|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 6, 2008 13:58:55 GMT -5
How could a Christian religion be non-Catholic and yet still "not" be Protestant? That is a good question. Why aren't Orthodox Christians Protestants. Catholics see them as a valid Apostolic Church because it can trace it's lineage back to The Apostles (having been founded by Saint Peter's little brother, Saint Andrew).
Any help from an Orthodox Christian here would be greatly appreciated.
 |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 6, 2008 17:16:14 GMT -5
(reprint from my other post)
I have a couple questions for (Orthodox Christians)you; my husband is tired of me talking about it with him and doesn't have an answer for me, please don't take the question personally:
In books I have read about Orthodoxy, they acknowledge the bishop of Rome as the "first among equals" and the elder brother, etc. It seems that early Church Fathers acknowledged the "primacy" of the "pope" (for example in the council of Chalcedon)
So, of course I ask what happened because now it seems like Orthodox ignore the Pope altogether. I know that they said the Pope is "heretical" and I understand the arguements for this; however, shouldn't the course of action against heresy have been confronting the Pope at that time just as St. Paul confronted Peter when he was being a hypocrit (letter to Galatians)?
I just don't see how the chair of Peter could have fallen in to so great a heresy so as to be rejected by the Church. Didn't Jesus tell Peter that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against His Church?
Please know that my questions are sincere because many times I considered being Orthodox instead of Catholic. It was mainly because of these issues that I became Catholic. My husband is Orthodox, and I am just trying to better understand everything.
So far, I have tried to "summerize" how the Orthodox and Catholics see each other.
It seems like Catholics see Orthodox as schismatic and Orthodox see Catholics as heretical.
Do you agree? Please tell me what you think about all this.
Teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 6, 2008 19:51:42 GMT -5
How could a Christian religion be non-Catholic and yet still "not" be Protestant? That is a good question. Why aren't Orthodox Christians Protestants. Catholics see them as a valid Apostolic Church because it can trace it's lineage back to The Apostles (having been founded by Saint Peter's little brother, Saint Andrew).
Any help from an Orthodox Christian here would be greatly appreciated.
Good question. But it is just the way we Orthodox Christians see things. Has I said in the other blog, We firmly believe that our Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church [thus the Original Church]. We believe that we have kept the faith of the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, the God-Bearing Fathers, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We believe that the West separated from us [East]. Protestantism came about in the 1500s. Some Orthodox Theologians would say that Roman Catholics were the first Protestants
Second, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jersualem, and Antioch was not founded by the same Apostle. Remember, we have four Apostolic Sees. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the Successor of Saint Andrew, and we Orthodox believe that all Bishops are true Successors of Saint Peter.
Blessings,
Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 6, 2008 20:27:04 GMT -5
(reprint from my other post) I have a couple questions for (Orthodox Christians)you; my husband is tired of me talking about it with him and doesn't have an answer for me, please don't take the question personally: In books I have read about Orthodoxy, they acknowledge the bishop of Rome as the "first among equals" and the elder brother, etc. It seems that early Church Fathers acknowledged the "primacy" of the "pope" (for example in the council of Chalcedon) So, of course I ask what happened because now it seems like Orthodox ignore the Pope altogether. I know that they said the Pope is "heretical" and I understand the arguements for this; however, shouldn't the course of action against heresy have been confronting the Pope at that time just as St. Paul confronted Peter when he was being a hypocrit (letter to Galatians)? I just don't see how the chair of Peter could have fallen in to so great a heresy so as to be rejected by the Church. Didn't Jesus tell Peter that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against His Church? Please know that my questions are sincere because many times I considered being Orthodox instead of Catholic. It was mainly because of these issues that I became Catholic. My husband is Orthodox, and I am just trying to better understand everything. Again good question. Yes, we believe that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals, and that he did enjoy a Primacy of Honor [not "supremacy"] in the Early Church. Yes, but the Church never regarded the Bishop of Rome as there "leader" nor acknowledge that he was infallible when He spoke about Faith and Morals. Rome's authority was very limited. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (Canon III) states very clearly that Constantinople have prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome. These honors were given to them, they never "own" it (as a God-given right). The Bishop of Rome receive honor first because Rome was the capital, until Constantinople became the New Rome. Pope Leo repudiated this Canon, but the East has ever since recognized its validity. Rome never accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon(451) (until 1215), but the canon still remained regardless of what Rome thought. In the words of Bishop killistos Ware, "This Primacy which Rome enjoys takes its origin from three factors. First, Rome was the City where St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred, and where Peter was Bishop. The Orthodox Church acknowledges Peter as the first among the Apostles: it does not forget the celebrated 'Petrine Texts' in the Gospels (Matthew xvi, 18-19; Luke xxii, 32; John xxi, 15-17)- although Orthodox theologians do not understand these texts in quite the same way as modern Roman Catholic commentators [....] Secondly, the see of Rome also owed its primacy to the position occupied by the city of Rome in the empire; she was the capital [....] Thirdly, although there were occasions when Pope fell into heresy, on the whole during the first eight centuries of the Church's history the Roman see was noted for the purity of its faith; other Patriarchates wavered during the great doctrinal disputes, but Rome for the most part stood firm. When hard pressed in the struggle agaisnt heretics, people felt that they could turn with confidence to the Pope [....] But as with the Patriarchs, so with the Pope: the primacy assigned to Rome does not overthrow the essential equality of Bishops. The Pope is the first Bishop in the Church- but he is the first among equals" (The Orthodox Church, pg 27-28). We are not like Protestants who simply ignore that the Church of Rome has primacy of Honor and authority in the Early Church, but we just do not share the same view about the Roman Pope as do Roman Catholics [which is what primary cause the split in 1054AD between West and East]. The Council of Quinisext (AD 692) (the canons is said to be part of the sixth council, to which the 5th and 6th councils never did any "Canons" for the Church, thus this Council was called to correct that. The 7th Ecumenical council ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council) of the spoke out agaisnt many of Rome's practices that were wrong. I was reading some of Saint Ambrose writings, and I would like to share something. He wrote, "You came up from the font. What followed? You heard the reading. The girded priest- for, although the presbyters also do this, the highest priest, girded, I say, washed your feet [John 13] [...] We are not unaware of the fact that the church in Rome does not have this custom whose character and form we follow in all things, except for the fact that it does not have this custom of washing the feet. So note: perhaps on account of the multitude this practice declined [....] So I say this, not that I may rebuke others but that I may commend on my own ceremonies. In all things I desire to follow the church in Rome, yet we, too, have human feelings. What is preserved more rightly elsewhere, we too, preserve more rightly" (The Sacraments, 3:1:4-5). Saint Ambrose provides a glimpse into some of the tension over Church authority that existed between Rome, Milan and other Churches. The reason why we reject Roman Papacy because it was not faith of the Early Church. This is one of the reason why The Great Schism happen, the other four Patriarchs/Churches could not agree with the Bishop of Rome sole words. Remember, the Early held Ecumenical Councils to settles matters [and the Pope did not called nor was in attendance in several Councils]. The Early Church did not have a dictator. No the Early Church was "This is was good for the Holy Spirit, and thus this is good for us". The issue of the Roman Papacy is why I converted to Orthodoxy and not Catholicism. So far, I have tried to "summerize" how the Orthodox and Catholics see each other. It seems like Catholics see Orthodox as schismatic and Orthodox see Catholics as heretical. Do you agree? Please tell me what you think about all this. Teresa We Orthodox see the Roman Catholic Church as Schismatic and in heresy [Heterodox], much the same way the Roman Catholics see us [except they recognize our Orders has Valid and that we do have Apostolic Succession]. We disagree with some things about Catholicism, but there is a lot that we share in common. But then again, I respect The Catholic Church and I hates when Protestants pass falsehood about The Catholic Church. I hope we be reunited O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 6, 2008 21:30:28 GMT -5
Ramon, In your own words, outside of what you've learned from your Church, what does "Ramon" think of The Catholic Church from what you know independantly of it? |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 6, 2008 21:36:48 GMT -5
Ramon, In your own words, outside of what you've learned from your Church, what does "Ramon" think of The Catholic Church from what you know independantly of it? After studying the Early Church Fathers, Church History and comparing it to Protestantism, I firmly believe that The Catholic Church is closer to the faith of the Early Church [1st-10 Centuries] (in fact way close] than Protestantism. I firmly respect The Catholic Church and do not see her as the "whore" of Babylon or see the Pope as the "Anti-Christ" (as some Protestants believe). Beyond that, I disagree with certain Catholic teachings. But I believe Catholics are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ  Blessings, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 6, 2008 21:40:11 GMT -5
I'll tell you what I think of The Orthodox Church.
I believe that it is a true descendant of Jesus' Church directly,
-that it is a true Church of Christ,
-that it is part "of" the true Church of Christ,
-that her sacraments are valid,
-that her Priests are of The Priesthood Jesus established with The Apostles,
-that we don't have to be reunited for any of those truths to remain true
-that with or without reunification, she is a true Church of Christ
-that she is one of the loyal faiths of Christianity.
About her doctrines?
That's between them and God.
I don't care if we have identical doctrines or manner of worship.
She has Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments and a valid Priesthood...
...what more than that does a Christian need?
Amen.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jul 6, 2008 23:42:08 GMT -5
I think that both churches have stayed as close as possible to the Original Church, so in my opinion they are both great!
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 9, 2008 13:41:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the response, Ramon, at least now I can see a better arguement for the Orthodox viewpoint.
I have a few more questions,
Is there any official Orthodox Cathechism? If not, how do you find out "official" Orthodox doctrines? Also, in light of what you said about Constantinople, (I went there 2 years ago) How can it be the "New Rome" if St. Peter and St. Paul are still buried in Rome? Also, how can it be that the choice of the Patriarch of Constantinople had to be approved by the Turkish Gov. in the 20th century? Sorry, don't take that personally either but that kind of bothers me.
Maybe you could just make a basic outline of how the Orthodox see Apostolic Authority, Succesion and Hierarchy in the Church?
Also, on a personal note, how do you feel about the "ethnicity" of Orthodox Churches (meaning some are Greek with mostly greeks there speaking greek, some are Russian etc. ) What kind of Church do you go to? My husband goes to Greek Orthodox church, but he isn't greek and doesn't understand Greek. I liked the service though. My favorite are Antiochian Orthodox (they are more Byzantine aren't they?).
We have a Byzantine Catholic Church in my town that I have been to a few times. They use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and have really cool Byzantine Icons. THe only difference I saw between that CHurch and the Orthodox Churches I have been to is that it had more English and there was a little picture of the pope in the lobby.
One difference I see between the "western church (referring to Latin rite Catholics mostly) and the "eastern church" (referring to Orthodox and Eastern rite Catholics) is that the west seems to look at the Church mostly through a logical, legal, rational perspective and the east seems to look at it through a philosophical, mystogogical and experiencial perspective. (sometimes when east and west "argue" we are actually looking at 2 sides of the same coin) Hopefully, we will be able to unite more especially as we understand each other more.
Teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 14, 2008 0:25:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the response, Ramon, at least now I can see a better arguement for the Orthodox viewpoint. I have a few more questions, Is there any official Orthodox Cathechism? If not, how do you find out "official" Orthodox doctrines? You can visit the following sites to know more about us: 1) www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/2) www.oca.org/OCIndex.asp?SID=2As far as a Catechism, there is not a "universal" Catechism (but we do have them), but there are a couple that has been stand out as being the best "Catechism" (the third one is use an official textbook in Orthodox Theology Schools). These will give you a solid understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church: 1) www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216011867&sr=8-12) www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b3) www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogmatic-Theology-Concise-Exposition/dp/0938635697/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216012013&sr=1-2I will also suggest that you talk to a Orthodox Priest, as they are more capable in answering any of your questions regarding Orthodoxy. Also, in light of what you said about Constantinople, (I went there 2 years ago) How can it be the "New Rome" if St. Peter and St. Paul are still buried in Rome? That Constantinople is the New Rome was taught by the First Ecumenical Council, so I dare not question any decision of any Ecumenical Council. But that being said, the Bishop of Rome was only consider the "first among equals" because Rome was the capital [it was a right given by the Church, not owned by Rome], but when Constantinople became the capital, things change. Pope Leo repudiated this Canon (Canon III of the Council of Constantinople), but the East has ever since recognized its validity. After Constantinople, Rome was called "The Old Rome". Of course Saint Peter and Saint Paul were martyr in Rome, but I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Also, how can it be that the choice of the Patriarch of Constantinople had to be approved by the Turkish Gov. in the 20th century? Sorry, don't take that personally either but that kind of bothers me. I am sorry, but I have not study this area much. What are you trying to attest? Can you please explain more. Thanks. Maybe you could just make a basic outline of how the Orthodox see Apostolic Authority, Succesion and Hierarchy in the Church? We do believe in Apostolic Succession, and that all Bishops in our Church are successors of the Holy Apostles, and all Bishops are true successors of Saint Peter [this can be proven Historically of course]. We believe that no Bishop is the "Church Leader" in the same sense that Catholics see the Bishop of Rome. Any decision on matters on faith, morals, etc must be the consensus teachings of the Church and not dictated by one Bishop. Also, on a personal note, how do you feel about the "ethnicity" of Orthodox Churches (meaning some are Greek with mostly greeks there speaking greek, some are Russian etc. ) What kind of Church do you go to? My husband goes to Greek Orthodox church, but he isn't greek and doesn't understand Greek. I liked the service though. My favorite are Antiochian Orthodox (they are more Byzantine aren't they?). We have a Byzantine Catholic Church in my town that I have been to a few times. They use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and have really cool Byzantine Icons. THe only difference I saw between that CHurch and the Orthodox Churches I have been to is that it had more English and there was a little picture of the pope in the lobby. I do not mind Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches [I love everybody ). Also please note that not all "ethnics" Orthodox Churches have only Greeks or Russians or whatever, I have visited "Greek" Orthodox Churches that have other ethnicity and many converts. I go to a OCA Parish (see above in my links). But I do visit Greek, Russian [etc] Orthodox parishes now and then. I love the heritage of these Churches and the food ;D One difference I see between the "western church (referring to Latin rite Catholics mostly) and the "eastern church" (referring to Orthodox and Eastern rite Catholics) is that the west seems to look at the Church mostly through a logical, legal, rational perspective and the east seems to look at it through a philosophical, mystogogical and experiencial perspective. (sometimes when east and west "argue" we are actually looking at 2 sides of the same coin) Hopefully, we will be able to unite more especially as we understand each other more. Teresa I do hope that we can be united, but there are many things that needs to be settle. Sorry for the long wait, was busy on other sites. Blessings, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 14, 2008 13:19:26 GMT -5
thanks for the responses, I will look at the websites.
quesion:
you said
"Any decision on matters on faith, morals, etc must be the consensus teachings of the Church and not dictated by one Bishop."
By consensus, do you mean majority? Do you mean consensus of all the church, or the clergy or bishops or everyone? Who determines? What about Chalcedon? I've been obsessed with Chalcedon lately; I saw a vision when I was there 2 years ago but I didn't realize I was in Chalcedon until a few weeks ago.
What happens when there is a conflict in the church? Who decides what happens?
Constantinople is beautiful. Too bad about the 1453 + 1922 ; I hope we (CHristians) get Turkey back someday.
Teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 16, 2008 21:15:38 GMT -5
thanks for the responses, I will look at the websites. quesion: you said "Any decision on matters on faith, morals, etc must be the consensus teachings of the Church and not dictated by one Bishop." By consensus, do you mean majority? Do you mean consensus of all the church, or the clergy or bishops or everyone? Who determines? What about Chalcedon? I've been obsessed with Chalcedon lately; I saw a vision when I was there 2 years ago but I didn't realize I was in Chalcedon until a few weeks ago. What happens when there is a conflict in the church? Who decides what happens? Constantinople is beautiful. Too bad about the 1453 + 1922 ; I hope we (CHristians) get Turkey back someday. Teresa If something happens that involved the entire Orthodox Church, then a Holy Synod [Council] will be called wherein various Bishops of each autocephalous ["self-governing"] Orthodox Churches will gather and settle the matter. That being said, the Eastern Orthodox Church is compose of various autocephalous ["self-governing"] Churches. For example, The Orthodox Church of America [OCA, to which I belong to] is a autocephalous Orthodox Church, and cannot interfere with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, but both shared the same faith, preserved by the Holy Apostles and the God-Bearing Fathers. Not even our Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can interfere in other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. But the Faith in One! Some autocephalous Orthodox Churches are: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, Orthodox Church of America, or Antionchian Orthodox Christian Church of America, Russian Orthodox Church of America and the Moscow Patriarchate, Romanian Orthodox Church of America, Serbian Orthodox Church of America and Albanian Orthodox Church of America.... etc. But will all share the same faith and any Orthodox can receive the Divine Eucharist in any of these Churches. If something happens that involved only the Romanian Orthodox Church of America [or whatever], then only a Romanian Holy Synod will be called upon to settle the matter. For example, we recently had a problem in which a Bishops took Holy Communion in a Eastern Rite Catholic Church, which this is forbidden by the Orthodox Church, so a Romanian Orthodox Holy Synod was called upon to settle the matter. The Council decided to forgive the Bishop, but they again reinforce the Orthodox position in this matter. Thankfully, he repented of his sin. You can read the entire store here: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13197Blessings, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 23, 2008 12:33:30 GMT -5
Thanks for yor response Ramon,
I have one more itsy bitsy question: How does the Orthodox Church view ecuminism and also the Charismatic movement?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 8, 2008 3:33:49 GMT -5
Thanks for yor response Ramon, I have one more itsy bitsy question: How does the Orthodox Church view ecuminism and also the Charismatic movement? teresa In short, we are agaisnt Ecumenism. We believe that that all Heterodox must convert to Orthodoxy. That is only way they can be "One" Church worldwide. As far as the Charismatic Movement, we believe that speaking in tongues is a minor gift as Saint Paul taught [but we do not believe it has ceased]. So we can see how this conflict with the Charismatic movement Many of these that are done within the Charismatic/Pentecostal Movement are pretty demonic. Just look at this, and you decide: In short, we are agaisnt Ecumenism. As far as the Charismatic Movement, we believe that speaking in tongues is a minor gift as Saint Paul taught [but we do not believe it has ceased]. So we can see how this conflict with the Charismatic movement Many of the things that are done within the Charismatic/Pentecostal Movement are pretty demonic. Just look at this, and you decide: Now that was disturbing...........  Blessings, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 8, 2008 8:36:08 GMT -5
This always spooked me out. Play the videos at the same time & compare the two and see the similar movements...almost identical. This is because the founder of Pentecostalism is African. This sect was founded in Los Angeles. Personally, I don't care "how" someone outside of my faith worships, but I've been to these services. 1/2 my family are Pentecostals (with a few of them even owning their own churches as Pastors and 1 Pastorette). It's like being "in" a horror movie. People yelling and screaming and dancing and not just lightly dancing, but literally running around and jumping up and down. I don't feel The Holy Spirit there. It feels so cold, so unGodly to me. There is no reverence. It's complete loss of control (which to me is the opposite of being "in" The Spirit). Some are good people. Are they misled? I can't say. I don't know God's work. I can say that from my perspective, it is what it is...a sect created in Los Angeles in the early 1900's. Funny thing is that when they were first forming their group, The Protestants hated them. They persecuted them, beat them, burned their churches, spread human excriment on their organ, urinated on their pews. Who was it that helped The Pentecostals during these attacks? Catholics. Same deal with The Mormons. For whatever differences we might have with them, when our Church was burned down, they came to our aid and helped us out not only with funds towards the reconstruction, but with actual physical labor. I ask you in the guise of The Good Samaritan...which of these were the neighbor to the fallen? That's why I don't judge personally these people. Let God do that. However, no one who attends a church like this can criticize anybody else either. It swings both ways. Let the video speak for itself. Play them seperately, or for a real spooky viewing, play time simotaneously. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 8, 2008 8:56:25 GMT -5
By the way, The Charismatic Movement "in" The Catholic Church is different from The Pentecostal Church. While they practice similar traits, Charismatics are way more reverent. I've never seen a display like what I've experienced in Pentecostal churches. Here is a Catholic Charismatic video...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 8, 2008 8:57:56 GMT -5
Which of the two look like order?
Which like disorder?
(this one brings back so many horrible memories of when I was a young kid...I was terrified. Is "fear" a gift of The Holy Spirit?
I think that we are supposed to come to Christ as chidlren precisely because we are innocent and we can see things for what they are)
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 8, 2008 12:20:17 GMT -5
I would like to give my opinion if that's okay? From the very beginning of my faith in Jesus (when I was 15) I have had experiences with supernatural. (and before I was a Christian I had demonic experiences) I definitely know the difference between the two. (and there is actually a 3rd category which would be when someone "fakes it") In 10+ years of going to various "charismatic" churches or services, I believe most of what I saw what authentic, though perhaps at times abused. Now, I didn't go to any place that was quite like the scary videos you showed, but I do remember a few times being at a church and really feeling something demonic was going on. I don't think it is fair for us as Catholics to say that any experience of the Holy Spirit that is not Catholic is demonic. We know that those who are outside of the Church but baptised in the Faith have a "deposit" of the Holy Spirit, and we know that God's word says: If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"(Luke 11: 13) God keeps His promises. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot disown Himself. I have seen some really beautiful things happen in the spiritual world that I could never say were demonic. However, just because someone has Spiritual Gifts and is filled with the Holy Spirit, it doesn't mean that they are using them correctly. And it doesn't put a "seal of approval" on that person's church or doctrine. Take heed everyone, to the words of Jesus: 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Pretty astonishing, especially the fact that elsewhere Jesus says that we can only drive out demons by the power of God!!! So He is not talking about "counterfit miracles" here, He is talking about real miracles and prophesy etc. But there are demonic spiritual "signs" and that is for sure. That said, I definitly lean to the mystic/charismatic and attend a charismatic Catholic prayer group. We pray for people to be healed (one girl was literally on her death bed, and tuesday we found out she is recovering) And we also sing and some times people have "prophetic words" for each other. But it is so calm and orderly and peaceful that if someone came in that was didn't know anything about it, they might not even realize that we are "charismatic". It's not about those things, it's about God's Church and it's about loving God and others. 1 If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body [to hardship] that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Cor 13) teresa |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 8, 2008 14:44:08 GMT -5
I would like to give my opinion if that's okay? From the very beginning of my faith in Jesus (when I was 15) I have had experiences with supernatural. (and before I was a Christian I had demonic experiences) I definitely know the difference between the two. (and there is actually a 3rd category which would be when someone "fakes it") In 10+ years of going to various "charismatic" churches or services, I believe most of what I saw what authentic, though perhaps at times abused. Now, I didn't go to any place that was quite like the scary videos you showed, but I do remember a few times being at a church and really feeling something demonic was going on. I don't think it is fair for us as Catholics to say that any experience of the Holy Spirit that is not Catholic is demonic. We know that those who are outside of the Church but baptised in the Faith have a "deposit" of the Holy Spirit, and we know that God's word says: If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"(Luke 11: 13) God keeps His promises. If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot disown Himself. I have seen some really beautiful things happen in the spiritual world that I could never say were demonic. However, just because someone has Spiritual Gifts and is filled with the Holy Spirit, it doesn't mean that they are using them correctly. And it doesn't put a "seal of approval" on that person's church or doctrine. Take heed everyone, to the words of Jesus: 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Pretty astonishing, especially the fact that elsewhere Jesus says that we can only drive out demons by the power of God!!! So He is not talking about "counterfit miracles" here, He is talking about real miracles and prophesy etc. But there are demonic spiritual "signs" and that is for sure. That said, I definitly lean to the mystic/charismatic and attend a charismatic Catholic prayer group. We pray for people to be healed (one girl was literally on her death bed, and tuesday we found out she is recovering) And we also sing and some times people have "prophetic words" for each other. But it is so calm and orderly and peaceful that if someone came in that was didn't know anything about it, they might not even realize that we are "charismatic". It's not about those things, it's about God's Church and it's about loving God and others. 1 If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body [to hardship] that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (1 Cor 13) teresa I try to judge a tree by it's fruits. For me, I believe that there is order and disorder and I don't believe that The Holy Spirit would be involved in something that is either disordered or excessive. Most importantly, I have never read in the Bible where a person who lost control was said to be guided by The Holy Spirit. I do however think of Biblical descriptions when I see some Christians (regardless of denomination) "catch the spirit" and begin to roll on the floor and hop around like a fish out of water and moan and groan. When I was going to Mass daily, there were a couple of supernatural instances that I experiences. One of them was actual levitation while in deep, deep earnest prayer. Another was my body experiencing a very light stigmata. I believe wholeheartedly in the physical manifestation of The Holy Spirit. I also believe in demonic possession. I could be totally wrong because in reality, only God knows, but I don't see The Holy Spirit in acts that resemble demonic possession (and I've seen demonic possesion first hand & up close). As for the "gift" of talking tongues, The Bible clearly states that this is the ability in one being able to speak & communicate in a foreign (understandable) language...not the gibberish that "talking in tongues" is accredited to today. Gibberish is talk that is "not"understandable in any language. And it only appeared in Christianity about a hundred years ago. In L.A.. It cannot be found in Christian history past that. But ultimately, I could be wrong (even if I don't see it). |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 8, 2008 14:57:51 GMT -5
Cepha, then why did St. Paul say "human or angelic tongues?" Does anyone speak Angel?
I do think that there is an interpretation for tongues, but an interpretation is only required if the gift of tongues is used in front of others. In private, you might not know for sure what you are praying.
|
|
