely against the Charismatic Renewal. The point I am trying to make is...I think that people get carried away with Speaking in Tongues, and even some of the other Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I think in many instances it is learned behavior or imagination.

With that being said, let me ask you a question...if the bible says that Speaking in Tongues should be done with an interpreter...then why would the Holy Spirit speak in Tongues through someone without an interpreter? The Holy Spirit would then be committing Heresy. Following this logic only leads me to think that it must not be "of the Holy Spirit"...it must be out of the persons own imagination and learned behavior.

The only other argument that one can present at this point would be that Speaking in Tongues is completely Voluntary.

Edited August 9, 2011 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1312847807' post='2283572']
the Holy Father has a charismatic as a household preacher ...that's good enuff for me to know the charismatic movement is not some sinister development set to destroy Holy Mother Church ...


...but like everything else, it can be abused beyond recognition of what it should be ...
[/quote]
Agreed.

[AudreyGrace]

All I'm saying is that it is not up to us to criticize how the Holy Spirit works within one another. Again, the Bible says "if there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God." If there is no interpreter and someone speaking in tongues is making it publicly known, then I agree with you, they are at fault in some way or another. However, the passage gives reason to believe that there are circumstances in which one will be given the gift of tongues when an interpreter is not present. It says that if that is the case, do not make your gift publicly known, because it will not benefit the community since nobody knows what the heck you're saying. It says to keep the conversing prayer with God to themselves. Someone can receive the gift of tongues in a private manner, to praise God in that unique way. I have been around a friend when she received the gift of tongues, having no prior knowledge or real exposure to it. I was sitting right next to her, and could barely hear what she was saying. She was praising "in private" so to speak, and afterwards, did not talk about what happened no matter how much we asked her. She felt it was supposed to be private. When people receive the gift of tongues, they don't always share it with others or make a show of it. Some might abuse it or stir it up on their own, but it's not ours to judge them or to decide what the Spirit has given them. That's theirs to deal with.

[AudreyGrace]

this is a good example of faking it, for teh lulz

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xCwmw8tf7k[/media]

[Laudate_Dominum]

I would ask the standard questions but I'm afraid of the open hand slap.

[Papist]

How does one know that it is indeed the Holy Spirit moving you to speak in tongues, dance, etc.?

I never been moved to speak in tongues other than from my 4-year-old whining.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1312904234' post='2284771']
How does one know that it is indeed the Holy Spirit moving you to speak in tongues, dance, etc.?

I never been moved to speak in tongues other than from my 4-year-old whining.
[/quote]

Who said anything about dancing? And just because you've never been so moved, doesn't at all mean that no one could. I've never had a vision of Mary, but I'm not going around denying Marian apparitions (although as I write this i realize I may have just opened up a whole new can 'o' worms, oh well)

Edited August 9, 2011 by Amppax

[Papist]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1312904382' post='2284775']
Who said anything about dancing?
[/quote]
In another thread, a charismatic said she dances. Therefore, I added it and reasoned there are more charismatic actions.

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1312904382' post='2284775']
And just because you've never been so moved, doesn't at all mean that no one could. I've never had a vision of Mary, but I'm not going around denying Marian apparitions (although as I write this i realize I may have just opened up a whole new can 'o' worms, oh well)
[/quote]
I did not state that no one can be moved. I am sure it happens. I am curious to how one discerns the authenticity of the Holy Spirit. Hence, my question.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1312905010' post='2284777']
In another thread, a charismatic said she dances. Therefore, I added it and reasoned there are more charismatic actions.


I did not state that no one can be moved. I am sure it happens. I am curious to how one discerns the authenticity of the Holy Spirit. Hence, my question.
[/quote]

Ok I understand, sorry I took what you were saying the wrong way. Honestly, as I can't say I've had an experience such as the ones we're talking about, I probably am not the one to best answer the question. However I would say that it is the same way one discerns if any movement of the heart is of God. Namely carefully and honestly. I'm going to have to come back with more, but right now i'm a little busy, i've got more to say on the whole thing though. Later.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Amppax

[Papist]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1312905267' post='2284778']

Ok I understand, sorry I took what you were saying the wrong way. Honestly, as I can't say I've had an experience such as the ones we're talking about, I probably am not the one to best answer the question. However I would say that it is the same way one discerns if any movement of the heart is of God. Namely carefully and honestly. I'm going to have to come back with more, but right now i'm a little busy, i've got more to say on the whole thing though. Later.
[/quote]
I can only speculate b/c I also have not experienced or have not recognized it. But I would think one would have to used the same discernment as one would if some spirit talking to you was claiming to be God, the Father or the Son, e.g. like some new age people have claimed. Also, that it would take some time before acting out b/c I don't think it would be prudent to act out immediately when hearing spirits in your head.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1312884925' post='2284652']
All I'm saying is that it is not up to us to criticize how the Holy Spirit works within one another. Again, the Bible says "if there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God." If there is no interpreter and someone speaking in tongues is making it publicly known, then I agree with you, they are at fault in some way or another. However, the passage gives reason to believe that there are circumstances in which one will be given the gift of tongues when an interpreter is not present. It says that if that is the case, do not make your gift publicly known, because it will not benefit the community since nobody knows what the heck you're saying. It says to keep the conversing prayer with God to themselves. Someone can receive the gift of tongues in a private manner, to praise God in that unique way. I have been around a friend when she received the gift of tongues, having no prior knowledge or real exposure to it. I was sitting right next to her, and could barely hear what she was saying. She was praising "in private" so to speak, and afterwards, did not talk about what happened no matter how much we asked her. She felt it was supposed to be private. When people receive the gift of tongues, they don't always share it with others or make a show of it. Some might abuse it or stir it up on their own, but it's not ours to judge them or to decide what the Spirit has given them. That's theirs to deal with.
[/quote]

[b][i]You Said: If there is no interpreter and someone speaking in tongues is making it publicly known, then I agree with you, they are at fault in some way or another.[/i][/b]

I Say: It's not really about fault....my argument is saying that it is not really of the Holy Spirit...under the premise that the Holy Spirit would not speak through them when there is no interpreter.

[i][b]You Said: However, the passage gives reason to believe that there are circumstances in which one will be given the gift of tongues when an interpreter is not present.[/b][/i]

I Say: Where does this passage imply that?

Edited August 9, 2011 by infinitelord1

[RezaMikhaeil]

Thank you to everyone [Protestant and Catholic Charismatics] here for proving my point. There is no theological evidence for the charismatic doctrine in the Bible, Early Church Fathers, Desert Fathers and Mothers, etc.

Edited August 10, 2011 by RezaMikhaeil

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1312938452' post='2285218']
Thank you to everyone [Protestant and Catholic Charismatics] here for proving my point. There is no theological evidence for the charismatic doctrine in the Bible, Early Church Fathers, Desert Fathers and Mothers, etc.
[/quote]

So much charity here.

Otherwise, obviously because there can be no theological evidence (which I feel like is being used almost in a empiricist sense, which I find ironic) proves that there is little value in the Renewal as far as you are concerned.

God Bless

Edited August 10, 2011 by ThePenciledOne

[BG45]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1312941449' post='2285262']

So much charity here.

Otherwise, obviously because there can be no theological evidence (which I feel like is being used almost in a empiricist sense, which I find ironic) proves that there is little value in the Renewal as far as you are concerned.

God Bless
[/quote]

Wait we're trying to prove all of this empirically? In that case we could be in trouble, because really we're relying on a lot of things here:
1) We believe that a man rose from the dead on the word of eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, usually around the 20% accuracy range.
2) We believe that this same man died for our sins, but can we empirically measure this sin even?
3) We believe that we have souls; I know there were once physicians who tried weighing people as they died to get empirical proof on the weight of the soul and failed.
4) We believe in a Holy Spirit that can't be recorded on any sort of data capturing medium except in actions that it inspires.
5) We believe in God the Father, a God whom we have not seen as well.
6) We believe that the man who rose from the dead also has a Real Presence in the Eucharist, which aside from Eucharistic Miracles is hard to empirically prove.
7) We believe that demons and angels exist, even though we don't see them (usually), and if someone sees them, we're back into the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
8) We believe in a Virgin Birth, with only the written statements of two thousand years ago to back it up, from an era when people wrote about gods walking the Earth.
9) We believe in an afterlife that can't be empirically measured.
10) We believe in baptism leaving an indellible mark on the soul; a soul that as previously stated can't be empirically measured.

Faith and reason can coexist, and it's good to use both. As Adrestia's JP2 quote in her signature says, "[color=#4B0082][size=3]Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. ... Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either discipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology."[/size][/color]

That doesn't mean that everything in faith can be proven empirically. But, while we don't throw reason out the window, the qualitative experience, the "fruits" as it can be called in the Bible, are a matter that may be individual in nature.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1312941449' post='2285262']

So much charity here.

Otherwise, obviously because there can be no theological evidence (which I feel like is being used almost in a empiricist sense, which I find ironic) proves that there is little value in the Renewal as far as you are concerned.

God Bless
[/quote]

I think that if it goes against what scripture says then people have the right to be skeptical. I'm sure that there is some level of validity to the Renewal. I just think that people go overboard. Thats all.