I am a devout Catholic that has been studying this topic so please do not get all upset. If anyone is knowledgeable in this subject, please advise.

I have listed a few excerpts from the following web site that I would appreciate someone answer: http://www.upci.org/doctrine/#Why%20We%20Baptize%20in%20Jesus'%20Name

According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "At first all baptism was by complete immersion" (vol. 1, p.651). And the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "In the early centuries, all were baptized by immersion in streams, pools, and baptisteries" (vol. 2, p.263). Immersion was not convenient after the Catholic church instituted infant baptism; thus the mode was changed to sprinkling. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 3, pp.365-66.)

Jesus commanded His disciples to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). He did not command them to use these words as a formula, but He commanded them to baptize in "the name." The word name is used here in the singular, and it is the focal point of the baptismal command. The titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God's relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, saving name described here, which is Jesus. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

(Speaking in tongues in required) The Apostle Peter made it very plain in his message on the Day of Pentecost that the gift of the Holy Ghost is for everyone: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39). (See Luke 11:13.) Our faith, obedience, and submission to the Lord Jesus and His gospel qualify us for this most joyous of all experiences. (See Acts 5:32; 11:15-17.) As Isaiah 12:3 states, "With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation."

Some people quote I Corinthians 12:30 in an attempt to prove that not all speak in tongues when they are filled with the Spirit: "Do all speak with tongues?" However, this verse refers to the gift of tongues, that is, speaking a public message in tongues to be interpreted for the congregation, which is a spiritual gift that a person may exercise subsequent to the infilling of the Spirit. Though both tongues as the inital evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and tongues as a later spiritual gift are the same in essence, they are different in administration and operation. For example, the regulations regarding the gift of tongues in I Corinthians 14:27-28 did not apply to the conversion accounts in Acts, where many people spoke in tongues simultaneously, without interpretation, as the sign of being filled with the Spirit.

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/#Why%20We%20Baptize%20in%20Jesus'%20Name

-- Jeremy Claiborne (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002

Answers

It is highly unlikely that all early baptisms were done by full immersion, considering that Jesus and the apostles lived in a desert country where the village well was often the only source of water for a hundred miles or more. There were probably some regions where "streams and pools" might be available, but most of the country was extremely arid. John may have baptized by immersion, having the River Jordan available to him, but in fact there is nothing in scripture to indicate the method of baptism employed either by John or by the apostles. Those who insist on immersion will point to Matt 3:16, which says that immediately after His baptism, Jesus "came up out of the water". However, while this could be interpreted as a reference to immersion, it could just as likely mean that Jesus left the river and came back onto dry land. The Catholic Church does not try to discredit immersion as a means of baptism. On the contrary, immersion is fully accepted by the Church as a valid method. But the Church does not insist on immersion as the only acceptable method, because there is nothing in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or historical records to indicate that this should be so. It is significant though, that many early works of art depicting the baptism of Jesus repeatedly show Him standing in water, while John pours water on His forehead, the same method commonly used today. Incidentally, "sprinkling" is not an approved method, except in certain extreme circumstances.

Regardless of whether the words "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" are employed as a verbal formula, the command of Jesus makes it clear that the form "I baptize you in Jesus' name" is insufficient, as Jesus is universally recognized as "The Son", and such a formula therefore would satisfy only 1/3 of the requirement imposed by God Himself. "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" do not describe "relationships". They describe separate and distinct Persons, who share one common name - God - but who, like any three persons, also have individual names - and the wording of Matt 28:19 makes it clear that all three Persons are co-equal. Jesus commanded that the apostles baptize in the Name (one) of the Trinity (three), and the Church has done so ever since apostolic times. Baptizing in Jesus' name means baptizing as Jesus commanded, and that means baptizing in the name of the Most Holy Trinity.

Although there is no definitive scriptural evidence regarding the ages of those who were baptized, scripture does make it clear, by repeated examples, that it was the common practice of the early Church to baptize whole families together. "Whole families" undoubtedly included small children, and often babies. Furthermore, the writings of several Church Fathers, including the Apostolic Fathers, indicate that baptism of infants was the norm from the beginning. Jesus said that no-one can enter the kingdom without being baptized (born of water and the Spirit). He also said, in reference to the babies and little children who had gathered around Him, "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these". Therefore these children were presumably baptized, or at least fully qualified and ready for baptism. The command to "repent and be baptized" was directed to adult sinners, not to small children, and repentance is still a requirement for adult converts today. The purpose of repentance of course, is to make us spiritually innocent, like little children. That's why Jesus said we must become like little children in order to be saved. Would He then have withheld the sacrament of salvation from those who were already innocent, and in no need of repentance?

The gift of tongues operates in a number of different ways in the life of the Christian community, and the individual Christian person - a form of prophetic utterance; a method of personal prayer; a gift of exortation and inspiration. However, nowhere in scripture is there any suggestion that the exercise of this charism, in any form, is required or necessary evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Peter did make it clear that the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was for everyone, and so it is ("No-one can say "Jesus is Lord" but by the power of the Holy Ghost"). However, Peter never suggested that any specific outward manifestation was a necessary indicator of that inner reality. It is good that he did not, or his writings would clearly contradict those of Paul, who made it abundantly clear that the manifestation of the Holy Ghost's presence is different in every individual, and that there is no charism which is manifested in every Christian person.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

"Immersion was not convenient after the Catholic church instituted infant baptism;.."

Whether this was said out of ignorance, or otherwise, I wanted to point out that the "Catholic Church" never instituted infant baptism or any other Sacrament. Baptism, like all Sacraments, is an outward sign instituted BY CHRIST to give us grace.

In fact, I would find it hard to believe that the Church Herself actually instituted ANYTHING. The Church, which herslef was instituted by Christ, simply holds and safeguards all of Christ's teachings. Therefore, whatever the Church does or teaches were instituted by God. If the Church instituted anything, then it is nothing in contradiction to, or in any way shap or form a violation of 1) Scripture, 2) Sacred Tradition, 3) Mageterial Teachings.

Thanks Jeremy for your post. I hope that you consider sticking around.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.

Hi Jeremy, there have been some interesting discussions here on the charims of the Holy Spirit. No, they are not necessarily evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, but being that the gifts are given for the upbuilding, and for our weaponry and for the equipping of the saints here on earth, why would we not desire them? The gift of tongues has been called the 'gateway' gift for many of the other important gifts that make our role as Christians efficacious.

Shouldn't we all desire them, like Paul said? Shouldn't we say 'yes' to everything the Holy Spirit would offer us?

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 09, 2002.

My dear Jeremy, you stay on the path that you are on. The Lord is doing something special in your life, and revealing unto you the full knowledge of Jesus Christ (in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwell. I applauded your studying and speak a blessing into your life as you grow closer and closer with the Lord. As there is no other water baptism in the Bible other than in the Name of the Jesus for the New Testament Church. Your understanding of toques are right on the mark, you nailed it. As for immersion over sprinkling, read this text “"And John also was baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, BECAUSE THERE WAS MUCH WATER THERE: and they came and were baptized (John. 3:23). Stay strong in the knowledge that the Lord is giving you. Be Blessed.

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 06, 2003.

We have an Elder!
There is no ''baptism in the name of Jesus''. There is holy Baptism, one per soul. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). When we read the words of the apostles and see: ''baptised in the name of Jesus,'' it may seem that was another formulary. No baptism with this wording is mentioned by Christ, ever. He is one Person in the Holy Trinity, and could never command a baptism particular to His own name.

Only the form used in Matthew's last chapter is baptism in Christ's Church.

The real reason we see the term ''in Jesus' name'' or ''in the name of Jesus Christ'', is:

During the lifetime of the Apostles baptism by John the Baptist had been a current event for the Jews. We all know that. The same Jews, and even Gentiles, could not be sure if John's baptism fulfilled the command of Jesus or not. He sent His disciples out into the world telling them HOW they were to baptise. It was not as in John's mission along the banks of the Jordan.

Therefore, in the scripture we see this differential stated, regarding Holy Baptism. The name of Jesus Christ simply made this point: not from John the Baptist; from Jesus.

When the Holy Spirit descended on the faithful, be it at Pentecost, or in other events specifically written of, it wasn't a baptism. It was what the church terms Confirmation; a different, distinct sacrament. It is a Christian sacrament; but only Baptism makes us born again, as Saint Paul taught us. The Holy Spirit brings us our confirmation as saints, it fortifies our souls. You might die without ever receiving it and nevertheless go to heaven, provided you're in the state of grace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

Doing anything "in God's name", or "in Jesus' name" means doing it in accordance with God's stated will. When you act contrary to God's will, you are not acting "in His name". Many Protestant sects have watered this down to mean that praying or acting "in Jesus' name" means saying or doing anything you want, but tacking the expression "in Jesus' name" onto the end of it, like some sort of magical incantation. When Jesus has given specific instructions about how something is to be done, doing it differently while saying "in Jesus' name" to cover your spiritual butt, is NOT acting "in Jesus' name", but directly against it. There are specific instructions given in scripture regarding the format of baptism, and those instructions were spoken by God Himself. They have nothing to do with immersion vs. pouring, or with the age of the recipients. The only requirements specified are (1) that water be used, and (2) that baptism be administered in the name of the Most Holy Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Failing to satisfy either of these divine requirements is acting contrary to the will of Jesus, and is therefore not being done "in His name", regardless of what words are recited.

While John enjoyed the luxury of baptizing in one of the few locations in the country where there was abundant water, the apostles traveled far and wide across the land - a desert land - preaching, healing, and baptizing. I wonder how they immersed people when the town's single well was the only water available for hundreds of miles? I also wonder why all early works of art depicting the baptism of Jesus show John and Jesus standing in the water - anywhere from ankle deep to waist deep, depending on the artist - while John pours water from his hand onto Jesus' head. Apparently it was the universal belief of early Christians that this is how it happened to Jesus - the same way it had happened to most of them. The Catholic Church of course has no objection whatsoever to baptism by immersion. But there is obviously no scriptural or historical reason to require it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 06, 2003.

To get into an debate over the water baptism is not my goal. Do as the Lord leads you. But I would say to anyone, show me where one person in the New Testament Church was baptized using the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and I will never preached the baptism in Jesus Name again. Just one, compared to the 3,000 that I can show you. I am a Father, I am a Son, I am Husband, I am a brother, but if I tell someone to write me a check in the name of my daughter father, I hope that would have enough sense to write the check "pay to the order of T. Byron Williams". As did the apsotles, when Jesus told them to baptized in the Name, not Names, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, knowing that one name was Jesus Christ. Please understand that the Catholic church is not my fight or any other denomination, it is just my love for people and those who love God to have the full knowledge of Jesus Christ. He who was was alive, and yet dead, but behold He is alive forevermore. The Almighty. Bless you all.

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 12, 2003.

Yes, Jesus Christ is indeed one name - a name which refers only to the Son - and which therefore is only 1/3 of the name in which Jesus commanded His Church to baptize (Matt 8:19) - the name of the Most Holy Trinity.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 12, 2003.

Dear Sir;

All respect, Elder Williams, but we ought to make some important things clear.

Only baptism with water and the names of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is commanded by Jesus Christ. No other.

To dispute either the water or the formulary is a waste of time. They stand firmly on the words of Jesus in the Holy Bible. No one else instituted any sacrament, NOT ONE, except He.

He can't have meant anything different; and it was not for the ''New Testament Church''. Only One Church has ever come forth in the world, the Catholic Church. He founded her, and the New Testament simply testifies to the fact; it (the NT) doesn't furnish any distinction for believers between His Church & subsequent free-lance churches.

You ask for a letter perfect description of the trinitarian formula of Baptism, at least one; presumably in the Bible.

But whatever the reason for that, it would hardly change what Christ specificly called baptism in Matt 28:19-- not if no baptisms are recorded anywhere to substantiate His formula. The holy apostles knew His divine Will in this matter; and so does His Holy Church, the present AND erstwhile NT Catholic Church.

Of course, no one here wishes to brow- beat an elder of another persuasion about this. It is yourself who wonders why we declared the Church's complete teachings on Baptism. It requires we answer honestly and faithfully.

My sincere desire as your brother is; that far from resenting these corrections here, you may go to your congregation and your home feeling joyful. You learned a truth today which had never been clarified to you before. You have advanced in the faith of the apostles, Elder. Let me say you are always welcome to come back. God be with you always!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

Being baptized in the lovely name of Jesus is truly remission of sins. The commandment in the name of the father was a complete understanding by all the Apostoles with knowledge of there knowing that Jesus was the One true God. Everthing they did was in Jesus name.

-- clare mcvety (cmcvety@comcast.net), June 14, 2003.

Not according to Jesus Christ, Clare. And not as the apostles taught His Church. I agree His name is holy and we love Him. Not because it gives any true sacramental grace; but for His everlasting glory.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 14, 2003.

The King James Version of Matthew 28:19 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ..." this was spoken by Jesus, Himself. Hope this helps.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 14, 2003.

To the Elder:

You said earlier in this post, "To get into an debate over the water baptism is not my goal. Do as the Lord leads you. But I would say to anyone, show me where one person in the New Testament Church was baptized using the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and I will never preached the baptism in Jesus Name again."

Well, I just posted the verse in the King James Version (your version, I assume) that states EXACTLY the use of the Trinity when baptizing someone, and this was told by Jesus to his Apostles.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), June 14, 2003.

Ok! This is my final thought on this subject, unless the Lord says so. But please listen and get your Bibles, because the Elder is about to preach.

Every time the Bible records the name or formula associated with an actual baptism in the New Testament church, it describes the name Jesus. All five such accounts occur in the Book of Acts, the history book of the early church. It records that the following people were baptized in Jesus' name. The Jews, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

The Samaritans. "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16).

The Gentiles. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have say, "In the name of Jesus Christ," as do most versions today.)

The disciples of John (rebaptized). "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5).

The Apostles Paul. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus' name. See Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.

The only verse of Scripture that anyone could appeal to in support of a threefold baptismal formula is Matthew 28:19, in which Jesus commanded baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

The word name in this verse is singular, however, indicating that the phrase describes on supreme name by which the one God is revealed not three names of three distinct persons. So in order to baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, one must know the name of these titles. As Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names.

The apostles understood Christ's words as a description of His own name, for they fulfilled His command by baptizing in the name of Jesus. There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and He has one supreme name today (Zechariah 14:9). Jesus is the incarnation of all the fullness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). Jesus is the name of the Son (Matthew 1:21), Jesus is the name by which the Father is revealed to us (John 5:43; 10:30; 14:9-11), and Jesus is the name in which the Holy Spirit comes (John 14:16-18, 26).

Luke 24:47 is a parallel verse to Matthew 28:19, and describes Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of sins-and baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)-would be preached "in his name." Jesus is the only saving name, the name in which we receive remission of sins, the highest name made known to us, and the name which we are to say and do all things (Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17).

Thus the one supreme, saving name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. We are to fulfill the command of that verse as the early church did, by invoking the name of Jesus at baptism

I am not an expert on the Catholic church, but is Peter considered the 1st Pope. If so, do as the your 1st Pope commanded in Acts 2:28 and Acts 10:44-48..

The Historical Record

Respected historical sources verify that the early Christian church did not use a threefold baptismal formula but invoked the name of Jesus in baptism well into the second and third centuries.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the triune name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947) page 58: "The Trinitarian baptismal formula, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970) page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblical (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The Trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning…

Baptism into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

In closing, Matthew 28:19 is an order to do something, to baptize in the Name, not names, just one name. And if the apostles were to baptized in the “Holy Trinity” and there is no such thing, then why did all of them as recorded, baptized in the Name of Jesus. In closing, if the baptism in Jesus Name is incorrect, and if Jesus Christ is not God all by Himself, then the Bible is a book of lies, and Jesus is the biggest liar of them all. But I am so glad that I know He is the fullness of the Godhead, He is the first and the last, He is the Almighty, and He is God. I love you all, so very much, and may the Lord bless each of you real good. Oh! Close your bibles, as there is nothing left for me to do, but give an alter call. Is there one that desire to be baptized in the Name of Jesus.

Elder T. Byron Williams

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 16, 2003.

I'll check out these quotes. I've got to warn you, though, I don't put any credit in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Their entry on the English Bible is the most biased article I have yet seen in an encyclopedia.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 16, 2003.

Yes, Jesus Christ is God all by Himself. But He is not the Father, and He is not the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, He would not have referred to the Father and to the Holy Spirit in the third Person, as "He". The Father is also God all by Himself, as is the Holy Spirit. That's why they all share one NAME, which is GOD. They do not share the name "Father", or the name "Son", or the name "Holy Spirit", for these three, while sharing both the name and the identity of GOD, are still three distinct Persons, and every Person has a name. Likewise, they do not share the name "Jesus". Jesus commanded that we baptize in the NAME (singular) of GOD, and He further specified the nature of the GOD in whose NAME we were to baptize - a Trinitarian nature, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To baptize only in the name of the Father, or only of the Son, or only of the Spirit, would indeed constitute baptism in the name of GOD, for each of these is GOD, fully and entirely. But doing so would ignore the very nature of the GOD in whose name we baptize, and would also ignore the direct command of Jesus to baptize in the manner He specified. This is the only passage in scripture where the manner of baptism is described by GOD Himself, and the only place where it is given as a direct command. Other references then, to "baptizing in Jesus' name" must be taken in the same sense as "preaching in Jesus' name" or "ministering in Jesus' name", not a specific formula, but rather a statement that what is being done is in accord with the stated will of Jesus, which in this case is specifically described for us in Matt 28:19. To ignore a direct command of GOD is risky business, and trying to justify it on the basis of human interpretations of other passages from His own Word just adds insult to injury.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 16, 2003.

Dear Elder:

You worked hard at your thesis. Nevertheless, we have to inform you seriously; this is the word of men. Not Our Lord's. Our Saviour knew very well what He was commanding in the gospel of Matthew. His words were plain and unequivocal.

Giving the Church alternates to the strict command of Jesus Christ on the basis of anybody's biblical exegesis is an unvarnished act of presumption, and undertakes to second- guess His Holy Church.

The Bible, for all its unquestioned merit as our guide is not to be confused with Christ's Holy Church. --Her authority proceeds from the apostles just as purely as all the New Testament scriptures. The New Testament wasn't even a twinkle in Jesus' eye when He sent for the His apostles to evangelize and baptise all the world.--

Your words:
'' . . .indicating that the phrase describes on[e] supreme name by which the one God is revealed not three names of three distinct persons. So in order to baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, one must know the name of these titles. As Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names. The apostles understood Christ's words as a description of His own name, for they fulfilled His command by baptizing in the name of Jesus.'' Please, Elder; don't presume to say what the apostles ''understood''. Nor if they second- guessed the explicit command of the Holy Son of God. You do it for the sole purpose of upholding your failed interpretation of scripture. (I don't wish to seem put out with you, it's just telling the truth.)

Here are other truths; responding to your theme::
''--Matthew 28:19, and describes Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of sins-and baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)-would be preached "in his name." '' --It is; as always has been, so-- in the Catholic Church. And every single baptism since His lifetime was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is historically certain. Christ's own name was not the command He gave to the apostles. As we've already informed you;

The phrases you take (in a mistaken context arising from exegesis without the Holy Spirit's guidance) ''In Jesus' name,'' or ''In the name of Jesus,''-- are not the formulary of holy Baptism. These phrases were orally proclaimed in the ministry of the apostles for contextual reasons; (distinguishing from John the Baptist's practice) and passed on in writing as *understood* by holy mother Church. The Church from the very begining already knew and followed the exact formulary as Jesus gave it; our Trinitarian one. Well before the manuscripts of any book were produced. Since she gave us the collected books of the New Testament later on, and canonized these; there was no ocassion to dwell on any ambiguity arising from what you deem different practice.

Your particular disputed rotestant baptismal formulary wasn't even to exist for 1,500-plus years! We can assure you, Elder. Every single Christian soul baptised during the span of those 1,500 years was baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

When men presume to sound the Holy Bible independently of the Church of the apostles, such glaring errors as your confused exegesis are inevitable. They trace directly to the so-called Reformation, Sir. There is no authority given in scripture for any other than the Church to interpret scripture privately. To say it plainly, Sola Scriptura itself operates contrarily to the inspiration of the Word of God. Christ gave the world his Church; a holy, visible, and living interpreter and protector of His Holy Gospel. And, she has NOT passed away! The Gospel is written for us as the New Testament; in such a way that no MAN may gainsay the Church's full authority to give us uncorrupted truth from therein.

Knowing this, we declare with confidence; there is no way to baptise even one soul, --NOT ONE, except in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 16, 2003.

Why don't each of you just leave me alone, I am tired of speaking in tongues, as I write so much wonderful truth. But seriously,I thank each of you for your insight. Foolish me, I thought the whole Bible was truth. But now I understand that only the gospels are true, which include Matthew 28:19. From Acts to Revleation is a bunch of lies. Now I understand.

I understand that when Paul said that all scriptures are from God is 2nd Timothy 3:16, he was lying, He lied when he said that God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the sprit, preach unto the Gentiles (Tell me when did God preached to the Gentles) Oh! I forgot, there are three Gods. You know more than God, because he said if there is another God, I don’t know him. Many of you are truly blessed you know more than God who created all things, who the scriptures says that Jesus created all things in St. John 1:3. Got a problem! This is in the gospels. Wait a minute God wasn’t lying, like myself he was mistaken.

I now understand that Jesus himself was lying when he said that he was the Almighty in Revelation 1:8, and in St. John 12:45, when he said that He sent himself. (Wait a minuete that was in the Gospel, now I am really confused)

For could it be that there is two first and last, Isaiah 41:4 and Revelation 22:13

Two Almighty’s, Genesis 17:1, along with Revelation 1:8

Could it be that Jesus had two Fathers, because St. Matthew 1:20 says that the Holy Ghosts is the Father.

One more lie, John lied he said that he saw one (because he really saw three) on the throne in Revelation, the 4th chapter.

Two Lord and not one like that lying Paul who said that there is One Lord.

For the Father name is Jesus St. John 14:7 The name of the Son is Jesus St. Matthew 1:28 The name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus St. Matthew 14:26

Whom Jesus said that the Father would send in His Name in the 14th chapter, and in the 15th chapter, Jesus said He would send. Somebody lying or could it be Jesus and God are one in the same.

Now that I think about, I just rather stick to the whole lying Bible, and if you want my compete teaching on these lies, email at agapewotc@yahoo.com, and just ask for the teaching on the apostle’s doctrine. Because as that lying Paul said “but if our gospel be hid, it’s hid to them that are lost” (2nd Corinthians 4:3) because Paul said if anybody preached another gospel except that which is already preached, let him be accursed. Oh, stupid me, another lie. And please don’t tell the biggest lie ever told to mankind, the baptism in Jesus Name did not start during the Azusa Revival, because we all know who can read and understand that it started on the Day of Pentecost. Oh! Yes another lie.

Be Blessed

Byron

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 16, 2003.

Dear Elder,

The whole Bible is true. We know this because the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, has so stated. But the whole collection of human interpretations which spawned denominational religion is false. Is this difficult to appreciate, given the evidence of 450 years of ongoing fragmentation within the self-interpreting tradition? The mere fact that the Bible is true obviously does not mean that everyone who reads it finds the truth. If that were so, there would not be denominations teaching conflicting "biblical" "truths". That's why Jesus gave us one authoritative Church, and a guarantee that the Holy Spirit would guide that one Church to all truth. So far He has been doing a pretty good job. After 2,000 years, not a single conflicting doctrine, and not a single denomination. God continues to respond to the prayer of Jesus concerning the Church He founded - "Father, that they may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 16, 2003.

Dear Elder T.B --

A slight mistake: ''I understand, that when Paul said that all scriptures are from God is 2nd Timothy 3:16, he was lying,--''

--Paul did not lie. He was writing to a Catholic missionary, name of Timothy. We are now writing to a drop-out from the faith of Timothy & Paul. Yes, Elder. You know this is true. Instead of the true Church, you now carry your bible to a meeting house. --Instead of the Apostle's Creed, you call it ''the Bible and solely the Bible.''

But the saddest part is, Jesus can't even persuade you. His own words aren't enough; because you have the agenda of all protestants. To snatch away the authority of the Church. But you can't.

Jesus is clear: ''Heaven and earth shall pass away; my words shall not pass away.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 16, 2003.

Beyond all we say and do, and though our doctrines may be different, one thing I hope that we can agree on is that we are commanded to love one another.

I got into this group for only one reason, just to encourage Jeremy who I believe is on the right path. To warn of the fights and name callings that will come with the knowledge of Oneness of God.

For the Bible tells us that in Acts 2:42 on the birth of the Church that they continue in the Apostles doctrine, not the Catholic doctrine, not the Baptist doctrine, not the Methodist doctrine, not the Muslim doctrine, not even the Pentecostal doctrine, but the Apostle’s doctrine. And that is what I teach, the apostles doctrine. I teach that Holy Ghost that even Mary, the mother of Jesus was filled with. Speaking in other tongues as the spirit of God gave them utterance. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the Church today. And in Him, not them, dwell the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

For I do believe in the Gospels as much as anyone, but we must remember that the gospels were also written my men, just as the epistles were and the Old Testament. But I believe they were men who were moved by the Holy Ghost, and thus wrote as God instructed them. So I do not base my belief on the teachings of Matthew 28:19 alone, but entire of the Word of God.

So when I write you, it’s not to fight, it’s only to continue that which the Apostles continue when the church was born. I am a third generation Apostolic minister, ordained by the Way of the Cross Churches of Christ International. Soon I will be opening up the Agape Way of the Cross Church of Christ in the Washington, D.C area. I teach an email Bible Study of over 25 souls of many different denominations. We do not send anyone to Hell, nor disrespect anyone beliefs, we are a group of people who love God and trying to make it in. As my teachings are not based up the doctrine of the Way of the Cross organization, but solely on the Word of the Lord. So if any who come across this discussion board, feel free to email me at agapewotc@yahoo.com and I will send you more information on this ministry.

Now in closing, I am sure that before the day is over, I will be called everything except a child of God. But guess what, “I love you and there is nothing that you can do about”. So to my catholic brothers and sisters, please obey your first Pope, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So I will continue to be a part of this group, until they take me off, and if I just can reach one person, it will be worth all the name calling that I will receive. I may never reach Paul or Eugene, but thank God that He has already reach Jeremy, and even Clare. Because someone might like myself, come across this web page by mistake, and when they do, I want them to know about the Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the filling of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Take care, and again, I love you all so very much.

Be Blessed

Byron

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 17, 2003.

Byron says:

"Be Blessed"

The Wiccans say the same thing a bit differently. They say:

"Blessed Be"

The Catholics like to be specific, and like to give credit where credit is due:

"Blessed be God. Blessed be His Holy Name. Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. Blessed be the Name of Jesus. Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart. Blessed be His Most Precious Blood. Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most Holy. Blessed be her Holy and Immaculate Conception. Blessed be her Glorious Assumption. Blessed be the Name of Mary, Virgin and Mother. Blessed be St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse. Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints."

The enemy does like to take something of the essence and redirect it away from its source and redirect it to "self", or to whisper into the ears of human beings that "you can be like gods"; if you look closely, you will see the red flags. It's the same ancient apple that this war is fought over.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 17, 2003.

Elder once again flatters himself he does the work started by the apostles of Jesus. He has never done what they taught, and now is prepared to spread the error to all who would accept his views. A version based on human wisdom.

There's the great pity. Other good, willing and upright Christians who learn from him are going down that primrose path.

He has traded Gold for Silver. Maybe he thinks he's in a golden faith, but it's tarnished by human pride, which leads men into grave sin. For that matter, every soul that Elder baptises is turning away from the rebirth of Holy Baptism in the Church to an ersatz baptism of man's design. This means that at the hour of death, Original sin as well as actual will need an order of baptism called Desire. God Our Merciful Father will surely allow them that, if they repent perfectly and live lives of charity. I think Elder himself strives for that, and it will be credited to him in the last day.

But for one who calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ to refuse the grace of conversion adamantly; and give himself up to greivous error for the sake of sola scriptura is potentially fatal. The devil wants us to repel the Holy Gospel. Only the Catholic Church calls all souls to the Holy Gospel as revealed to us by Christ and His apostles. No other church was initiated in His Holy Spirit on that Pentecost, 33 A.D. That is where purest Gold was given to me and my brethren in the Catholic faith.

Now we have shown it to a free-lance christian minister; and he wants only his privately run congregation. One which stands for another gospel than the apostles' truths.

We can't call you ''names'', Elder TB; but we sure can call your belief false and ill-formed. This serves the father of lies more than the Son of God, Sir. The devil sows error and confusion. God gives His Church a Holy Advocate to keep us in the Truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.

God knows I don't want to be in error, I need to know if the Catholic Church is only real church of Jesus Christ. So let us start with the Holy Trinity, can someone give me a biblical explanation of it. Using more than Matthew 28:19, I mean you can use it, but use other scriptures also. At Clint would say..make my day. Teach the preacher if you can.

Your beloved "free lance preacher" (is that what right eugene)

Elder T. Byron Williams

And since it is a sin to speak blessings to someone SEE YA (Emerald)

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 17, 2003.

Tell you something, Elder:
I'm really gratified seeing you write, ''GOD KNOWS, I don't want to be in error.''

That is the Holy Spirit moving you! If you pray with complete faith, and we pray; you will cast off all error with time.

It's not our purpose here to lord it over you and rule your belief by pedantry. Before you can enter into the truth, you must accept the good will of faithful Catholics. No one asks for unconditional surrender to the truth; just an open heart and more good will. God converts, not man.

The Blessed Trinity is first & foremost an unknowable mystery. God is truly unknowable to the intellect. That's one reason some of the Jews couldn't see their Messiah. He didn't appeal to the intelligentsia of His day. They misconstrued all the scriptures that pointed to Christ. By human reason.

So, asking a biblical ''explanation'' is the natural ''intellectual'' approach. If only the Trinity were open to examination. There is much exterior evidence for a faithful reader in the scriptures, even so.

For instance, in Genesis 2 :26, God says: ''Let us make mankind in our image and likeness.'' God is US, and OUR-- Then in v. :29, returns to say, ''I give you,'' the singular.

Chapter 18, Gen, 1st verse: ''Now THE LORD appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamres as he sat at the entrance of his tent,'' (Abraham, before Isaac's birth) When he raised his eyes, he saw THREE MEN standing at a distance from him. As soon as he saw THEM, he ran from the entrance of the tent door to meet them, and bowed down to the earth,'' --He was in the presence of God; a Trinity with three Holy Persons, Elder.

A few lines later, after Abraham had given them (God) food & drink, THEY said to him, Where is Sara your wife?'' He answered, She is in the tent. --I (singular) will surely return to you at this time next year, and Sara your wife will have a son.'' (Gen 18 :9-10) Faith reveals to our light Who the Holy Threesome is; and What Jesus Christ was someday to speak to us openly of. The Trinity.

In the NT, no ambiguity should exist for the faithful examining these passages: John 10:30--''I and the Father are ONE,'' said Christ the Son of God. In Acts 5:3-4, Peter saying, ''Ananias, why hast Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost? --thou hast not lied to men but to God.'' They are three Persons; not each one a God; God eternally One, in His three distinct Persons, equal in Holiness and Majesty.

Faith is our light into a mystery no created being can explain, Elder. It is revealed, not found out by men. In fact, Catholic doctrine teaches us, no Old Testament revelation clearly brought the Holy Trinity to the attention of the Israelites because-- they were always very prone to polytheisms. It was for Jesus Christ Himself to reveal it; and He did so; to His Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.

Dear Elder,

So - you don't believe in the Trinity either?? Compared to your personal ideas on the format of baptism, this is far, far worse. Your baptism ideas are a spiritual rash; this is a spiritual cancer. The Trinity is a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Deny this sacred belief and you position yourself, at best, on the outermost fringes of what can reasonably be called "Christianity". The Trinity is the very nature of the One True God. If you don't worship the Most Holy Trinity, you don't worship the same God that Christians worship.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 17, 2003.

Paul:
If you were correct about Elder's belief, then yes; he would be in serious heresy.

I really don't see that he denied the Holy Trinity, though. I just figure he has no way of understanding that mystery. He is like many who are attached to the chapter-verse Bible resource with nothing else necessary. That's why he asks for the ''biblical explanation''. To many non-Catholics, the Bible should, indeed MUST explain everything to our intellectual satisfaction.

That's what Saint Paul called man's wisdom, which is folly to God.

Faith is apparently shunted to one side, as our Elder presently understands.

But he's come to the right place for now; to start his pilgrimage of FAITH. I hope he's not an anti-Catholic. If so, he'll never want God's truth; only a bigger share of human wisdom. Good Christians can part with their own feelings and trust in God first.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.

Yes, Paul and Gene. It is pretty clear that the "Elder" is not really a Christian, because he is not a Trinitarian. (What a thing to be reading just after Trinity Sunday!)

You could call him a kind of "unitarian," but his brand of heresy seems to be the kind that is expressed in the sect known as "Oneness Pentecostalism" [OP]. The "Elder" may not admit to being a strict follower of OP, but he must at least be immersed in some similar sect.
Back on June 16, he wrote: "... if the apostles were to baptize in the 'Holy Trinity' and there is no such thing, then why did all of them as recorded, baptized in the Name of Jesus? ... I am so glad that I know [Jesus] is the fullness of the Godhead, He is the first and the last, He is the Almighty, and He is God."
Then on June 17, he wrote: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the Church today."

If you are unfamiliar with Oneness Pentecostalism, please have a look at this and glance at a couple of the main links on the right.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.

Thank each of you for making my job easy. And yes! I am a Oneness Apostlic Pentecostal and proud of it. With each of your so-called proof of the trinty, it will help me disprove this lie from the pit of Hell, so when other read they may also see. As I said before, if the Lord will move just upon one, it will be worth all the name calling that I have endure so far. Like cult, non-Christian, fake Elder to name a few. So I am going to give each of you a few more days to get all of your proof together, and when I return, all I can say is watch out.

Be Blessed

Byron

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 17, 2003.

Oh, Well! Just a sly wolf in a sheep's tuxedo once again! Might have known; just when it seemed he was a God-fearing, honest Christian.

Poor bishop of the tent revivals. Elmer Gantry on the World Wide Web! Along with the Soldier of dubious Christianity and Jam Gentile -- We have an Unholy Three.

They are all scared away by the Holy Virgin Mary, just as the serpent is. Let us ask her for her holy intercession as we watch and pray.

Dear Mother Mary,
Take us to your Immaculate Heart, for the love of your Holy Son; and pray that by grace we shall do His Will in defense of holy mother Church, the place where His glory dwells forever and ever; in the Unity of the Holy Spirit with God the Father Almighty. One God, Holy Trinity; World without end. Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.

The "oneness" heresy teaches that "there is only one person in the Godhead whose name is Jesus. Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit". I assume then that it was some sort of magic trick when this one person named Jesus was standing in the river with John, the Holy Spirit was descending in the form of a dove, and the Father was speaking from heaven, all simultaneously?? (Matt 3:16-17)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 18, 2003.

This is becoming old school and boring beyond words, I must admit it was fun for awhile, but seeing people, who truly love the Lord, yet so lost. It hurts, it really does. So this is my last entry, anyone who wants to talk to me, must do it personally though my email. agapewotc@yahoo.com. The entries are coming to long, and besides if anyone wants further information on the truth of the Oneness of God, can email for the teaching that go into greater detail. So here are my last thoughts, as taught by the Word of God. But my job is done in this part of the vineyard, the truth is here forever, and whoever comes up this website, at least will have something to think about. I’ve planted the seed, let the Lord do the increase.

THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17). According to this passage, the Son of God was baptized, the Spirit descended like a dove, and a voice spoke from heaven. Luke 3:22 adds the further information that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him." To understand this scene correctly, we must remember that God is omnipresent. Jesus is God and was God manifested in flesh while on earth. He could not and did not sacrifice His omnipresence while on earth because that is one of God's basic attributes, and God does not change. Of course, the physical body of Jesus was not omnipresent, but His Spirit was. Furthermore, although the fullness of God's character was resident in the body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. Thus, Jesus could be on earth and in heaven at the same time (John 3:13) and with two or three of His disciples at any time (Matthew 18:20). With the omnipresence of God in mind we can understand the baptism of Christ very easily. It was not at all difficult for the Spirit of Jesus to speak from heaven and to send a manifestation of His Spirit in the form of a dove even while His human body was in the Jordan River. The voice and the dove do not represent separate persons any more than the voice of God from Sinai indicates that the mountain was a separate intelligent person in the Godhead. Since the voice and the dove were symbolic manifestations of the one omnipresent God, we may ask what they represented. What was their purpose? First, we must ask what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism. Certainly He was not baptized for remission of sin as we are, because He was sinless (I Peter 2:22). Instead, the Bible says He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). He is our example and He was baptized to leave us an example to follow (I Peter 2:21).

Moreover, Jesus was baptized as a means of manifesting Himself, or making Himself known, to Israel (John 1:26-27, 31). In other words, Jesus used the baptism as the starting point in His ministry. It was a public declaration of who He was and what He came to do. For example, at Christ's baptism, John the Baptist learned who Jesus was. He did not know that Jesus really was the Messiah until the baptism, and after the baptism he was able to declare to the people that Jesus was the Son of God and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29-34).

Having established the purposes of Christ's baptism, let us see how the dove and voice furthered those purposes. John 1:32-34 clearly states that the dove was a sign for the benefit of John the Baptist. Since John was the forerunner of Jehovah (Isaiah 40:3), he needed to know that Jesus was really Jehovah come in flesh. God had told John that the One who would baptize with the Holy Ghost would be identified by the Spirit descending upon Him. Of course, John was incapable of seeing the Spirit of God anointing Christ, so God chose a dove as the visible sign of His Spirit. So the dove was a special sign for John to let him know that Jesus was Jehovah and the Messiah.

The dove also was a type of anointing to signify the beginning of Christ's ministry. In the Old Testament, prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with oil to indicate that God had chosen them (Exodus 28:41; I Kings 19:16). Priests in particular were both washed in water and anointed with oil (Exodus 29:4, 7). The oil symbolized God's Spirit. The Old Testament foretold that Jesus would be similarly anointed (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1). In fact, the Hebrew word Messiah (Christ in Greek) means "the Anointed One." Jesus came to fulfill the roles of prophet, priest, and king (Acts 3:20-23; Hebrews 3:1; Revelation 1:5). He also came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17-18), and to keep His own law He needed to be anointed as prophet, priest, and king. Since Jesus was God Himself and a sinless man, an anointing by a sinful human and anointing with symbolic oil was not enough. Instead, Jesus was anointed directly by the Spirit of God. Thus, at His baptism in water, Jesus was officially anointed for the beginning of His earthly ministry, not by symbolic oil but by the Spirit of God in the form of a dove.

The voice came from heaven for the benefit of the people. John 12:28- 30 records a similar incident in which a voice came from heaven and confirmed the deity of Jesus to the people. Jesus said it came not for His benefit but for the people's sake. The voice was God's way of formally introducing Jesus to Israel as the Son of God. Many people were present at the baptism of Jesus and many were being baptized (Luke 3:21), so the Spirit singled out the man Jesus and identified Him to all as the Son of God by a miraculous voice from heaven. This was much more effective and convincing than an announcement coming from Jesus as a man. In fact, it appears that this miraculous manifestation effectively accomplished Jesus' purpose at His baptism. The baptism of Jesus does not teach us that God is three persons but only reveals the omnipresence of God and the humanity of the Son of God. When God speaks to four different people on four different continents at the same time, we do not think of four persons of God, but of God's omnipresence. God did not intend for the baptism to reveal to the monotheistic Jewish onlookers a radically new revelation of a plurality in the Godhead, and there is no indication that the Jews interpreted it as such. Even many modern scholars do not see the baptism of Christ as an indication of a trinity but as a reference to "the authoritative anointing of Jesus as the Messiah."

THE VOICE FROM HEVEN

Three times in the life of Jesus a voice came from heaven: at His baptism, at His transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9), and after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (John 12:20-33). We have just explained that a voice does not indicate a separate person in the Godhead but only another manifestation of the omnipresent Spirit of God.

In each of the three cases, the voice was not for the benefit of Jesus but for the benefit of others, and it came for a specific purpose. As we have discussed, the voice at Christ's baptism was part of the inauguration of His earthly ministry. It was for the people's sake, just as the dove was for John's sake. The voice introduced Jesus as the Son of God: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). The voice at the transfiguration unquestionably was for the benefit of the on looking disciples, for the message was, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him" (Matthew 17:5). The third manifestation of the voice occurred when a group of Greeks (apparently Gentile proselytes) came to see Jesus. Jesus explained that the voice was not for Him but for the people (John 12:30).

In conclusion, there is no presentation of persons in the Godhead in the Gospels. The Gospels do not teach the doctrine of the trinity, but simply teach that Jesus has two natures - human and divine, flesh and Spirit, Son and Father. There are plural references to Father and Son in the Book of John, but this very book teaches the deity of Jesus Christ and the oneness of God more than any other. When we investigate these plural references we find that, far from contradicting monotheism, they actually reaffirm that Jesus is the one God and that the Father is manifest in the Son.

APPEARANCE TO ABARHAM

Genesis 18:1 says Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre. Verse 2 says Abraham looked up and saw three men. Some Trinitarians try to use these three "men" to prove a trinity of God. However, verse 22 reveals that two of the "men" left Abraham and went towards Sodom, but Jehovah remained to talk with Abraham a little longer. Who were the other two men? Genesis 19:1 says that two angels arrived in Sodom that evening. Clearly, the three human manifestations that appeared to Abraham were Jehovah and two of His angels. Some interpret Genesis 19:24 to mean two persons: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." However, this does not mean one LORD on earth asked another LORD in heaven to rain down fire, because there is only one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4). Rather, it is an example of restatement. Many passages in the Old Testament phrase one idea in two different ways as a literary device or as a means of emphasis. There is no evidence that after God's temporary manifestation to Abraham He lingered around and traveled to Sodom to oversee its downfall. The Bible only says the two angels went to Sodom. The NIV shows more clearly that Genesis 19:24 merely repeats the same idea in two ways: "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the LORD out of the heavens." We should note that both statements describe the LORD as one being in one place doing one thing - in heaven.

LET US MAKE MAN

Why does this verse use a plural pronoun for God? Before we answer this, let us note that the Bible uses singular pronouns to refer to God hundreds of times. The very next verse uses the singular to show how God fulfilled verse 26: "So God created man in his own image" (Genesis 1:27). Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man." We must therefore reconcile the plural in 1:26 with the singular in 1:27 and 2:7. We must also look at God's image creature, which is man. Regardless of how we identify the various components that make up a man, a man definitely has one personality and will. He is one person in every way. This indicates that the Creator in whose image man was made is also one being with one personality and will.

Any interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that permits the existence of more than one person of God runs into severe difficulties. Isaiah 44:24 says the LORD created the heavens alone and created the earth by Himself. There was only one Creator according to Malachi 2:10. Furthermore, if the plural in Genesis 1:26 refers to the Son of God, how do we reconcile this with the scriptural record that the Son was not born until at least four thousand years later in Bethlehem? The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning who was His mother? If the Son be a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?

Since Genesis 1:26 cannot mean two or more persons in the Godhead, what does it mean? The Jews have traditionally interpreted it to mean that God talked to the angels at creation. This does not imply that the angels actually took part in creation but that God informed them of His plans and solicited their comments out of courtesy and respect. On at least one other occasion God talked to the angels and requested their opinions in formulating His plans (I Kings 22:19-22). We do know that the angels were present at the creation (Job 38:4-7). Other commentators have suggested that Genesis 1:26 simply describes God as He counseled with His own will. Ephesians 1:11 supports this view, saying that God works all things "after the counsel of his own will." By analogy, this is similar to a man saying "Let's see" (let us see) even when he is planning by himself. Others explain this passage as a majestic or literary plural. That is, in formal speaking and writing the speaker or writer often refers to himself in the plural, especially if the speaker is of royalty. Biblical examples of the majestic plural can be cited to illustrate this practice. For example, Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king" even though Daniel alone proceeded to give the interpretation to the king (Daniel 2:36). King Artaxerxes alternately referred to himself in the singular and the plural in his correspondence. Once, he wrote, "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me" (Ezra 4:18). In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself "I" in one place (Ezra 7:13) but "we" in another place (7:24).

The use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 also may be similar to the plural Elohim in denoting the greatness and majesty of God or the multiple attributes of God. In other words, the plural pronoun simply agrees with and substitutes for the plural noun Elohim. Still another explanation is that this passage describes God's foreknowledge of the future arrival of the Son, much like prophetic passages in the Psalms. We must realize that God does not live in time. His plans are real to Him even though they are in the future as far as we are concerned. He calls those things that are not as though they are (Romans 4:17). A day is as a thousand years to Him and a thousand years is as a day (II Peter 3:8). His plan - the Word - existed from the beginning in the mind of God (John 1:1). As far as God was concerned, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8). It is not surprising that God could look down the corridors of time and address a prophetic utterance to the Son. Romans 5:14 says that Adam was a figure of Him who was to come, that is, Jesus Christ. When God created Adam, He had already thought about the Incarnation and created Adam with that plan in mind.

Taking this idea a step further, Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God made the worlds by the Son. How could this be, seeing that the Son did not come into existence until a point in time much later than creation? (Hebrews 1:5-6).. Though He did not pick up the humanity until the fullness of time was come, it was in His plan from the beginning, and He used it and acted upon it from the start. He created man in the image of the future Son of God, and He created man knowing that although man would sin the future Sonship would provide a way of salvation.

God created man in the beginning so that man would love and worship Him (Isaiah 43:7; Revelation 4:11). However, by reason of His foreknowledge God knew that man would fall into sin. This would defeat God's purpose in creating man. If this was all there was to the future, then God would have never created man. However, God had in His mind the plan for the Incarnation and the plan of salvation through the atoning death of Christ. So, even though God knew man would sin, He also knew that through the Son of God man could be restored and could fulfill God's original purpose. It is apparent, then, that when God created man he had the future arrival of the Son in mind. It is in this sense that God created the worlds through the Son or by using the Son, for without the Son, God's whole purpose in creating man would have failed.

In summary, Genesis 1:26 cannot mean a plurality in the Godhead, for that would contradict the rest of Scripture. We have offered several other harmonizing explanations. (1) The Jews and many Christians see this as a reference to the angels. Many other Christians see it as (2) a description of God counseling with His own will, (3) a majestic or literary plural, (4) a pronoun simply agreeing with the noun Elohim, or (5) a prophetic reference to the future manifestation of the Son of God.

So to Eugene, when praying for me, please don’t pray to dead folks, Mary (who life I do respect) is dead, dead, dead, and awaiting the trump of the Lord. For the Bible says that the dead know nothing. She is worst than Lazarus, she don’t even stink by now. And though I’ve been compared Elmer Gantry, me and ole Elmer have little in common. I have been married to the same woman for eight years, and have been faithful, and I work for a living, so I am not taking anyone one money. But me and Elmer do have onething in common; we don’t mess with little boys. (I’m sorry Catholic Church that was uncalled for.)

So to you all, again if you want to reach me, you know my email, I am here for you. So until then I see you in glory (Na! you won’t make it with your teaching) so I guess I will see in purgatory, (Na! that doesn’t even exists. So it leaves only one place, so I guess that I won’t see ya, because I sure don’t wanna be ya.

Be Blessed In Jesus Name (The Only Name)

Elder T. Byron Williams

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), June 18, 2003.

Wednesday, from Elder Byron:
''boring beyond words, / / / / Wow; exactly what Satan said about heaven. ''Better to rule in hell, than serve here in a boring existence, heaven, that is.''

''I must admit it was fun for awhile, but seeing people, who truly love the Lord, yet so lost. It hurts, it really does. / / / / --You feel pain, Elder? I've got a pill for you.

''So this is my last entry, anyone who wants to talk to me, must do it personally though my email.'' --Thanks, Byron, very nice of you to invite us. Truly; that's very kind of you. Your excellency.

''Genesis 1:26 cannot mean a plurality in the Godhead, for that would contradict the rest of Scripture.'' NO it contradicts false exegesis. Oneness is the false interpretation. Holy Trinity is the correct interpretation, by the correct apostolic Church. Not ''plurality''.

Last word from Byron Gantry, Oneness Boneless & Loneliness Church Elder: ''. . . please don't pray to dead folks, Mary (who life I do respect) is dead, dead, dead, and awaiting the trump of the Lord.''

Her divine Son was dead, and rose again. Recall Him? He's the One who said, ''I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, even if he die shall live; and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die,'' (John 11:25). We Catholics are taught Mary His mother believed in Jesus. So, why is she ''dead, dead, dead,''-??? You're darn tootin' we shall pray to mary for you, Your excellency! By the way, Saint Paul, in an epistle stated he had to remain in this world to spread the Gospel. But if he had his druthers, he would rather die and ''be with Christ.'' (Also, in 2 Cor 5:8) ''We even have the courage to prefer to be exiled from the body, and to be at home with the Lord!'' Huhhhh? Looks like it wasn't at all about laying in the grave waiting for the trump. Only his bones. His soul was going to heaven to be with the lord.

Mary was an exception; she was assumed body and soul up to heaven. A revealed truth.
Goodby, Byron, and no hard feelings!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2003.

off u,

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 18, 2003.

"The entries are coming to long, and besides if anyone wants further information on the truth of the Oneness of God, can email for the teaching that go into greater detail. So here are my last thoughts, as taught by the Word of God."

I would very like to become a heretic within your organization. If you could kind of fast track me into your movement, and provide me with a formal list of your teachings, I would be more than happy to deny them all for you. This would be most fitting and proper. =_

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 18, 2003.

"So to Eugene, when praying for me, please don’t pray to dead folks, Mary (??????????) is dead, dead, dead, and awaiting the trump of the Lord." This requires an antedote. (begin antedote) Lord, have mercy on us. Christ have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, hear us. Christ graciously hear us.
God, the Father of heaven, have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.
God the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on us.
Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God, pray for us.
Holy Virgin of virgins, pray for us.
Mother of Christ, pray for us.
Mother of divine grace, pray for us.
Mother most pure, pray for us.
Mother most chaste, pray for us.
Mother inviolate, pray for us.
Mother undefiled, pray for us.
Mother most amiable, pray for us.
Mother most admirable, pray for us.
Mother of good counsel, pray for us.
Mother of our Creator, pray for us.
Mother of our Savior, pray for us.
Virgin most prudent, pray for us.
Virgin most venerable, pray for us.
Virgin most renouned, pray for us.
Virgin most powerful, pray for us.
Virgin most merciful, pray for us.
Virgin most faithful, pray for us.
Mirror of justice, pray for us.
Seat of wisdom, pray for us.
Cause of our joy, pray for us.
Spiritual vessel, pray for us.
Vessel of honor, pray for us.
Singular vessel of devotion, pray for us.
Mystical rose, pray for us.
Tower of David, pray for us.
Tower of ivory, pray for us.
House of gold, pray for us.
Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
Gate of heaven, pray for us.
Morning star, pray for us.
Health of the sick, pray for us.
Refuge of sinners, pray for us.
Comforter of the afflicted, pray for us.
Help of Christians, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Queen of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Queen of Prophets, pray for us.
Queen of Apostles, pray for us.
Queen of Martyrs, pray for us.
Queen of Confessors, pray for us.
Queen of Virgins, pray for us.
Queen of all Saints, pray for us.
Queen conceived without original sin, pray for us.
Queen assumed into heaven, pray for us.
Queen of the most holy Rosary, pray for us.
Queen of Peace, pray for us. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, spare us, O Lord. Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, graciously hear us O Lord Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. LET US PRAY Grant, we beseech Thee, O Lord God, unto us Thy servants, that we may rejoice in continual health of mind and body; and, by the glorious intercession of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, may be delivered from present sadness, and enter into the joy of Thine eternal gladness. Through Chrsit our Lord. Amen.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 18, 2003.

Reality.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 18, 2003.

That's excellent, Emerald--

There is the holy faith of the apostles!

I'm thrilled our friend the bishop came visiting. Though some here dislike giving that kind of platform, even for a minute, I always see it as an opportunity. I want to help folks like T. Byron.

But, I'm not naive; it's apparent he will never relent in his opposition to Catholic doctrine. (I even hope God will forgive him for his adamant invincible ignorance, and grant him final repentence for all his sins.)

We see it a spiritual benefit to lurking visitors, and even to good Catholics whose grasp of religion needs reinforcement. It's beneficial when usurpers like Elder Gantry come in, and we expose their delusions. We pick apart their phony bible wisdom; and good Christians can see the proof for themselves.

T. Byron has the gall to claim he's happy now; to have ''planted the seed, for God to give the increase.'' If only he knew how badly he answered all objections. Catholic faith is vindicated! The Word of God upheld, against foolish men! And this spiritual work of mercy served those poor Catholics who, lacking tenacity in their faith, would soon fall under the spell of false teachers like the ''Elder''. He brought out the Catholic truth, and his own seed is neutralized today.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; One God forever and ever, Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 19, 2003.

I am searching the scriptures to find the way we should baptize and in them i find Genisis 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. I Timothy 3:16 AND WITHOUT CONTROVERSY GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY. And i find in I John 5:7 FOR THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. In Matthew 1:18 NOW THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST WAS ON THIS WISE: WHEN AS HE MOTHER MARY WAS ESPOUSED TO JOSEPH, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD OF THE HOLY GHOST. And Luke 1:35 AND THE ANGEL ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HER, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE AND POWER OF THE HIEST SHALL OVER SHADOW THEE: THEREFORE ALSO THAT HOLY THING WHICH SHALL BE BORN OF THEE SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD. In I Corinthians 8:6 BUT TO US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD THE FATHER OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS AND WE IN HIM ON LORD JESUS CHRIST BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM. James 2:19 THOU BELIEVEST THAT THERE IS ONE GOD; THOU DOEST WELL: THE DEVILS ALSO BELIEVE, AND TREMBLE. So we have established God created(Genisis 1:1), Jesus is God because God was made flesh (or manifest)(I Timothy 3:16), and we know the flesh was JESUS. The holy ghost is god because: Holy Ghost over shadowed mary and this give us the son of God (Luke 1:35), The Father is God because There is but one god the father(Icorinthians 8:6) There is only one god we all know the bible said it many times and even the devils know that and they fear him (I corinthians 8:6 and James 2:19)with this estiablishment of one god and proving that Jesus or the son is god and Holy Ghost is God and the Father is God. And with only 1 God they must be all three one. With one name being Jesus how can we baptise any other way but in JESUS NAME. Matthew 28 :19 says GO YE THEREFORE BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME Now answer me what is the name of the father if Jesus is God and what is the name of the holy ghost and what is the name of the son? None other than JESUS!!!

-- Becki James (bajndwj89@aol.com), June 21, 2003.

Bravo, Becki!

Happy to make your acquaintance!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 21, 2003.

Huh??!!??

Eugene, maybe I'm the one who is wrong, but I suspect that you have misunderstood what Becki has been trying to say.
You see, I believe that she is agreeing with "Elder T. Byron Williams" and his Oneness Pentecostalism. I believe that she is saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "Jesus."

By the way, Becki, you can drop the use of this:
"I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Gohost: and these three are one."

Those words are not present in today's Bibles, because the judgment of scholars is that they were not in the original text. I believe I read that those words are present only in one or more later manuscripts, but not in any of the oldest ones. In other words, the words appear to have been an insertion made by a copyist at a logical place in 1 John.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 22, 2003.

OH----Did the demon give me a pot-shot? The Becki menu seemed to offer up Catholic doctrine. I must be schlipppin';

Thanks for the heads up, John. The caps lock is just made for snow jobs, Hm? Ciao, Becki -- Tell Elder Gantry you moved your queen & Gino blocked her with a bishop. (his excellency JFG).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 22, 2003.

Jeremy: As the Elder said, keep on this path brother! I pray that you are still around.

What division some of you create in the Bible when you say that Jesus was correct and the Apostles did it wrong. No, you didn't come out and say it, but that is what you insenuate.

Does the Bible contradict itself? If you say no, then the way it was commanded of Peter to preach it is the way it should be done. Period. Did not your first Pope have the keys to the Kingdom? Why would he preach something false?

There are so many instances in the Bible that are so clearly spelled out. This is one of them. No where in the NT church was anyone baptized in the titles. Of course, trinitarians will never see this as a problem because of one thing: they believe in 3 persons in the Godhead. There in lies the problem.

History proves that this doctrine is false and was developed after many years of the Apostles preaching One God, Jesus Christ. Trinitarians cannot prove that God was never preached as One. Why would the writers of the Bible, ALL JEWISH, change what their forefathers taught them:

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" Deut 6:4?

-- John S (jsacker@sport.rr.com), June 26, 2003.

If the Apostles did not use the Trinitarian formula for Baptism, they disobeyed a direct command from the lips of GOD Himself. It is unthinkable that the Apostles baptized any way other than the way Jesus personally commanded them to baptize.

"Trinitarian" = Christian. If you don't worship the Trinity, you do not worship the God of Christianity, and you don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, second Person of the Trinity.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

Dear John S, and Jeremy:
A couple of nights ago on EWTN, I had the immense pleasure of watching Marcus Grodi and his guest, Mark McNeil, a convert to Catholicism, discuss McNeil's ''Journey Home''. His conversion to the True Faith. Mark McNeil is a former Oneness Church scholar and seminarian. He knows your faith from top to bottom.

I must say he expressed deep affection and understanding for the faithful of your congregation. The place where he first learned to love Our Lord. Man, was I impressed with this young man's grace and erudition. One of the ablest and most articulate converts I ever heard.

He explained in great detail the sources of your belief; particularly how much NAME means from your church's biblical points of view. And how the Trinity for your sect is not plurality because God is One, whereas the Persons we worship are somehow only ''attributes'' of God.

Let me say, I found the concepts you cherish to be of good spiritual depth, even if irrelevant; since they're based on sola scriptural errors.

I'm only giving you a quick thumbnail sketch of his marvelous conversation. He writes in a fine website

www.fullnessoftruth.org

Maybe you'll take time to correspond with Mr. McNeil. He's a super representative of your faith, now a fervent Catholic.

Jeremy/John S; my admonition to you here is: --When a man of this brilliance who has had a loving and generous identification with your faithful in the past-- -- Later came to embrace the Catholic faith as a soul on fire; --To me this means you are not far from the truth. You have the necessary learning to become complete Christians in faith; coming into the Church of the holy apostles. I mean the Catholic Church.

If Mr. McNeil has travelled the distance and found his home in the Church, you wouldn't find it that hard. And you'd someday share his joy and ours. I'll pray for you. I'll pray for the fervent Elder as well; Mr. Byron T. Williams. Good man, wrong church!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2003.

Where did the word trinity come from? I have yet to find it in the bible can you tell me where it is? Oh and about this scripture EPHESIANS 4:4 THERE IS ONE BODY, AND ONE SPITIT, EVEN AS YE ARE CALLED IN ONE HOPE OF YOUR CALLING. 4:5 ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, 4:6 ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL WHO IS ABOVE ALL AND THROUGH ALL AND IN YOU ALL. And the caps lock is for emphasis that might help you see truth sir's. Although many are called few are chosen i guess not all people can see truth but i do know seek and you shall find andin JOHN 16:13 HOW BE IT WHEN HE THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH IS COME HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH FOR HE SHALL NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF BUT WHAT SO EVER HE SHALL HEAR THAT SHALL HE SPEAK AND HE WILL SHOW YOU THINGS TO COME. Have a blessed day.

-- Becki James (bajndwj89@aol.com), June 26, 2003.

Why would you expect to find the word Trinity in the Bible? You won't find Catholic, Pope, Confirmation, Transubstantiation, Eucharist, or Indulgence there either, and for the same reason - the Church Jesus Christ founded had not yet chosen these terms to describe some of the realities it had accepted and practiced from the beginning. Terminology develops over time in any human endeavor, including religion. What matters is the realities which are revealed in the Bible, not the descriptive terms the Church eventually applied to these same realities. And the Bible is virtually overflowing with references to the three Persons of the Trinity. Then again maybe you don't believe in the Bible - since the word "Bible" does not appear in the Bible, having been coined by the Church some 350 years later??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 26, 2003.

Hi, Gene.
I too saw Mark McNeil on "The Journey Home" on Monday. He was absolutely outstanding! When I tuned in and saw where he had started his journey (Oneness Pentecostalism), I immediately thought of you, the "Elder," and others on this thread. Isn't it neat the way God provided a bit of help to us, just when we needed it? As some say, there are no "coincidences," but only "God-incidences."
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.

Yes, John. You have it perfectly. What a ''coincidence''--? My own life has been full of these ''coincidences'' all for --what glorious purpose??? I wish I could say. But I know God lives!

Seeing and hearing Mark McNeil was a revelation. He made me feel true empathy and love for the faithful members of Elder Byron T's happy church. And for sure a deep gratitude to God, for having brought the Elder and ourselves together here. I have renewed respect for him.

Because Christian love is a command of Jesus Christ. We must love our good brethren who were uprooted; hurt by evil men and circumstances in the Reformation era. The present-day wanderers are not to blame for their intolerance. They simply think they are pleasing God. It's what they were taught to think. And the most poisonous wrong they have been taught is Sola Scriptura. Worship of a Bible by itself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

I’m back! But just for one brief moment. I want to thank you for time and the opening to make known the scriptures as the Lord has revealed to me. And because of it, many are emailing me, Protestants and Catholics alike. So because of your forum many are coming to the true knowledge of Jesus Christ. Many Catholics are writing me, thanking me for opening up their understanding. As I said before, I have planted, but My God! He is doing the increase. Again, I thank you for your time.

With the love of Jesus, Be Blessed

Elder T. Byron Williams

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), July 11, 2003.

Ha Ha Haw!!!

God gives the increase, says our fine bishop. OK, T. Byron, fight for what you believe. God has surely planted a seed in your own heart, always liable to take root and bring you to Him. We have faith in His mercy and love. Come around once in awhile and we'll give you a quick weeding. Maybe a splash of water to keep you alive. May God bless you and save you from all harm and misfortune. Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2003.

Right you are, Gene.
I'd estimate that the chances of a Catholic (Trinitarian) being fooled by a the Elder (a sort of "unitarian") are about 1 in 1,000. He's not getting e-mail from any Catholics. It's sad that he feels it necessary to lie through his teeth like that.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 12, 2003.

John,
The truth is, we have no way of knowing when another man lies. I believe Elder Gantry is just deluded in his pride. He probably thinks that every email he recieved from every Catholic, equals a new convert. It's wishful thinking. This is his license to come back here to gloat.

He never bothered to acknowledge Mark McNeil's conversion; hardly surprising. It doesn't serve his delusion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 12, 2003.

You're right, Gene. I was unfair to accuse the "Elder" of deliberately lying. (Sorry, sir.)
Let's look forward to the day when Mr. Gantry appears on our screens with Marcus Grodi!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 12, 2003.

How does one get to be an "Elder"? Just curious.

I love the Journey Home ...it's my favorite show, since I am a convert to Catholicism, myself. I set a VCR reminder to catch the Mark M. episode, but missed it...TWICE. Phooey!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 12, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Victoria.
The word "elder" is a translation of a Greek word used by St. Paul -- "presbyteros". Gradually that word got transformed in English into "priest."

I have good (though not great) news on the Mark McNeil appearance on "The Journey Home." You can listen to that program (and others) via RealAudio by going to this EWTN page. (Scroll down until you find it: June 23, 2003.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 12, 2003.

Thank you John, I can always count on you. I still love reading your posts and I've been reading them for over two months now. You told me at first that I may not like reading your posts after a while, but quite the contrary, I respect them even more.

Thanks for the tip about the Mark M. episode. I shall listen to it as soon as possible.

Also, thanks for the definition of Elder, which I'm sure is absolutely correct. However, (meaning not even the slightest disrespect to your wisdom) I was wanting Elder What's-His-Name's version of what an "Elder" is..in his alternate universe. :0)

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 13, 2003.

Yes John

You do owe me an apology. And this is the last time that I will ever address this group again. Because I have found many of you have a very mean spirit, for someone who claim to have the Christ in their lives. I don't include myself in things that love doesn't abide. Disagree with me if you must, this is what makes America great, but not at one time have I insulted any of you, or called you names. I have been called Elder Gantry, a liar, a freelance preacher, just to name a few, and God knows there a lot that I could say about the Catholic Church. But I respect any and all beliefs and doctrine, it doesn’t matter if I agree with it or not. It is only when one cannot defend there beliefs with the truth that they must attack with name calling. If I have offend anyone, please forgive me, it is just my desire to have souls know the truth, as it has been reveal to me, just as you feel it has been reveal to you. So with the same passion that you have for your beliefs, I have for mines. I just say to each of you in the end let God be the judge. So to those who have written, continue to write, let us not get off track in our search for the truth, because one cannot defend their belief without sinking to pathetic name calling. And yes! I did not address Mark McNeil, why should I. I am sure that whatever he said sound good to you, because it is what you believe. So addressing what he said would only send us around in another endless circle. I just rather have the Word of God speak. I have better things to do than to watch EWTN, I get more from the Cartoon Network.

To my Catholic brothers and sisters, none of us know it all, not even me. I just ask that you, as well as all god fearing people, continue to search the scriptures and let the Lord lead us to the true knowledge of who He is and what he can be in our lives. For the name of the ministry that the Lord has led me to lead is Agape. And it is with the Agape love of God that I leave with each of you. Even you John. Be Blessed, I love you all

Elder T. Byron Williams

-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), July 14, 2003.

"I have better things to do than to watch EWTN, I get more from the Cartoon Network."

lol Elder. I somewhat agree, even though my take is slightly different perhaps than yours:

Right now my kids are busy watching Tom & Jerry. They are convinced that it’s the best medium for learning Catholic apologetics.

I tried insisting that Popeye would make for a better analogy to the Faith, whereby Popeye, while yet of Good Will, is intrinsically the weaker to Pluto and so relies upon the can of Spinach, the efficacy of which is analogous to the Sacraments, to be victorious in defense of the True Church signified by Olive Oil.

I tried telling them that the Tom & Jerry handmaiden to apologetics in action is flawed because the opponents work out their differences in a matrix where nobody could possibly get hurt, and the enemy (Tom) is seen as only evil through ignorance or by nature, and not as a matter of bad will.

But they are obstinate and will not heed my authority, preferring their own private judgment instead. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2003.

Chances are Elder T Byron won't come back to see it, but here's the straight scoop. I have called him Elder Gantry. He thinks that's just pathetic name-calling. To me, it's mere irony; a joke on the opposition. But the elder only appreciates the joke when someone else's ox is gored. (That's Agape?)

As for ''free lance preachers''; how is this a pathetic term? It's obviously the Gospel truth. When a minister in his congregation is ''sent''-- or ''called'' it cannot be by apostolic authority. Nor is the Holy Spirit ordaining him/her. Not if he's outside the catholic faith. That means he's a freelancer. Christ did not found Agape Churches in any way, shape or form. Nor did Christ send the Elder's church the holy Bible. It was for His own Church He let it be written. Not free lancers.

''It is only when one cannot defend there beliefs with the truth that they must attack with name calling,'' said Elder. Truly any irony, though he's trying to speak sincerely. Because what he thinks is ''defending'' his own belief comes from bowdlerizing the scriptures!

Ironically, his rationale has to do with ''name-calling''--!!! He calls God simply Jesus Christ. Christ Himself called God FATHER; He was the Son, and the Holy Spirit wasn't called ''Jesus''. He was the Spirit, our Paraclete. So Christ is apparently name-calling; (as T Byron figures) and the Trinity we worship is ''not God''.

That is the depth to which private interpretation of the Bible will sink a soul!

Yet, he thinks WE can't defend our belief, without calling names. We mustn't call him a free lance Christian bishop. But HE can call God whatever strikes his fancy; because he ''searched the scriptures''. All the while, he dismissed the authority of the holy apostles. The Bible speaks to him, not apostles. Not Jesus Christ!

--- EMERALD, we thought you were a Catholic? You cozy up to Elder Gantry; and tell him how this forum learns about God from Tom & Jerry cartoons?

How low can YOU sink? John Gecik must be right, you're simply becoming another protestant in faith. You're not up to obeying the Catholic Church either, I guess. --Nice going, Kid!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.

*thump - thump - thump*

Wake up, Eugene. Read it again... geez! lol!

I have never said anything else other than outside the Church, there is no salvation. One must hold all the doctrines of the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled.

I'm teasing about the ecumenist model of "evangelization".

And of course John's wrong. Of course I'm not a heretic.

It's cool.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 14, 2003.

Fine. You must accept what our Church teaches. Her doctrine is whole and undefiled in our forum, but not so in your elitism. You've denied our unbroken unity, as in the Apostle's Creed: ''the Communion of Saints''. There is no ''neo'' as opposed to ''traditional''. All we have is the One Communion. That is where salvation is to be found, true. Furthermore, the catholic Church teaches that by way of a special grace of God, no soul is without access; as Baptism of Desire is defined.

I'll grant you we don't expect it every day. Forgiveness of sin comes in baptism. If a pagan is forgiven all his sins then he's given baptism by God Himself. Making him a soul inside the Catholic Church. Outside there is no salvation. Outside there is no forgiveness of sin.

But we must accept as true the infinite mercy of God who wishes all men to be saved. By His boundless love He can move any good soul to the necessary act of perfect contrition before death; bringing the soul into the Church unawares. You may NOT place limits on God or his mercy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.

So what makes an Elder, in the Oneness Pentecostal pursuasion? Do they have to have a degree, do they have to study the Bible for a certain amount of years and then take a test, are they voted in as Elders....or what? Just curious.

(Emerald, you made me die laughing at your Popeye and Tom and Jerry analogies. Very clever...and very hilarious. You big silly. I enjoy your wry humor...are you British?)

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 14, 2003.

I think that "Elder T. Byron Williams" will go down in forum history as one of the more colorful characters to have visited us. It's too bad that he couldn't take a little teasing.
Here are his all-time classic "unlucky thirteen" lines:

(1) [opening and closing words of firts message on June 16:] Ok! This is my final thought on this subject, unless the Lord says so. But please listen and get your Bibles, because the Elder is about to preach. ... Close your bibles, as there is nothing left for me to do, but give an alter call. Is there one that desire to be baptized in the Name of Jesus.

(2) Why don't each of you just leave me alone, I am tired of speaking in tongues, as I write so much wonderful truth. [second message on June 16]

(3) I am a third generation Apostolic minister, ordained by the Way of the Cross Churches of Christ International. Soon I will be opening up the Agape Way of the Cross Church of Christ in the Washington, D.C area. ... As my teachings are not based up the doctrine of the Way of the Cross organization, but solely on the Word of the Lord. ... Now in closing, I am sure that before the day is over, I will be called everything except a child of God. ... So I will continue to be a part of this group, until they take me off ... [first message on June 17]

(4) God knows I don't want to be in error, I need to know if the Catholic Church is only real church of Jesus Christ. So let us start with the Holy Trinity, can someone give me a biblical explanation of it. ... As Clint would say ... make my day. Teach the preacher if you can. [second message on June 17]

(5) I am a Oneness Apostlic Pentecostal and proud of it. With each of your so-called proof of the trinty, it will help me disprove this lie from the pit of Hell, so when other read they may also see. ... [I]f the Lord will move just upon one, it will be worth all the name calling that I have endure so far. Like cult, non-Christian, fake Elder to name a few. So I am going to give each of you a few more days to get all of your proof together, and when I return, all I can say is watch out. [third message on June 17]

(6) This is becoming old school and boring beyond words, I must admit it was fun for awhile, but seeing people, who truly love the Lord, yet so lost. It hurts, it really does. So this is my last entry, anyone who wants to talk to me, must do it personally though my email. ... [June 18]

(7) Eugene, when praying for me, please don't pray to dead folks, Mary (who life I do respect) is dead, dead, dead, and awaiting the trump of the Lord. For the Bible says that the dead know nothing. She is worst than Lazarus, she don't even stink by now. [June 18]

(8) I'm back! But just for one brief moment. [July 11]

(9) ... this is the last time that I will ever address this group again. Because I have found many of you have a very mean spirit .. [July 14]

Notice how he bows out? He says, on July 14:
"Disagree with me if you must, this is what makes America great, but not at one time have I insulted any of you, or called you names." (10) And though I've been compared Elmer Gantry, me and ole Elmer have little in common. ... But me and Elmer do have one thing in common; we don't mess with little boys. (I'm sorry Catholic Church that was uncalled for.) [June 18]

(11) So to you all, again if you want to reach me, you know my email, I am here for you. So until then I see you in glory (Na! you won't make it with your teaching) so I guess I will see in purgatory, (Na! that doesn't even exists. So it leaves only one place, so I guess that I won't see ya, because I sure don't wanna be ya. [June 18]

Then, a paragraph or two after apologizing in case he has offended anyone, he adds:
(12) I have better things to do than to watch EWTN, I get more from the Cartoon Network.

In his swan song [though he'll probably be back], he also writes:
"I have been called Elder Gantry, a liar, a freelance preacher, just to name a few, and God knows there a lot that I could say about the Catholic Church. But I respect any and all beliefs and doctrine, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. It is only when one cannot defend there beliefs with the truth that they must attack with name calling."

If he would spend a little time looking around the forum (and even studying the best responses on this thread), he would know that we can "defend [our] beliefs." What he is really upset about is being exposed as a "oneness pentecostal" -- a non-trinitarian, thus a non-Christian. Like the Mormons who use the name, "Jesus Christ," as a tool to fool people into thinking that they are Christian, so the "Elder" relies on pretending to be a Christian (and his "gift of gab") to lure unsuspecting people into his trap.

(13) To my Catholic brothers and sisters, none of us know it all, not even me. [July 14]

The "Elder T. Byron Williams" -- truly one of a kind (thank heaven for that).

[Special note to Victoria: Byron must have missed your question about qualifications for "elders" last time, and he may not be back to answer it in future. I see that "Emerald" and his sense of humor have beguiled you for the time moment. Actually he doesn't have enough class to be "British," so his elitism is feigned! He is just from the "Left Coast" -- California -- the "Land of Fruit and Nuts."]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.

[Due to an HTML error, one line of the above was lost. I'll fix it and put that line in bold type ...]

Notice how he bows out? He says, on July 14:
"Disagree with me if you must, this is what makes America great, but not at one time have I insulted any of you, or called you names."

How quickly he forgets having made these two comments:

(10) And though I've been compared Elmer Gantry, me and ole Elmer have little in common. ... But me and Elmer do have one thing in common; we don't mess with little boys. (I'm sorry Catholic Church that was uncalled for.) [June 18]

(11) So to you all, again if you want to reach me, you know my email, I am here for you. So until then I see you in glory (Na! you won't make it with your teaching) so I guess I will see in purgatory, (Na! that doesn't even exists. So it leaves only one place, so I guess that I won't see ya, because I sure don't wanna be ya. [June 18]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.

I'm a little pleased with how this man's visit transpired. With a surprising minimum of posts, Elder Gantry quickly hoisted himself on his own petard; the Bible. Nothing which he raised as text-proof was successful. In a few short replies he heard the truth and retreated. I wish all encounters with charlatans were that easy.,p> Most of all, I'm thrilled for one Jeremy Claiborne, who, if he came during these exchanges, couldn't help see how tuckered out Elder got right away. He had his opportunity and he fumbled it. Particularly when he got brave and called the Mother of Our Saviour Jesus Christ ''dead, dead, dead.'' His ignorance was embarrassing to see. Even for me; and I've seen about everything. A good lesson for Jeremy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.

Fine post, John;
You nailed it very well; and as a side dish, the word on Emerald. ENGLISH?

Wot? Why dost thou converse with that trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that roasted Manningtree ox with pudding in his belly, that reverend vice, that grey Iniquity, that father ruffian, that vanity in years? --

Taken from: Henry IV, part I

+ + + Ha ha!!!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.

Sorry about mistaking Emerald for a British citizen...I guess I was thinking of someone else on this forum who is from the UK.

Oh...I dunno. I'm a Midwestern American, myself, but am married to a French Canadian and work with people from London so sometimes customs and phrases get blurred together for me.

Anyway, thanks for clearing THAT up.

John: I am only beguiled by your excellent quotes and wisdom, I was merely "amused" by Emerald...not the same thing at all. Even a court jester is amusing. I also watch black and white, 1950’s, “B” sci-fi movies (on purpose) and think they are amusing, too. [Mystery Science Theater…love that show.] This weird sense of the ridiculous is also what motivated my question to Elder Byron in the first place. I wanted to hear “his” answer as to what constitutes an “Elder”. :0)

Just curious, but where are John and Eugene from...if they don't mind mentioning. (Terrific quote Eugene...hilarious!)

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 16, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Victoria.

Flattery will get you nowhere! Me -- beguiling? Now, that's amusing! (Thanks, though.)

Our exquisite British regular is Sara, not Emerald.
Well, fellow Midwesterner, I am an Ohioan myself.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 16, 2003.

Victoria,-- My roots are in the state of New Mexico. I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande. Lol!

I moved to San Diego Calif as a teenager and since to Northern Calif. My lovely wife was born in San Diego; her parents were from the mountains of Chihuahua in northern Mexico. They were of Spanish & French descent, with some German. They were refugees after Mexico's war of independence against France. Now they're all Americans. They're devout Catholics, as is my own family. --God has been very good to us. (I quoted from the Shakespeare Insulter, a popular website. How's this neat insult: ''Thy sin's not accidental, but a trade''-- Haha!!!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 16, 2003.

Jmj

Gene, there's a different kind of Shakespearean insult site on the Internet too.
Someone went out and collected all the interesting adjectives and nouns that the Bard of Avon used. Then he arranged them in three lists -- two of adjectives and one of nouns. Then he wrote a program to randomly select one word from each of the columns to form a computer-generated Elizabethan insult.
Go to this site for your first one, and then click on your browser's "Reload/Refresh" button to get a second, etc..

Parting is such sweet sorrow.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 17, 2003.

John, That site was hilarious! Exactly the sort of think I find entertaining. The quote I liked best was, "Thou gorbellied folly- fallen giglet!" What a scream!

Thanks for all of your support, guys!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 20, 2003.

I have just had a brilliant idea!!! Every time one of the Fundies starts flinging the 1611 King James Version at us, lets post back to him from the Shakesperian Insulter!!! Old English, for Old English....ha ha ha! That way, we aren't ignoring him, we're just speaking back to him in his native "language". ROFL (rolling on floor laughing)

Of course, we shouldn't do such a wicked thing if they are truly seeking information, of course. I'm talking about the ones that cut-n-paste the KJV and never listen to us. It wouldn't do any good of course, but it sure would lighten the moment.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 20, 2003.

Ooops, I meant Shakespearean. Actually, the fact that I misspelled it, makes it even funnier!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), July 20, 2003.

All right, Victoria. I'll try to remember that, thou "villainous tardy-gaited strumpet" -- not.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 20, 2003.

I thought speaking in tongues was demonic

-- Mike (blank@none.com), July 23, 2003.

If speaking in toungs is of the devil then what kind of demons possesed peter and paul and all the other desiples, and what about the day of penticost what demon was there in the upper room, what about paul when he said "IM GLAD I SPEAK IN TOUNGS MORE THAN YOU ALL"

-- Becki James (bajndwj89@aol.com), August 22, 2003.

paul when he said "IM GLAD I SPEAK IN TOUNGS MORE THAN YOU ALL"

St. Paul said that???

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 24, 2003.

Well, he didn't exactly say "glad", but he did make the point - 1 Cor 14:18

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 24, 2003.

My personal stand is, no one is baptized in Jesus' name ever, in any way. No one is ever more blessed, nor is the soul in any greater state of grace, speaking an odd & unintelligible ''language''. No one; not even Saint Paul himself.

Forgive me, but the whole ''tongues'' notion is a distraction from grace; something obscurantist compared to the Holy Mass given by Christ to everyone at all times. I concede beforehand this is one man's opinion. --To each his own.

----

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 24, 2003.

If you mean "baptized in Jesus' name" as opposed to being baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity as Jesus commanded, then of course you are right. It is an aberration, and does not constitute a valid baptism. However, I fail to see what that issue has to do with the manifestation of charismatic gifts, which were a normal element of Catholic spirituality from the beginning.

In fact, a soul IS more blessed when it is open to every channel of grace God has provided. Obviously this does not mean that everyone must pray in tongues, any more than everyone must make novenas or recite the rosary or attend daily mass or fast or go to Bible studies or church missions or listen to inspirational music. Yet all of these are sources of grace, and all of them do help a soul to be more grace- filled. It is significant though that the inspired Word of God specifically recommends the charisms as superior to many of the other channels of grace available to us.

"God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues". (1 Corinthians 12:28)

The Church today reminds us of the unchanging teaching of the Apostles ... "charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace, and are intended for the common good of the Church" (CCC 2002) ... "Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them, and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and the holiness of the entire Body of Christ" (CCC 800)

One can have a good relationship with God without experiencing every available source of grace, and no secondary source of grace can ever be comparable to that of the Eucharist. Still, maximum growth in holiness requires openness to all the sources of grace God provides, and particularly those which are specifically supported and encouraged by the Sacred Scriptures and the infallible teaching of the Church.

We can have a deep prayer life without praying in tongues; nevertheless, it is clear that this form of prayer does enable one to progress more deeply into communication with God, for "... the Spirit comes to help us in our weakness; for when we do not know how to pray as we should, the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for us according to the will of God." (Romans 8:26-27)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 24, 2003.

What a superb answer, Paul!!

And I know I need ALL the help I can get . . . Grace, Grace, and more GRACE!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 24, 2003.

I'll second that! What a SUPERB answer. The charism of 'tongues', or praying in the Spirit, has enriched, enhanced, advanced, and multiplied the efficaciousness of my prayer a hundred fold. I pray in tongues during bible reading, between rosary decades, in the car, in my prayer closet, walking around, doing excercise, whenever. It helps us to pray always. It's anything BUT a distraction, matter of fact.. it's WHEN I'm distracted that this gift aids in getting me back on focus. Theresa

-- (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 24, 2003.

ps..Gail I walked away touched by your humility. Bottom line... I need all the help I can get too.

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 25, 2003.

Can any of you name a Catholic Saint who spoke of these things specifically?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

Saint Paul!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

OK, here's my concern. In my experience in reading lives of the saints, never did they openly speak about or 'publicize' (without orders) the gifts they had received from God. Humility. Without this virtue it is shocking indeed that God would continue to bestow his 'gifts' so generously. Because without this virtue, true holiness can never be attained. So, besides my personal opinion that the gift of 'tongues' (as it is understood today) is not a gift from God, when I read people openly publicizing the fact that they possess this gift, I am even more determined in my way of thinking.

Any other saints that you can think of besides St. Paul that spoke specifically of these things?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 25, 2003.

What does "as it is understood today" mean? Are you suggesting that the Church once understood its own teachings, but no longer understands them? Was once capable of correctly interpreting its own writings, but has lost this ability over time? If the Church cannot currently interpret this particular aspect of its early writings with accuracy, what reason is there to expect that it can accurately interpret ANY aspect of Scripture?

The mere mention that one has received a particular grace, and that one has benefitted spiritually from that free gift hardly constitutes a violation of humility. To take personal pride in such a gift, or to imagine that it somehow raises you above others would indeed be a sin against humility; however, I did not see any such claims being made above.

In any case, it is the teaching of God's Church that the charisms are indeed gifts from God, and sources of grace for the Church; so any personal notion to the contrary represents an outright rejection of official Church teaching, something that self-described "traditionalists" sadly seem willing to do whenever convenient.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

The self described traditionalists would, no doubt, point squarely at what the Church has always taught concerning the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are seven in number.

Hardly the stuff of self description.

The burden of proof, and the avoidance of the designation self- described clearly rests upon those who would promote an understanding of charism which, to the best of my knowledge, is presented to us from sources which are outside the Church in...

...1967.

This phenomena is younger than I am!

The designation Self-Styled is best redirected to it's proper place.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

Here's one of the manifestations of the Holy Ghost.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

What does "as it is understood today" mean?

I mean, have we ever had any official interpretation of the passages you like to quote in the history of the Church? (That is, before Charismania set in?) Do we have any explanations from the early Magisterium of the Church on those quotes? How do we know 'tongues' in the Bible is what you think it is? Does it not seem odd to you that this movement started in the Pentecostal Church and then spread to Catholicism? (As if the Pentecostals could have something of value that the One True Church did not.) Does it not seem odd to you that 'tongues' are not, nor have they ever, been listed among the gifts of the Holy Ghost? Does it not seem odd to you that you never hear of any of the saints possessing this gift? I mean, with all the gifts they were given by God (prophecy, stigmatism, visions, ecstacy, etc.), this is not mentioned once, in any writings that I have been able to find. In no previous catechisms was it ever mentioned. In no previous Church councils was it ever mentioned. (That I am aware of.) Odd. My conclusion.....this is not of God.

Are you suggesting that the Church once understood its own teachings, but no longer understands them? Was once capable of correctly interpreting its own writings, but has lost this ability over time? If the Church cannot currently interpret this particular aspect of its early writings with accuracy, what reason is there to expect that it can accurately interpret ANY aspect of Scripture?

I never said that. The Church can and has interpreted Scripture. Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith. Unchanging. Unwavering. Built on a rock. A solid, immovable rock. Interpretations in present times may not differ from those of earlier times. If they do.......RUN.....AS FAST AS YOU CAN. Because then you know that Modernism has crept in. Pascendi. Read it. Deposit of Faith. Scripture. Tradition. One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church. Rock. Unchanging. Immutable. Anything else.......modernism.

The mere mention that one has received a particular grace, and that one has benefitted spiritually from that free gift hardly constitutes a violation of humility.

To speak of receiving a 'gift' on many occasions is certainly a violation of humility. To speak of the gift itself in general, however, is not. True humility would demand that we not openly speak of the gifts God gives us, so as to only use them for His benefit. Our Lady certainly did not go around telling people that an angel appeared to her, she conceived of the Holy Ghost, etc. She spoke of it to her cousin Elizabeth only after Elizabeth knelt before her. I can think of no saint who wrote of themselves, or their gifts, unless directed by a spiritual director or superior to do so. True humility demanded otherwise.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 25, 2003.

To help people see a large graphic image (such as the one above), please post an "A HREF" link to click on, rather than use an "IMG SRC" command to cause the picture to appear right in the thread. Many people do not have high-speed Internet connections, and this can result in very slow loading times for threads that have embedded images. Thank you.

-- (Asking@A.Favor), August 25, 2003.

"I mean, have we ever had any official interpretation of the passages you like to quote in the history of the Church?"

A: Yes! They are in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is part of the history of the Church. They are also in the writings of the Apostles, which are likewise part of the history of the Church. Truth never changes!

"How do we know 'tongues' in the Bible is what you think it is?"

A: The same we we know all Catholic truth - by the official teaching of the Church. Read the Catechism!

"Does it not seem odd to you that this movement started in the Pentecostal Church and then spread to Catholicism?"

A: Excuse me? None of the Apostles were Pentecostal as far as I know, except in the sense that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

"Does it not seem odd to you that 'tongues' are not, nor have they ever, been listed among the gifts of the Holy Ghost?"

A: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; And there are varieties of ministries, but the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) A list provided by GOD isn't adequate for your purposes?

"Does it not seem odd to you that you never hear of any of the saints possessing this gift? I mean, with all the gifts they were given by God (prophecy, stigmatism, visions, ecstacy, etc.), this is not mentioned once, in any writings that I have been able to find"

A: It does not seem odd at all, since tongues is given primarily as a gift of personal prayer, whuile the other charisms you mention are given as means of public service to the Church, and are therefore observable by others. What does seem odd is that you accept prophecy and visions, yet reject tongues, when these three gifts, among others, and described in the very SAME passages of Sacred Scripture. Talk about a pick and choose approach to doctrinal truth!

"The Church can and has interpreted Scripture. Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith. Unchanging. Unwavering. Built on a rock. A solid, immovable rock. Interpretations in present times may not differ from those of earlier times. If they do.......RUN.....AS FAST AS YOU CAN. Because then you know that Modernism has crept in."

A: So, because Paul interpreted the teachings of Christ to mean that the Second Coming would occur during his own lifetime, I have to believe the same thing? Because the early church didn't recognize seven sacraments, I can't accept the "modernist" interpretation that there are seven? Because the early Church did not celebrate the Mass in Latin, I must reject such a modernist practice? Because the Church formerly interpreted scripture to mean that sexual relations were intrinsically evil, I have to adhere to that primitive and flawed interpretation in my marriage? Because the Church formerly interpreted scripture as stating that the earth is the center of the universe, I have to reject the truths of modern science? Have we really gone through 2,000 years of ongoing study by the greatest theological minds who ever existed, and come out having learned NOTHING about our original doctrinal truths??

"To speak of receiving a 'gift' on many occasions is certainly a violation of humility. To speak of the gift itself in general, however, is not. True humility would demand that we not openly speak of the gifts God gives us, so as to only use them for His benefit. "

A: So, I can speak about the Mass, but it's a sin to say I attend Mass daily? I can speak about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but cannot mention that I try to confess my sins at least once a month? It's ok to say God can heal, but it's a violation of humility to publicly acknowledge that He has healed members of my family on many occasions? I can pray when I need a job, and ask others to pray for the same intention, but can't tell anyone when God provides one for me? If God gives me a gift of preaching, what should I do? Preach only in private?

"Our Lady certainly did not go around telling people that an angel appeared to her, she conceived of the Holy Ghost, etc."

A: How did the scriptural writers find out about it, if she didn't tell them? Obviously she did not BRAG about the fact. That would indeed be a sin against humility. But the truth can be mentioned in humility.

" I can think of no saint who wrote of themselves, or their gifts, unless directed by a spiritual director or superior to do so."

A: "I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all" (1 Corinthians 14:18)

"For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as the teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Timothy 2:7)

"I wish that all men were as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that" (1 Corinthians 7:7)

"... through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me" (Ephesians 3:7)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

To repeat emphatically: -- No one is ever more blessed, nor is the soul in any greater state of grace speaking an odd & unintelligible ''language''. --No one; not even Saint Paul himself.

This is incontrivertible. Millions of holy souls are in heaven with never a word spoken in strange tongues. You add NO grace, and the catechism isn't proof that you have, by this charism. It has nothing to offer in the way of grace; all grace is from Jesus Christ on Calvary, and comes to us by the sacraments, not charisms. The Holy Spirit might well give a gift of tongues. Yet, nothing depends on it, not grace, nor good works, faith or salvtion. We may wish to believ this gift has extraordinary value. but it doesn't; unless Christ gives it to us.

Mother theresa as far as anybody knows, never spoke in tongues. Nor did any of our Popes since Pentecost, Acts 2, :6--

Our Blessed Mother didn't; no doctor of the Church did; and not any saint we know of after Acts 2-- Paul may have said they did, and it had to be for the spread of the Holy Gospel in foreign lands.

Not as a way of receiving grace.

----

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 25, 2003.

Millions of souls are in heaven without ever having attended Mass. Does this mean that the Mass is not a source of grace??

Prayer in tongues has nothing to do with "spreading the gospel in foreign lands". It has everything to do with depth of personal prayer, and growth in personal sanctity.

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that ... "charisms are oriented toward SANCTIFYING GRACE, and are intended for the common good of the Church" (CCC 2002)

and that ... "Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them, and by all members of the Church as well. They are a WONDERFULLY RICH GRACE for the apostolic vitality and the holiness of the entire Body of Christ" (CCC 800)

It is a curious fact that the only people who voice any reservations regarding the gift of tongues are invariably those with no personal experience of it, and they do so in direct opposition to both the inspired Word of God and the infallible teaching of God's Church. Those who have experienced the immense spiritual benefits of the charismatic gifts support them fully. Rather like the fact that those most vocally critical of Catholicism are those who know the least about it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

"I mean, have we ever had any official interpretation of the passages you like to quote in the history of the Church?"

A: Yes! They are in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is part of the history of the Church.

I asked you if there were any official interpretation before this? Seems odd it was never mentioned before.

They are also in the writings of the Apostles, which are likewise part of the history of the Church.

It is mentioned by St. Paul, but he does not clearly explain it. Was it a gift to enable the apostles to spread the gospel to foreign lands and people? Seems much more plausible and efficacious for that to be the case. Especially since we hear no mention of it since, in any Church documents, writings, lives of the saints, catechisms, etc.

Truth never changes!

Cha-ching, Paul. You've finally got it.

"Does it not seem odd to you that this movement started in the Pentecostal Church and then spread to Catholicism?"

A: Excuse me? None of the Apostles were Pentecostal as far as I know, except in the sense that they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

Have you ever heard of this mentioned, until the 1960's, outside of the writings of St. Paul? Show me. Prove to me it was there before, because for something that is so widespread and popular in the Church today, and has been accepted by so many, and defended by so many, surely those accepting and defending it must be able to prove this has been an ongoing tradition handed down to us through the ages of the Church. Otherwise I would have to say it is a novelty. The Apostles received the gift of tongues on Pentecost for the sole purpose of spreading the Gospel of Christ to many different races.

A: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; And there are varieties of ministries, but the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) A list provided by GOD isn't adequate for your purposes?

What I have bolded above in no way proves your point. This gift of tongues could be as simple as being infused with the knowledge of different languages for the successful spreading of the Gospel. It says nothing of it being a language all its own, that no one else on the face of this earth can understand, not even the one using it. Is the official teaching of the Church listing the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, and handed down throughout the ages not adequate enough for you? Being: Knowledge, Wisdom, Understanding, Fortitude, Piety, Fear of the Lord, and Counsel.

A: It does not seem odd at all, since tongues is given primarily as a gift of personal prayer, whuile the other charisms you mention are given as means of public service to the Church, and are therefore observable by others.

Stigmatism is a means of public service to the Church? I always imagined it to be a source of penance and suffering for those it was given to. Ecstacy a source of public service to the Church? I always imagined it to be reaching that level of holiness that God then granted perfect consolation. And yet these personal and private gifts were documented as fact by others. Why has tongues not been? Did the saints of the Church only use tongues in private and never speak of it, (because otherwise it surely would have been documented at some point in history for at least one saint as possessing this gift)? And, if that is what you believe, then why does not everyone still do it in private?

What does seem odd is that you accept prophecy and visions, yet reject tongues, when these three gifts, among others, and described in the very SAME passages of Sacred Scripture. Talk about a pick and choose approach to doctrinal truth!

Oh, no. the Church has NEVER mentioned tongues, as you understand it, in any past documents, councils or writings. It has never been documented that any saint, pope, doctor of the church has possessed this 'gift'. If this is such a great gift that has been handed down to us since the time of the apostles, a source of edification for the faithful, then surely before now, it would have been mentioned as such. It would have been encouraged at such. It is new, it is not traditionally founded.

A: So, because Paul interpreted the teachings of Christ to mean that the Second Coming would occur during his own lifetime, I have to believe the same thing? Because the early church didn't recognize seven sacraments, I can't accept the "modernist" interpretation that there are seven? Because the early Church did not celebrate the Mass in Latin, I must reject such a modernist practice? Because the Church formerly interpreted scripture to mean that sexual relations were intrinsically evil, I have to adhere to that primitive and flawed interpretation in my marriage? Because the Church formerly interpreted scripture as stating that the earth is the center of the universe, I have to reject the truths of modern science? Have we really gone through 2,000 years of ongoing study by the greatest theological minds who ever existed, and come out having learned NOTHING about our original doctrinal truths?

Whew! I am too flabbergasted at present to even confront most of those. But the biggest issue with any of these questions is the fact, that while small changes have been made over time in the liturgy, etc. it is completely different than one 'surfacing' out of the blue after no mention of it for 1900 years, especially when it could be completely different than how the term is used in scripture.

And the early Church did not recognize seven sacraments? Are you mad?

A: So, I can speak about the Mass, but it's a sin to say I attend Mass daily?

What purpose does it serve your fellow man or yourself for them to know how many times a week you attend Mass?

I can speak about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but cannot mention that I try to confess my sins at least once a month?

Again, does knowing the amount of times you attend Confession serve any purpose for the sanctity of your fellow man?

If God gives me a gift of preaching, what should I do? Preach only in private?

Preaching because you have been given that gift from God is one thing. Saying you are a good preacher is another. Besides, I am wary of the word "preach." It sounds rather Protestant.

"Our Lady certainly did not go around telling people that an angel appeared to her, she conceived of the Holy Ghost, etc."

A: How did the scriptural writers find out about it, if she didn't tell them?

Did no one ever teach you that Scripture was inspired text?

For one minute, assume you are misinterpreting St. Paul in his writings..........Find another saint (pope, doctor of the church, martyr, etc.) who spoke of possessing such things.

It is a curious fact that the only people who voice any reservations regarding the gift of tongues are invariably those with no personal experience of it, and they do so in direct opposition to both the inspired Word of God and the infallible teaching of God's Church.

It is, however, not a curious fact, that those who have had experience with it voice complete approval of it. Because God forbid they have experience with something not of God. The inspired Word of God can be tricky at times to understand. And, is there really and infallible statement, pronounced by the church, that tongues (as you understand it) is indeed a gift from the Holy Ghost? Something beginning with We pronounce.......We say.....We declare, etc.?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 25, 2003.

To help people see a large graphic image (such as the one above), please post an "A HREF" link to click on, rather than use an "IMG SRC" command to cause the picture to appear right in the thread. Many people do not have high-speed Internet connections, and this can result in very slow loading times for threads that have embedded images. Thank you.

Ooops; you know what, I'm sorry. I never even thought about that... sure I will in the future. Thanks!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

Dear Paul:
I see your reply as unconvincing:

''Millions of souls are in heaven without ever having attended Mass. Does this mean that the Mass is not a source of grace???

''Prayer in tongues has nothing to do with "spreading the gospel in foreign lands". It has everything to do with depth of personal prayer, and growth in personal sanctity.''

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that ... "charisms are oriented toward sactifing grace--???''

The tongues seen in the Acts, etc., most certainly were for the purpose of spreading the Gospel; and not for expressing a single thing --NOT ONE; which couldn't be expressed by the individual soul in his own language. You seem to think ''tongues'' say ''more''.

Furthermore, what kind of statement is ''oriented toward'' sanctifiying grace? All grace is from Christ. Oriented to Christ, we come to grace, not from charisms per se. No charism can sanctify you. Only Christ can, and He sanctifies by way of His Church and the sacraments. You wonder if anybody who ''never attended Mass is the same as ''who never spoke in tongues''.

Good point, but not for your position.

If Mass is the presence of Calvary, then Mass effects our souls; but our souls must draw grace from Christ's sacrifice. --In Mass, no charism is given us apart from the presence of God Himself, who is the source of all grace. Prayer is better able to bring grace than speaking in a trance, IMO. Why should ''tongues'' per se deserve more grace; or signify any more? This is pure wishing!

Your description ''depth of personal prayer, and growth in personal sanctity.'' -- something *resulting* as an effect of speaking in tongues, is altogether a dubious claim. Nothing is shallow about prayer in your ordinary tongue. A charism cannot deepen anything in the prayer of a soul in grace. Neither can anyone demonstrate that it leads of itself to ''growth in sanctity''. Why didn't every saint speak in tongues, if it would help to sanctify him/her? Is a Saint Francis lacking in depth of sanctity, stigmata and all? He spoke in Italian only. We know of no case after Acts, in which tongues were heard in the Church. Not until the current charismatic movement. Those we see in Acts 2 very clearly were not gibberish. It was the Holy Gospel orally revealed to diverse foreigners in THEIR languages-- being spoken mysteriously by the first Christian disciples. That was the clear puropose for this charism. No other purpose can be considered logical. God has no need for tongues; He understands our native tongues very well. All of it is based on emotion. We see the catechism's explanation of charisms more as a cautionary teaching than an endorsement of ''tongues''; I'm sorry.

_________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 25, 2003.

I've been wondering if anyone would pray about this, and out of hunger for more of God would ask the Holy Spirit for the gift. Doesn't sound like it yet. Why would anyone dispute a faithful Catholic daily Communicant's testimony to an authentic gift, one of which I was given 25 years ago,{on July 31'st}. Certainly you would think the Holy Spirit would lead me to truth in these matters during this 25 years of intimacy with Him... , rather,He reveals Himself even more through it, bringing me other wonderful people who are of one mind on this. Now I REALLY risk being called prideful. And how that does trouble me. But I take the risk to witness to Who the Holy Spirit is and what He's doing. I've heard others on this forum talking about 'their' holy hour, and 'their' rosary time, now is that bragging.. to mention your prayer style? I think not, it glorifies God that we love Him, and it builds each other up to share our prayer experiences and styles.

I most certainly can imagine my dear brother St. Francis and my Mother Teresa praying in the Spirit as they walk the dusty roads of their ministries.It was natural for them I'm sure, why would they have to speak of it? Does their silence about it give one any more reason to be prejudiced against it?

What's with the resistance? There are so many souls testifying to the great help this gift has given to them in drawing them close to our Lord, AND each other. I met a lady from Canada last summer, she's in her 80's.. she had the most beautiful spirit, totally in love with Jesus and her Catholic faith; she and her husband received the gift of tongues together in the early '50's in their bedroom during a most precious prayer time.

Yes it's personal, but also very public.I don't know of your parishes.. but in mine.. [and I've been there since I was 5, that's 43 years]..of all the praying communities, the one in which you find them praying in tongues together- you find the most depth of corporate prayer and intimacy with God. It's a tremendous vehicle for the Holy Spirit to get important spiritual work done.

If you do not excercise the gift of tongues, so be it, THAT'S how you and the Holy Spirit live together. Those who do, so be it, in all things give glory to God.

By the way, our dear Holy Father Pope Paul the 2'nd does pray in tongues, as he did along with 3000 priests at a charismatic priest's retreat in 1997. That seems natural. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 25, 2003.

Gene, I'm sorry too, but you're speaking from ignorance on the subject. How can you say 'it's pure emotion'? Have you ever been with me, or anyone else in their prayer closet while they softly, quietly, in the hush of tender love used their prayer language? What do you consider emotion? Emotions are part of us, and like everything else they need to be subject to the control of the Holy Spirit. Sure, I've seen some people who's emotions are not under His control, they can get quite emotional; tongues or not! I've seen plenty of people get ruled by their emotions praying in English!! But I'm patient with them. [oops, did I brag again?]

I express myself to the Lord in tongues, with or without being 'emotional'.There's time for both, He understands. That's not a criteria for the genuineness of the gift.

It's not a matter of God not understanding our native tongue. That's not the gift's purpose, it opens up a wide realm of communication, a deep flow of grace takes place as the gift is used, for there are times when we 'do not know how to pray as we ought and the spirit intercedes with inexpressible groanings'. It goes beyond the intellect. I hesitate to say that for there are those who have made an idol of their intellect, afraid that anything out of it is inferior,something,maybe they can't control...did you hear that? When you're walking in the Holy Spirit, it is He Who is praying, how more perfect can it get?

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 25, 2003.

"I've been wondering if anyone would pray about this, and out of hunger for more of God would ask the Holy Spirit for the gift."

I recently came across something in Canticle of Canticles and had a particular thought about it. Take this for what it is and nothing more... this is just a thought of mine, and my opinion regarding what this Scripture passage may refer to about the Bride of Christ, the Church, which is "My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up". Here's the passage:

"I adjure you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and the harts of the field, that you stir not up, nor make the beloved to awake, till she please."

Who does not want a deeper knowledge of the things of God once they have tasted a little of it? If, though, the analogy of the Church to Christ is as bride to the bridegroom, then some beautiful things must wait. Not that the desire is wrong of itself, but that the fulfillment of that union is not at all something of this life.

In fact, our condition which we present to the great Archetype of the Church, Blessed Mother, consists of this:

"...to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears." (or is it "vail of tears"? lol! either seems to work well enough already.)

This is how we hail the Holy Queen, because this is our true condition. We are in no way whatsoever triumphant here in this life but militant and waiting or working, running.

Again, the Holy Ghost provides us with the only necessary knowledge, as seen in the Litany of the Holy Ghost. The necessary knowledge leads us in the "way of salvation", and "inspires us in the practice of good". Google it!

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of terror of the war that flies around their heads beyond what's in our visible experience. I'm not sure they are supposed to feel or see it; that doesn't seem to be the plan... to those who ignore it this war, it will stand someday as a mark of judgement and justice, and to others who are of good will and unaware of it yet pursue the good, their own innocence of the gravity of things will stand as a mark of justification, or a reward of their goodness, that is. The war is fought without clarity in anything but the most essential of things; it is fought in the darkness with ancient weapons.

From either perspective, a greater knowledge of things beyond our sight is not always ordered to what is the necessary knowledge and can well serve as a hinderance to it given our littleness. Never underestimate our littleness as human creations. As infinitely valuable and as precious as we are, our ability to influence heaven and hell is less than insignificant, unless of course, you factor in humility.

At that point, the course of the heavens can be altered as per the Blessed Virgin and the Incarnation.

In all things, ask yourselves whether the gifts in question serve the Church Universal in silence and in obscurity for the sake of another Kingdom or whether they serve the self in the kingdom of the now. Everything comes down to that in the final analysis. In no way whatsoever has Christ ever really experience a Heaven upon earth.

When it comes to knowledge and deep, deep understandings, they come from God and can be taken back by Him in a heartbeat, as they never really belonged to us at all. Also, they rarely come about, it seems, unless attached to suffering and humility.

So in other words, if you've got them, you have first to have not really wanted them, let alone have wanted them for their own sake. The Holy Ghost whispers!

"What's with the resistance?"

These passages from Canticles may lend a clue:

"If she be a wall: let us build upon it bulwarks of silver: if she be a door, let us join it together with boards of cedar."

"Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy as hard as hell, the lamps thereof are fire and flames."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 25, 2003.

I've been wondering if anyone would pray about this, and out of hunger for more of God would ask the Holy Spirit for the gift.

Not a chance.

Why would anyone dispute a faithful Catholic daily Communicant's testimony to an authentic gift,

Being a daily Communicant in no way automatically signifies sainthood or holiness. I prefer to test this against the greatest saints and doctors of the Church, those whom I know to be in Heaven. It is rather impossible and unlikely that so much would be written on the ecstacies and stigmatisms of Saints, but nothing on their speaking in tongues, if they possessed this 'gift'. Can you show me one saint (other than the disputed idea of St. Paul) recorded as possessing this? Just one?

one of which I was given 25 years ago,{on July 31'st}.

Does stating this repeatedly help to sanctify your or my soul?

Certainly you would think the Holy Spirit would lead me to truth in these matters during this 25 years of intimacy with Him... ,

He would lead you to truth if you strived for the above-mentioned seven gifts, tried and true, infallibly declared, and set this one aside. He guided the Church in defining these seven gifts, would he really have let them leave one out?

Does their silence about it give one any more reason to be prejudiced against it?

Not their silence of it....that would have been humility. But the Church's silence on it........that would be because it wasn't there.

What's with the resistance?

Honestly Theresa........I don't think it to be of God. It is spiritual, but if it's not of God, then what spirit is it from? We must stand everything up to the Deposit of Faith. Scripture and Tradition. This is not something spoke of in all the ages of the Church, at least not in the context you speak of it.

There are so many souls testifying to the great help this gift has given to them in drawing them close to our Lord, AND each other.

Just name me one saint. I will then admit I could be wrong. But until I see evidence of it in the history of the Church, I can only conclude it is not of God.

And please don't name St. Paul. First, I disagree with the way the pertinent verses in the Bible are being interpreted, and secondly, if St. Paul is recorded as possessing the gift in the manner you claim, then surely there are others.

It's a tremendous vehicle for the Holy Spirit to get important spiritual work done.

Or it could be your vehicle is on auto pilot and leading you through a detour.

By the way, our dear Holy Father Pope Paul the 2'nd does pray in tongues, as he did along with 3000 priests at a charismatic priest's retreat in 1997.

Until Our Holy Father is canonized, this in no way serves your point. Many popes have done many things. Should those things be validated because they were pope when they did them?

I feel I must state, that by holding the opinion I hold on this matter, and believing Charismatics to be wrong, I in no way feel myself to be holier than thou. I have yet to attain even one of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost, but these are what we must strive for. Those things that are tried and true in the Church.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 25, 2003.

Hi Isabel

Im not a fan of the rabbit thumper eye rolling crowd and I would proceed with extreme caution myself but you of all Catholics are in no position to talk to Theresa like this. Your position is not the position of the Catholic Church is it? I thought it was rather arrogant of you to tell her it was "not of God" please provide specific Church documents that support your opinion.

A quick search and I couldnt find any quotes from the distant past but thats not to say they dont exist. ANyway just to recap a few supporting references most already mentioned

From Father Mateo (not our Mateo!)

"The earliest and most authoritative official Catholic statement on speaking in tongues is the Apostle Paul's treatment of the subject in 1st Corinthians, chapter 14:1-33, 36-40.

The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion (vol. F-N, pp. 2506f.) reports these official acts in favor of Catholic support ofspeaking in tongues:

1) Paul VI's encouraging address on May 19, 1975 to members of the Third International Congress of Charismatic Renewal at Rome;

2) the favorable doctrinal report on the movement made in 1969 to the National Conference of U.S. Bishops;

3) the pastoral report made to the same Conference in 1975;

4) a favorable address given by Paul VI on May 26, 1976 to a group of non-Catholic Pentecostals;

5) the Canadian Bishops' message in 1975 (Catholic Mind, October, 1975);

6) John Paul II's address on May 7, 1981;

another on April 30, 1984;

and a talk to 5000 charismatic priests on October 9, 1984;

other talks by the present Pope on November 15, 1986 and May 15, 1987."

Your position that what the Pope says (even when not speaking infalibily on matters of faith and morals) "in no way serves your point" is just laughable and there is no need to explain the importance to you, you realise and are just being difficult as usual when you find Papal announcements you dont personally like the sound of. ps if Pope Paul and Pope John Paul are made Saints your position would change? A strange way to operate IMO, please explain...

To understand why Isabel should always be taken with a large grain of salt read her words below(some may beong to Jake MSN Ill leave it to Isabel to tell us which words belong to her) People may be sick of seeing me post this list probably time to google up a fesh batch :-)

"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist."

“the post-conciliar church and its new fangled liturgy.”

“You won't find any distractions, novelties, "innovations," or liturgical abuses at the True Mass. You will hear the real words of our Lord as He spoke them at the Last Supper. You will be able to assist while our Lord recieves the proper reverence and devotion due to Him.”

“You see, as Catholics today, according to the modern church, we are allowed to believe absolutely anything we wish, except what was taught for the first 1900 years of Christianity.”

“the New Mass advocate strives to bring God down to the level of mankind instead of raising themself up to God”

“The fruits of Vatican II are rotten. Our Lord has been uncrowned and cast aside”

“A warm fuzzy Mass where everyone can feel good about themselves while Christ sits alone in a corner ignored”

“The Novus Ordo has made the priest more of a talk show host, with Our Lord taking a back seat, on a side altar or in another room altogether.”

“Also, the prayers of the Mass are so much more beautiful, expressing clearly what the intention is”

“Compare and see how much more uplifting the prayers in the Latin rite are.”

“I have never seen so manyNovus Ordo Catholics who are so strong in the faith before now”

“VII has brought forth a new religion”

“I say the New Mass is not a mass, it's out of line with Catholic doctrine, it's a Protestant form of worship, a striking departure from all which has been taught by the Apostles and revealed to us through Our Lord. The New Mass is an abomination.”

Throwing stones in galsshouses etc

Blessings Isabel

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 26, 2003.

Kiwi...

You're helping Isabel.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 26, 2003.

Do you know if Isabel's right? Or wrong? I mean about the one charism of tongues? Here we're discussing only that; and Popes who gave a favorable reception to charismatic Catholic groups might be altogether dubious regarding ''tongues''. Speaking or praying in tongues is only one, so-called-- charism. --There may be some others to which the Popes gave their blessing. I never heard of a blessing on tongues. But, then; Theresa says I've spoken in ignorance.

What is there to ''know'' about this ''charism''??? I know as much as the next person. That a goodly number of Christians drift off into a dreaming state, babbling strange sounds. For what purpose, who knows? They claim to be filled with a Spirit and responding to His urging. But all of it is subjective. No part of it can be objectively substantiated as a holy action within the soul. It's plainly a fringe activity.

Since no Catholic we could read of in history is known to have demonstrated this ''charism'', and since speaking realistically, nothing is indispensable about it for faith, what's wrong with taking it all with a grain of salt? As just another form of hand-clapping!

It ought to be just so until the Catholic Church declares it true and pleasing to God. Up to this time, she hasn't. She may well have pronounced a charismatic ''movement'' harmless & productive of devotion; but even this is superfluous, next to the acknowledged truths of the Catholic faith down the centuries. We simply don't NEED charismatic movements.< p>If Isabel happens to feel that way too, more power to her. It shouldn't give her other, more disturbing views any validity because she agreed with me in this case. Of course, I'm pleased that she does.

And, with every respect for Theresa and my deepest appreciation for her feelings, it doesn't mean I disagree with her on the more orthodox Catholic knowledge she possesses. I see her as a devout, beautiful soul. But I cannot perceive what spiritual value she finds in ''tongues''. It requires no sensational charism to live a saintly life, as I'm sure she tries to.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 26, 2003.

"But I cannot perceive what spiritual value she finds in ''tongues''"

Well of course you can't! One who has not personally experienced this profound outpouring of grace could not possibly perceive the spiritual value of it, just as a person who has never attended Mass could not possibly perceive its spiritual benefits. All the more reason to abstain from speaking, in light of the virtually unanimous testimony of those who HAVE been so blessed.

. It requires no sensational charism to live a saintly life, as I'm sure she tries to.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2003.

Dear Paul:
You came to some esoteric experience I suppose, of having recieved grace by way of speaking in tongues.

The Church has taught grace comes freely from God, not because we have some charism, but on account of our faith, and our prayers. Most of all, by the sacraments. It seems you've elevated a particular charism then, to the level of a true sacrament. But we can't accept that. Christ never gave the Church any such teaching. I suspect your enthusiasm is not grace at all. It's a thrilling current of happiness. Enjoy it, then.

One day it shall be revealed to you for what it was. //

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 29, 2003.

Oh, Paul

Stop it!

Your anologys are too much. How do you use the holy Mass as trying to compare speaking in tongues?

As a ordained man you should know better. Its' like comparing "apples" and "peanuts".

Did you ever think you could be wrong just one time in this forum, Paul? I don't seem to rember you ever coming back and admiting you where ever wrong.

You entitled to believe what ever you want, but I get the feeling that you think you can never be wrong.

Rember, your a man that contradicts what the Cathechism says on the death penalty? In "Pauls world" he is always right. Sometimes, thIs world differs from the C.C.C.

God bless you, Paul

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2003.

Dear David,

My only comparison between the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the charism of prayer in tongues is that they are both channels of grace. This is a fact, so where is your problem with it?

Dear Eugene,

You state - correctly - that "grace comes freely from God ... on account of our faith, and our PRAYERS". What seems inconsistent is that you state this fact in an apparent effort to demonstrate that a form of PRAYER recognized and encouraged by Holy Mother Church is NOT a channel of God's grace. So which is it? Does grace come to us through prayer? Or not? Or does it come to us only through forms of prayer that you are personally comfortable with? Then again, how could one be "comfortable" with something one has never experienced?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2003.

Paul,

The Mass is the eternal sacrifice in which Jesus Christ is crucified, died and burried, and rises from the dead. This is made available to us in the Holy Mass.God knows know time. Time was made for us. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass knows no time.

Speaking in tongues doesn't belong in the same sentence as the Holy Mass.

Please don't use that anology again. I don't have a problem(like you asked). I just think you are wrong to do so.

Sop it, Paul!

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2003.

Grace is not channelled by charisms; we would have only a tiny minority receiving grace if this were so. The Church teaches that Christ's holy sacraments produce grace, not charisms. Again; hundreds of millions have been given grace in the Catholic Church. No number approaching this has had a ''tongues charism'', and again, I can point out honestly; no saint spoke in tongues during the past 2,000 years. We see the phenomenon as a charism in the early Christian Church as one way the gospel was promulgated to the nations. No other significance is seen attached to the charism as we see it in the epistles & Acts of the Apostles; not even as a manner of praying.

You cannot introduce it now after almost two millennia, as a ''channel'' of God's grace. It isn't plausible; that's a self-serving explanation. The Church does NOT teach that ANY charism of itself produces grace; or, that we need that charism for any reason at all. The catechism has nothing to say about tongues.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 29, 2003.

"There are furthermore special GRACES, also called CHARISMS ... Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of TONGUES - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying GRACE, and are intended for the common good of the Church" (CCC 2003)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2003.

Paul,

You are a work of "art"!

When you are shown what the C.C.C says on the death penalty, you give your "Pauls version"

But now you copy what the Catechism says to "suit" your opinion in "Pauls world" on "tongues".

Paul lets answer straight up.

Do you believe everything in the C.C.C, or only when it suits you?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2003.

Dear "David",

The above quote is not my "opinion". It is the official teaching of God's Church. Take it or leave it. The Catechism has several other sections on charisms, but Emerald was looking for one that specifically mentioned tongues, which is why I provided it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

"Many will say to me in that [last] day: 'Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils in Thy name, and done many miracles in Thy name?"

And then will I profess unto them, "I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity."

St. Matthew 7:22-23

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 30, 2003.

Jake,

On a different note.

I tried to send you a e-mail and thank you privatley, but you must of changed your e-mail. The e-mail comes back to me.

I want to thank you and your family very much. I am very grateful for your kindness and generousity, and prayers.

May God bless you and your family.

David S

PS: I would bet I know one man that would say he speaks in tongues. But I better not go there. :-) Nice to see you posting again.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 30, 2003.

Actually there are millions of devout Catholics who do so, and in parishes where they do (obviously I refer to openness to the charisms in general, not just praying in tongues), you also typically find Eucharistic adoration, communal rosary, First Friday devotion, Benediction, and other forms of devotion which, like the charisms, are works of the Holy Spirit in their essence.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

But you cannot name one saint in history who has done so, can you Paul? (Besides St. Paul, which cannot be proven in the sense you want to see it.) You cannot find one document through the history of the Church that mentions it, can you? [Before Vatican II, because if it was there before, there would have been mention of it.]

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 30, 2003.

David:

You're most welcome. I'll be sure & contact you with further details. Please keep me & mine in your prayers, also.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 30, 2003.

Paul:
Nothing like ''millions''; but even one dozen wouldn't further the case. As for the catechism, there we see the words ''charisms'', not tongues We can accept the gifts of the holy Spirit. These may or may not take the form of biblical charisms such as healing or preaching. All gifts are charisms at bottom. All are graces, ''gifts''. But sanctifying grace is not ours by any stretch of the imagination from that direction. Only by Christ's holy sacraments. You are mixing sanctifying grace from actual grace. Actual grace cannot save us, but it is God's gift to a soul which can bring him/her to the sacraments. Remember I've stated these are my layman's views. You don't have to share in them. But nothing you've so far said has any authority for others to follow. You have a conviction which saints themselves haven't believed. But-- it's a free country.

___________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 30, 2003.

Paul,

You are out there dude!

I think we would all agree that the gifts of the Spirit are active in our Holy Catholic Church. But, please don't use your anologys with the Holy Mass. This is assine!

All of your examples in "Pauls world" are Grace that we should focus on, like praying the Rosary, going to dailey Mass, praying Novenas etc..[going to confession(D.S.)

But please notise that we have our free will to make these choices and work with Gods Grace. We don't have a choice about speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues in out of anyones control. I can go to Confession and Mass tommorow by my own free will and so can Isabel.

Can Isabel speak in tongues tommorow? No she can't, Paul!

See how your anologys are out of wack?

Can you speak in tongues tommorow Paul? But, I know you can participate in the Holy Mass if you want.

Chow.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 30, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

In fact, during the past 30 years, over a hundred million Catholics in 238 countries have experienced the unique outpouring of grace which God has provided through the charismatic dimension of Catholic spirituality. You are confusing sacramental grace, which is specific to the various sacraments, with sanctifying grace, which comes to us through many different channels, including charisms as the Catechism plainly states. Exercising of the charisms may indeed bring us certain actual graces, just as attendance at Mass does, along with an increase in sanctifying grace, just like attendance at Mass. As for the Catechism, we do indeed see the gift of tongues specifically mentioned, as I quoted for you above.

Dear "David",

You state: "But please notise that we have our free will to make these choices and work with Gods Grace. We don't have a choice about speaking in tongues"

A: OF COURSE WE DO! One of the principle characteristics that identifies a true charism is that its use is always within the control of the individual expressing the charism! God does not FORCE His graces upon anyone! It is true that we cannot simply decide to exercise a charism, since the power of the charism is a direct and immediate grace from God, not something of our own initiation; but we can certainly refuse to exercise a charism. You don't have to worry that you will suddenly start singing in tongues while you are riding the bus! True charisms do NOT take control of us! They are loving invitations to grace which, if "accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them" (CCC 800), serve as channels of sanctifying grace to the whole Church.

You state: "Speaking in tongues is out of anyones control"

A: That is totally false, and reveals total ignorance of the nature of charisms and their function in the Church. No charism (as I explained above) is EVER "out of anyone's control". However, the gift of prayer in tongues has an even greater measure of control associated with it, for this charism, unlike all others, is bestowed for the spiritual growth of the person who receives it. All other charisms are given through a person, for the good of the greater Church.

You ask: "Can you speak in tongues tommorow Paul? But, I know you can participate in the Holy Mass if you want".

In fact, "David", my wife and I will pray in tongues together tonight as part of our prayer time before retiring - AND we will attend Mass together tomorrow morning - AND during that Mass, we will pray in tongues with our parish community during the fifteen minutes of praise right after Communion. The gift of prayer in tongues is available any time an individual wishes to use it. Unlike the other charisms, it does not depend upon immediate divine initiative. It is a form of prayer which enables us to supercede the limitations of human language in praising God, just as the Bible describes. As Eugene already told us, praising God in prayer is always a powerful channel of grace.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

Dear Paul:
With all due respect, you're wrong. There isn't and never was, a connection between sanctifying grace & the various charisms. I dare say, with no disrespect, there has been nothing like a unique outpouring of grace in the last years you mention, and if there were, the charismatic movement has little enough to do with that. These extravagant claims you keep making are really a bit disingenuous, but I realise you need some way of propping up your commitment to speaking in tongues come what may.

Don't do it, I beg you, by making false claims. Unique outpourings of grace are just your presumption. Whatever you truly see on record, it wasn't unique. Was it HOLY? There's no telling; only God knows. Even the three children of Fatima didn't claim they had been treated to unique outpourings of anything, because it would've been embroidering the truth. Your closest approach to this outpouring will always be in reception of the Holy Eucharist, Paul. Every other grace pales in comparison.

That's mainly WHY I've attempted to reason with you. You need Jesus Christ only-- and all graces follow closely behind, with or without tongues. Christ instituted the sacramental life of his Church. We can add hardly anything to it that would enhance it. Look back over the millennia; and you'll have to face this truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 30, 2003.

Hi, Paul

What can I say? You are a "unique"indivual"

So not only are you claiming that you speak in tongues, but now you are telling me a time that you will do this?(Tonight before you retire)

Paul,Pleaaaaaase wake up. So sad to read this from a ordained man?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 30, 2003.

Dear Eugene,

"With all due respect, you're wrong. There isn't and never was, a connection between sanctifying grace & the various charisms."

A: With all due respect, the Church says there is, and the Church is infallible. Therefore your personal opinion is objectively false, in that it openly opposes that which is objectively and unfailingly true, by virtue of the word of God Himself.

"I dare say, with no disrespect, there has been nothing like a unique outpouring of grace in the last years you mention, and if there were, the charismatic movement has little enough to do with that."

A: I dare say you are in no position to offer an opinion on the subject, given your total lack of personal experience and first-hand knowledge of the matter, not to mention the fact that your mind and heart are apparently closed to any working of the Spirit through such channels. Your opinions in regard to charismatic spirituality therefore have no more validity than my opinions on skydiving - and for the same reason.

"Unique outpourings of grace are just your presumption."

A: Well, my "presumption" based on thirty-five years of daily personal experience are bound to be more reliable than your presumption based on ... nothing.

"Was it HOLY?"

A: Anyone who has experienced it knows of its holiness first-hand, by the incredible fruits it produces in peoples' lives. (Jesus said "by their fruits will you know them".) But, even Catholics who have not been so blessed, IF they accept the teaching of the Church, also know that it is holy, since the Church describes it as an immense source of grace for the Church.

"Your closest approach to this outpouring will always be in reception of the Holy Eucharist, Paul. Every other grace pales in comparison."

A: Obviously. And no Catholics are more keenly aware and appreciative of this fact than charismatic Catholics are. However, the fact that the graces of charisms pale in comparison to reception of the actual Body and Blood of the Risen Savior does not diminish the fact that such graces are immensely powerful compared to graces attainable through many ordinary devotional acts.

"You need Jesus Christ only-- and all graces follow closely behind, with or without tongues."

A: That is incorrect. We do need Jesus only, but only those graces follow to which we are open. If we close ourselves off from a particular channel of God's grace, then we will not receive those particular graces, even though we may still receive many graces through other channels. "ALL" graces follow ONLY if we are open to "ALL" channels of grace, including charisms.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

Hi, Paul

When speaking on praying in tongues, you said,"..it does not depend upon imediate Divine initative..."

Is this only in "Pauls world"? Where does it say this in the C.C.C?

Even the molecules in the air you breathe depend on imediate Divive initative. What if God didn't mix up the air properly that you take into your lungs?

Paul, wake up. You are making up things as you go along my boy!

-- - (David@excite.com), August 30, 2003.

He couldn't quite explain it They'd always just gone there...

Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm...

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

Mmm.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 30, 2003.

Emerald lets make sure everyone knows what youre singing!

"'Cause then there was this boy whose Parents made him come directly home right after school And when they went to their church They shook and lurched all over the church floor He couldn't quite explain it They'd always just gone there

Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm"

Ha! run run run run ;-)

I just dont get this attack, so what if its only been around for a few years,our Pope has alredy spoken about the fuller version of the truth the protestant reformation has bought to the Church. Its mean spirited and totally unnessary to carry on like this just because such worship doesnt resonate for you. Again Eugene or anyone else please point to a single Vatican document that PREVENTS PAul or Theresa struting their stuff in this way, show me the harm caused to God or anyone else.

EMerald for you

everybody, come together everbody, get together FREE!

its ok if you cant stand to let her dance its ok its your right FREE!

come on and take a chance a true romance, when you dance, FREE!

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 30, 2003.

Jake wins!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 30, 2003.

lol kiwi nailed me!

I couldn't help it... no insult intended there, Paul, I just couldn't help being reminded of that song. It's on my top ten list of all time, even though I should have long given up such things.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

Woah... I didn't see jake's post. You're right, he's on it first! lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 30, 2003.

Paul:

With due respect, Gene did express that he was offering his layman's opinion, which obviously differs from yours. I hardly think that warrants the assumption that he's closed-minded. It just means that he sees things differently. Also, Gene's lack of firsthand experience with Pentecostalism doesn't preclude him from having an opinion of it. I certainly have no firsthand experience with Pentecostalism (or skydiving for that matter!) but I have very definite (and eerily similar) opinions of both.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 30, 2003.

Paul; if as you claim: the Church says there is, and the Church is infallible. Therefore your (eugene) personal opinion is objectively false, in that it openly opposes that which is objectively and unfailingly true, by virtue of the word of God Himself.

Please tell me in what statements ever did the Church say the charism or gift of ''tongues'' had any bearing or effect in obtaining sanctifying grace. What makes your belief ''that which is objectively and unfailingly true, by virtue of the word of God Himself'' ---??? Give some concrete acknowledgment other than a vague assertion on your OWN part.

I know if the church proclaimed the gift of speaking in ''tongues'' a true charism-- and said it gives sanctifying grace to the speaker per se; it would mean you are correct. Let's hear what you have as proof of that relevant Church announcement. It's only just we should ask for this.

It has not been my intent to doubt what the Church teaches. Why would I? I just don't believe the Church has anything to say of significance about this. Prove me wrong.

Let me say after this; my respect for you is not in any doubt. I think you're a devout Catholic; I would never presume to be a better one than you are. Please don't take offense at my arguments. I present them before you with love and good will. I think it's important to bring you and others an orthodox point of view. Because the one you now hold is unorthodox if not extreme.

/

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 31, 2003.

How about St. Francis of Assissi or St. Anthony of Padua? (I know this won't live up to a non-Catholic's standards, but saints speaking to animals or other languages is nothing new.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 31, 2003.

Eugene "

"I just don't believe the Church has anything to say of significance about this. Prove me wrong."

Hmmmm Ive heard this sort of thing before....

"I dont believe in God ...prove me wrong" ;-)

Pope John Paul II said in 1996

"the Pontifical Council for the Laity is preparing a document which will serve as an important point of reference for the life and apostolate of such communities(Catholic charismatics), and for the discernment of their spiritual gifts. Let us pray that this document will produce the good results which we expect from it!"

I cannot find this document but Im sure it will show the Church has indeed had much to say on this issue. Ive got to go to bed but rest assured if its on the net, Ill find it! Later and Blessings to you

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 31, 2003.

It's note-worthy that Saint Theresa of Avila not only recorded her ecstatic experiences, but made frequent mention of the arid, or dull intervals of spiritual life; which assailed her sometimes despite her great faith. Nothing of ''unique outpourings of grace'', since she spoke interiorly to Jesus in Spanish. He replied in Spanish to her concerns. He said the arid experience was of enormous value spiritually for her soul, and it pleased Him just as much as her ecstatic highs.

Yet we have to admit if anyone ever was favored of God in this life, Theresa was. No hullabaloo; no soaring voices or spiritual grandiosity. Love, humility, and silence. But we are now told the opposite: Our present title: ''. . . Filled with the Holy Ghost, (Evidence speaking in tongues)--'' I guess saints in those darker days weren't allowed near the Holy Spirit? They kept silent, for the most part.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 31, 2003.

Paul,

"..I dare say you are in no postion to offer an opinion on the subject..."

Paul everyone is entitled to there opinion, and if they think you are wrong than they should say it.

If a devout 65 year old Catholic that has been a Catholic his whole life is in no postion to offer an opinion than who is?

I never heard of man(or Parish) that can pick the time and place and start praying in tongues.

With all due respect, Paul. Why would you and your wife(with all due repect) pray in tongues in the house? I mean, what would be wrong with praying normal. Its not like you both wouldn't understand each other.

But, I guess the 24 year old chap that attends Mass once every month is entitled to give his opinion as long as he joins your circle, but Eugene is not, because he doesn't tow your line and agree?

Skydiving Paul? Gene is probably as faithful a Catholic as anyone in your Parish.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), August 31, 2003.

Dear "David",

You ask: "If a devout 65 year old Catholic that has been a Catholic his whole life is in no postion to offer an opinion than who is?"

A: If a person has absolutely no experience or knowledge of a given subject, then he/she is in no position to offer an "opinion", and his age and religious affiliation have no bearing on this whatsoever.

"I never heard of man (or Parish) that can pick the time and place and start praying in tongues."

A: Then you obviously lack even the most elementary understanding of the charism of tongues and its operation in the Church, and should therefore likewise refrain from attempting to offer "opinions".

"With all due respect, Paul. Why would you and your wife(with all due repect) pray in tongues in the house? I mean, what would be wrong with praying normal."

A: With all due respect, "David", praying in tongues is perfectly "normal", and allows one to pray at a deeper level than mere human language allows. Scripture describes this in some detail. Are you suggesting that the early Church, in which this form of prayer was the norm, was thereby "abnormal"?

"Gene is probably as faithful a Catholic as anyone in your Parish."

A: Did I suggest, insinuate, or hint otherwise??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2003.

Hi, Paul

No you didn't insinuate otherwise about Gene, but you did diss his opinion.(rember the skydiver?) Would one that disagrees with you be better of keeping there elementery school knowledge to themselves?

When speaking on tongues you said:"..and allows one to pray at a deeper level.."

You realy think your prayers are at a "deeper level" than mosts of the saints who never experienced this gift that you and your parish claims to have? What am I going to do with you Paul?

"...a MERE HUMAN LANGUAGE ALLOWS..."

a mere human language Paul? So you and your Parish think your prayers are deeper because in "Pauls world" this is what he says?

I think you are confused Paul. I see a prideful man here. If we disagree we are better off keeping our elemenatery(sp:-) skydiving opinions to ourself.

Get real dude. If you pray the rosary are your prayers more powerful because you speaking in "tongues" as you claim, than Eugenes' mere human language? You realey believe theprayers are deeper.

Only in "Pauls world"/

Defintion of mere:nothing more or other than. :-) But tongues are better.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 31, 2003.

Hi David I dont see whats wrong with the fosbury flop crowd praying in toungues if thats what does it for them and Paul and his wife should be free to whip themselves into whatever frenzy without out dersion but when they start claiming superirority over the rest of us its a bit hard to folow.

Paul can you please explain what you mean by this becuase it sounds as David has elaborated on alittle rich to swallow. Perhaps youd like to qualify it?

"and allows one to pray at a deeper level than mere human language allows."

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 31, 2003.

oops, Paul Im sure you get the gist what do you mean by "deeper"?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 01, 2003.

When my husband and I pray in tongues together our hearts and spirits come into a quick unity and are opened up to what the Holy Spirit would have us think, do, or say, it is the FASTEST way to contemplation, it's simply a splendid gift for a married couple.

I'm forever grateful for this grace and blessing.And it's available for everyone of us. Yes, we're led to pray the rosary, this too is splendid,as is the chaplet of Divine Mercy, all other prayers, not to mention when we just sit there with God, or pour our hearts out, and listen. There is definitely a lack of understanding of spiritual gifts here. David and Kiwi, prayer is not two people talking to each other, it's talking to God, a verticle movement, so to speak. When we move beyond the intellect and become like children before our Lord, the Holy Spirit has a special access to move and pray, for He searches our hearts and knows the perfect prayer, and thus "intercedes for the holy ones according to God's will". [ see Romans 8:27 ].

Usually the gifts work in tandem with each other, if you would re- read my post I stated this. The gifts are not an end in themselves, but for the upbuilding of the whole Body. The gift of tongues opens us quickly to take on the mind of Christ {see Romans 12:1,2}. We would then receive prophetic words, perhaps specific needs of our children to pray about. There are times when the Holy Spirit will reveal specific needs of our prayer group after we've prayed in tongues extensively. It's marvelous, God wanting to share His mind with us. This is His desire, to bring the Church to perfection, isn't it.. to further the Kingdom. This is not 'pie in the sky', this is reality, this is Catholic,folks. This is real Christian living.

I would suggest doing some reading of some strong solid Catholic authors on the subject. Surely there are Catholic bookstores in your area. Be a good disciple and pray and listen. We are commanded to pray always. This gift helps us to do that, for sometimes we don't know what to pray. If I pass an accident on a road I pray in tongues because the Holy Spirit knows exactly what is needed while I'm buzzing by at 60 mph, and can't possibly know. Sometimes I'm called to say a quick 2-sentence prayer in English, and that's it. Other times I sense in my spirit a deeper urgency for deeper prayer, and tongues fills in what I don't know with my intellect. But the Holy Spirit does.

There are times when a certain person comes to mind and I sense an urgency to intercede for him, and the Holy Spirit has prayed through me in my prayer language [tongues], and the next day that person will tell me what it is that happened. This is normal Catholic community life. This is living prophetically, this is Catholic. Praying in tongues helps with a person's own sanctity. When I'm struggling interiorly, and don't have clarity, praying in the Spirit resolves it quickly,the Holy Spirit moves and shifts, penetrating soul and spirit {see Hebrews 4:12}.

Does it scare you? It most certainly shouldn't. This is a time when we should wake up asking the question, "Ok Lord, what are you and I going to do today?". We are His children, His flock, "My sheep hear My voice, and they know Me". How do we hear Him? He's about a work now, look at the world, it's not looking good, and He's calling us to walk with Him, and pray always, the harvest is ready, people are coming in for answers. I'm seeing laborers being raised up, and moving in the gifts, it's not such a mystery, it's not for some elite group, this is our Catholic faith. What about Pentecost!! Those guys were accused of being drunk! IT was only 9 a.m.They weren't drunk, they were new men in the Holy Spirit,being filled with new courage and wisdom. God needs us today. Let's not waste time arguing.

This weekend we spent in Anaheim,Calif. with 15,000 Catholics gathered at the 32'nd annual Catholic renewal convention. The theme was from Zecharia 4:6, "Not by an army, not by might, but by my spirit, says the Lord of Hosts".

We were encouraged and built up as Catholics, to walk in our identity as children of God, by such stellar and holy speakers as Mother Regina Marie Gorman,OCD, John Michael Talbot, Fr. Robert Faricy,SJ, {a leading authority on Marian apparitions and professor at the pontifical Gregorian Univsity in Rome}, Robert DeGrandis,SJ, Fr. George Montague,SM, Fr. John Hampsch,CMF, and Fr. Fio Mascarenhas {official papal preacher of the vatican}. Yes, it's just a list of priests,but ones who encouraged us to live in the Holy Spirit, to pray always, love always, and to use the gifts God's given us. But the fruit of this gathering is converted lives, lives renewed in Christ. Lives newly empowered by the Holy Spirit, much like in the early Church, this is Catholic life. This is not off-the-wall. There was nothing unorthodox or out of order. God was glorified in His Church, and God is being glorified.

Pray with us, pray for us. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 01, 2003.

Forgive me, Theresa,
There's not much of a message here. Only escape. I'll remind you that Christ is All in all; and the Spirit of God doesn't single out a member or a number of them to indwell; He is TOTALLY with One Mystical Body. One Will, not three, or three independent Wills acting apart. Tongues would not be out of the Body of Christ as you understand this, however sweetly. What you've described (adequately so, for yourselves) is escape into some higher plane. That was never the intention God had for charisma.

We do not believe there is ''prayer in tongues'' that God will hear, understand or desire from us. What I see your practice as is an esoteric misapprehended interpretation of the scriptures, a gnostic invention of human origin. You have a love of secret things and mystery. This is not grace.

You ascribe this call within your soul as a work of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is the One Will of God, as is the Father, and His eternal Son. And His divine Will is that we worship Him always as One Body in Christ, the Church. He doesn't have any another will, giving just parts of the Mystical Body calls to pray in ''tongues''; over and above the prayers of His Holy Church. That would be a gnostic compartment within the Church, given access to this secret ''code language'' between yourselves and God.

God is worshipped where His Son is; and worshipped in perfect Communion (union with Him.) Not on another, (delusional) plane as ''charismatics'' apart from that Communion. What you perceive as a charism is practically a denial of the Communion of Saints. It could well be a departure from the Apostles' Creed. Please pray, that the Holy Spirit deliver you from all error; and let Him alone be the Judge; not your tender heart, not my words either.

I say that not as a challenge. I only wish to offer you the benefit of my own spirituality. Though I'm a sinner, Therese (and Paul), I too have been close to Our Saviour, and heard His words. I'm a true believer; I was brought to the truth in His Church; not of my own making.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Please consider what Eugene has to say here. It's a pure wisdom he's expressing and it's got truth stamped all over it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Meeting with Ecclesial Movements

Pope John Paul II, May 30, 1998

"Suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:2-3).

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. With these words the Acts of the Apostles bring us into the heart of the Pentecost event; they show us the disciples, who, gathered with Mary in the Upper Room, receive the gift of the Spirit. Thus Jesus' promise is fulfilled and the time of the Church begins. From that time the wind of the Spirit would carry Christ's disciples to the very ends of the earth. It would take them even to martyrdom for their fearless witness to the Gospel.

It is as though what happened in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago were being repeated this evening in this square, the heart of the Christian world. Like the Apostles then, we too find ourselves gathered in a great upper room of Pentecost, longing for the outpouring of the Spirit. Here we would like to profess with the whole Church "the same Spirit ... the same Lord ... the same God who inspires them all in everyone" (1 Cor 12:4-6). This is the atmosphere we wish to relive, imploring the gifts of the Holy Spirit for each of us and for all the baptized people.

2. I greet and thank Cardinal James Francis Stafford, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, for the words he has wished to address to me, also in your name, at the beginning of this meeting. With him I greet the Cardinals and Bishops present. I extend and especially grateful greeting to Chiara Lubich, Kiko Arguello, Jean Vanier and Mons. Luigi Giussani for their moving testimonies. With them, I greet the founders and leaders of the new communities and movements represented here. Lastly, I wish to address each of you, brothers and sisters who belong to the individual ecclesial movements. You promptly and enthusiastically accepted the invitation I addressed to you on Pentecost 1996, and have carefully prepared yourselves, under the guidance of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, for this extraordinary meeting which launches us towards the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000.

Today's event is truly unprecedented: for the first time the movements and new ecclesial communities have all gathered together with the Pope. It is the great "common witness" I wished for the year which, in the Church's journey to the Great Jubilee, is dedicated to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is here with us! It is he who is the soul of this marvellous event of ecclesial communion. Truly, "this is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it" (Ps 117:24).

3. In Jerusalem, about 2,000 years ago, on the day of Pentecost, before an astonished and mocking crowd, due to the unexplainable change observed in the Apostles, Peter courageously proclaims: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God ... you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up" (Acts 2:22- 24). Peter's words express the Church's self-awareness, based on the certainty that Jesus Christ is alive, is working in the present and changes life.

The Holy Spirit, already at work in the creation of the world and in the Old Covenant, reveals himself in the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery of the Son of God, and in a way "bursts out" at Pentecost to extend the mission of Christ the Lord in time and space. The Spirit thus makes the Church a stream of new life that flows through the history of mankind.

4. With the Second Vatican Council, the Comforter recently gave the Church, which according to the Fathers is the place "where the Spirit flourishes" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 749), a renewed Pentecost, instilling a new and unforeseen dynamism.

Whenever the Spirit intervenes, he leaves people astonished. He brings about events of amazing newness; he radically changes persons and history. This was the unforgettable experience of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council during which, under the guidance of the same Spirit, the Church rediscovered the charismatic dimension as one of her constitutive elements: "It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the people, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank.... He makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church" (Lumen gentium, n. 12).

The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church's constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God's People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church's charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities.

5. Today the Church rejoices at the renewed confirmation of the prophet Joel's words which we have just heard: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). You, present here, are the tangible proof of this "outpouring" of the Spirit. Each movement is different from the others, but they are all united in the same communion and for the same mission. Some charisms given by the Spirit burst in like an impetuous wind, which seizes people and carries them to new ways of missionary commitment to the radical service of the Gospel, by ceaselessly proclaiming the truths of faith, accepting the living stream of tradition as a gift and instilling in each person an ardent desire for holiness.

Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St. Peter's Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gracefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church.

6. By their nature, charisms are communicative and give rise to that "spiritual affinity between persons" (Christifideles laici, n. 24) and that friendship in Christ which is the origin of "movements". The passage from the original charism to the movement happens through the mysterious attraction that the founder holds for all those who become involved in his spiritual experience. In this way movements officially recognized by ecclesiastical authority offer themselves as forms of self-fulfilment and as reflections of the one Church.

Their birth and spread has brought to the Church's life an unexpected newness which is sometimes even disruptive. This has given rise to questions, uneasiness and tensions; at times it has led to presumptions and excesses on the one hand, and on the other, to numerous prejudices and reservations. It was a testing period for their fidelity, an important occasion for verifying the authenticity of their charisms.

Today a new stage is unfolding before you: that of ecclesial maturity. This does not mean that all problems have been solved. Rather, it is a challenge. A road to take. The Church expects from you the "mature" fruits of communion and commitment.

7. In our world, often dominated by a secularized culture which encourages and promotes models of life without God, the faith of many is sorely tested, and is frequently stifled and dies. Thus we see an urgent need for powerful proclamation and solid, in-depth Christian formation. There is so much need today for mature Christian personalities, conscious of their baptismal identity, of their vocation and mission in the world! There is great need for living Christian communities! And here are the movements and the new ecclesial communities: they are the response, given by the Holy Spirit, to this critical challenge at the end of the millennium. You are this providential response.

True charisms cannot but aim at the encounter with Christ in the sacraments. The ecclesial realities to which you belong have helped you to rediscover your baptismal vocation, to appreciate the gifts of the Spirit received at Confirmation, to entrust yourselves to God's forgiveness in he sacrament of Reconciliation and to recognize the Eucharist as the source and summit of all Christian life. Thanks to this powerful ecclesial experience, wonderful Christian families have come into being which are open to life, true "domestic churches", and many vocations to the ministerial priesthood and the religious life have blossomed, as well as new forms of lay life inspired by the evangelical counsels. You have learned in the movements and new communities that faith is not abstract talk, nor vague religious sentiment, but new life in Christ instilled by the Holy Spirit.

8. How is it possible to safeguard and guarantee a charism's authenticity? It is essential in this regard that every movement submit to the discernment of the competent ecclesiastical authority. For this reason no charism can dispense with reference and submission to the Pastors of the Church. The Council wrote in clear words: "Those who have charge over the Church should judge the genuineness and proper use of these gifts, through their office not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good (cf. 1 Thes 5:12; 19-21)" (Lumen gentium, n. 12). This is the necessary guarantee that you are taking the right road!

In the confusion that reigns in the world today, it is so easy to err, to give in to illusions. May this element of trusting obedience to the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, in communion with the Successor of Peter never be lacking in the Christian formation provided by your movements! You know the criteria for the ecclesiality of lay associations found in the Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici (cf. n. 30). Ask you always to adhere to them with generosity and humility, bringing your experiences to the local Churches and parishes, while always remaining in communion with the Pastors and attentive to their direction.

9. Jesus said: "I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!" (Lk 12:39). As the Church prepares to cross the threshold of the third millennium, let us accept the Lord's invitation, so that his fire may spread in our hearts and in those of our brothers and sisters.

Today, from this upper room in St. Peter's Square, a great prayer rises: Come, Holy Spirit, come and renew the face of the earth! Come with your seven gifts! Come, Spirit of Life, Spirit of Communion and Love! The Church and the world need you. Come, Holy Spirit, and make ever more fruitful the charisms you have bestowed on us. Give new strength and missionary zeal to these sons and daughters of yours who have gathered here. Open their hearts; renew their Christian commitment to the world. Make them courageous messengers of the Gospel, witnesses to the risen Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Saviour of man. Strengthen their love and their fidelity to the Church.

Let us turn our gaze to Mary, Christ's first disciple, Spouse of the Holy Spirit and Mother of the Church, who was with the Apostles at the first Pentecost, so that she will help us to learn from her fiat docility to the voice of the Spirit.

Today, from this square, Christ says to each of you: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mk 16:15). He is counting on every one of you, and so is the Church. "Lo", the Lord promises, "I am with you always to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20).

I am with you.

Amen!

*******

I couldn't have said it better myself!! Communication . . . tongues is all about communication with God on a higher level bypassing the limits of our weak intellectual boundaries and entering straight into the Holy of Holies! Glory Be to God!

Love you guys!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 01, 2003.

"...and entering straight into the Holy of Holies."

We are absolutely NOT qualified to enter the Holy of Holies; we are NOT worthy in our current state and condition... not until we have completely DIED with Christ and have utterly forsaken this world.

We KNOW the way to perfection already... it is a rocky, narrow, thorny and uphill path beaten down first by Christ and then kept from being overgrown and therefore totally hidden from our eyes thanks to the gardening efforts of the Saints who have gone before us.

Anything other than this path is a broad highway. For the love of God, die with Him.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Where we are at here in discussion is At the steel point of destruction, At the centre of the fury.

A traditionalist can discern the spirits.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Of course we are unworthy, Emerald, that is why Christ is the door. Our way to the throne room of grace is paved by the precious blood of our Redeemer!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 01, 2003.

Ah, a long time back I took one of those goofy little tests a while back to determine what "charisms" one possessed, or however we wish to glorify or ressurrect them as. It came out locked and loaded as discerner of spirits.

My first act of discernment was to discern that the little test was nothing more than a tree in a garden.

Scroll up and read the address you posted from Pope John Paul II on May 30, 1998. It in no way supports what you so desperately desire in any explicit manner, but only by means of ambiguity. The nature of ambiguity and it's strategic imployment is that it elicits permission not from the speaker but from the hearer. The hearer is the owner of the author and the owner of the intrepretation of that which is ambiguous. This is how it is that the wheat and the tares are allowed to grow together until the harvest.

Are you pulled into two opposite directions?

Fair warning: how soon do you think it will be before someone catches a fly ball and sends it to home base for a double play? Here's what I'm getting at... the use of these phrases:

Self-stlyed

Private interpretation

The Elite

Remember, you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

The two on the way to Emmaus had burning hearts at the Words of the Presence of the One walking with them. Gail, thank you for this post.

This pouring out of the Holy Spirit as prophesied in Joel 2:17 is integral to the Church's very constitution, in its working as both institutional and charismatic. The two balance each other.

We are in the Holy of Holies every time we are present at Mass. And yet, do we enter it? Many don't. But some do. If we don't, we are not accepting fully what Christ DID and IS DOING for us. {Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again}. It is done. Tongues is one vessel that takes us there. It's not some vague esoteric experience, it's very down to earth, practical, AND Catholic. But perhaps it is so SIMPLE, it is hard to grasp. Kind of like God's love and forgiveness,so simple, many just can't receive it.

The words of our Holy father are worth repeating...

"It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the people, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank.... He makes them fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church" (Lumen gentium, n. 12).

The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church's constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God's People. It is from this providential rediscovery of the Church's charismatic dimension that, before and after the Council, a remarkable pattern of growth has been established for ecclesial movements and new communities."

I'm willing to die {sometimes much more then others}!!! I am personally responsible with orders of the Holy Spirit.. to lay down my gifts, talents, thoughts, plans, agendas, relationships,weaknesses, brokenness,wounds, hurts.. DAILY. And to seek God's heart, and to receive His love, and His purpose .Anyone else have these orders? I lay them down to you, I lay them at the foot of the Cross right now. Jesus, all is yours.

-- Theresa Huether (RodnTee4Jesus@aol.com), September 01, 2003.

Em, Eugene, think again. The gifts of the Holy Spirit, both the sanctificatory and charismatic ones, EQUIP us to move ahead in courage as God's children. It is WITHOUT them that we look for escape out of fear. Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 01, 2003.

"The two on the way to Emmaus had burning hearts at the Words of the Presence of the One walking with them."

And when did they recognize Him? In Holy Communion:

"And they told what things were done in the way: and how they knew him in the breaking of bread."

Mysterium Fidei.

"It's not some vague esoteric experience, it's very down to earth, practical, AND Catholic."

The Vicar of Christ has not clarified this. Not the Current Holy Father John Paul II, nor any before him. Nor has any Saint, nor any council, nor any doctor of the Church. Nor does Scripture.

"The gifts of the Holy Spirit, both the sanctificatory and charismatic ones, EQUIP us to move ahead in courage as God's children. It is WITHOUT them that we look for escape out of fear."

I have had the Sacrament from which seven gifts come. Move ahead to what? This quest is to attain what?

Where are we going?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

dear Therese:
Pardon my repeating part of my other post:

His divine Will is that we worship Him always as One Body in Christ, the Church. He doesn't have any another will, giving just parts of the Mystical Body calls to pray in ''tongues''; over and above the prayers of His Holy Church. That would be a gnostic compartment within the Church, given access to this secret ''code language'' between yourselves and God.

Because you have misinterpreted the meaning of charisma. All partake in the Church, of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. But speaking in tongues as you perceive it, is not a true charism of the Spirit. There are countless non-Catholics, bigotted & otherwise, and countless ''Bible Christians'' who emphatically insist they are acting under empowered of Holy Spirit; when it's patently false. We know this by their gross errors. Yet they'll go on thinking the Spirit upholds their heresies. --In your own way, you match them in a false belief. --I'm glad you haven't actually abandoned the true faith; but you've embraced a self-delusion according to your light. By misunderstanding the words of the Bible.

---

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Therese:
''Here for instance, from the leading post of this thread, is a false interpretation of scripture firmly believed by many ''Bible Christians''---

Jesus commanded His disciples to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). He did not command them to use these words as a formula, but He commanded them to baptize in "the name." The word name is used here in the singular, and it is the focal point of the baptismal command. The titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God's relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, saving name described here, which is Jesus--''

This is a miscontrued (perversely so) reading of the gospels. Yet, the ones who insist on it will defiantly claim it's true, because they have the Holy Spirit.

Giving the same reason for a concoction like charisms ''require speaking in tongues''-- is no truer than the error of these protestants.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Therese:
Here for instance, from the leading post of this thread, is a false interpretation of scripture firmly believed by many ''Bible Christians''---

''Jesus commanded His disciples to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). He did not command them to use these words as a formula, but He commanded them to baptize in "the name." The word name is used here in the singular, and it is the focal point of the baptismal command. The titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God's relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, saving name described here, which is Jesus--''

This is a miscontrued (perversely so) reading of the gospels. Yet, the ones who insist on it will defiantly claim it's true, because they have the Holy Spirit.

Giving the same reason for a concoction like tongues being a truth TODAY or that having the Holy Spirit is shown by speaking in tongues-- is no truer than the errors of these protestants. God has NOT revealed such a thing.

____

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Just two points:

First, Jeremy is incorrect to say that 'name', as written, is clearly singular. As I have below, it is grammatically equivalent.

"teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19).

Besides, *any* hair-splitting exegesis is foolish without referencing the original language.

And second, the Church, she don't sprinkle--she pours!

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 01, 2003.

Emerald,

It's kind of a crack-up to hear YOU of all people accuse someone of "private interpretation", since that's the whole basis of your pseudo-traditionalism, ditto for your other two "points". If you think that YOUR interpretting of old texts is more correct than the Pope's, you sure shouldn't be criticising others for doing the same! (not that I'm sure you don't see some great difference between the two ;-) )

Personally, I'd say this about "tongues", it's not for me personally, but if you start out each prayer session asking to become *closer to Christ*, and a more faithful and obedient follower of Christ, I don't see how it can be any worse than someone using gardening as a place to reflect and pray, and if it further motivates you to pray and act in a more Christlike fashion, how could that be wrong? As long as you remember that Christ is the goal and not the *practice of tongues*, you should be o.k. It, like anything else, could be dangerous if you change your focus to practing tongues instead of focusing on Christ, but the same could be said of anything, even going to mass.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 01, 2003.

You're a genius, Frank. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

btw Frank, do you still have the keys to the Kingdom?

There's this completely heinous picture under the "new questions" page that needs to be deleted as soon as someone can. That's completely disgusting... man that's sick.

Most people surf I guess using "new answers", but I still link up with the questions first.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

But the Catechism says this,

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. THERE ARE FURTHERMORE SPECIAL GRACES, ALSO CALLED CHARISMS after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."[53] WHATEVER THEIR CHARACTER - SOMETIMES IT IS EXTRAORDINARY, SUCH AS THE GIFT OF MIRACLES OR OF TONGUES - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.[54]

Love,

Gail

P.S. JPII has also endorsed the charismatic movement. I am sure you are all aware of that.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 01, 2003.

This statement is equally ridiculous:

''[The] --''titles'' Father, Son, and Holy Ghost describe God's relationships to humanity and are not the supreme, saving name described here, which is Jesus.''

Three Persons in One God, the Father Son Holy Spirit --is the IDENTITY of God, One God in Three Persons. His interior life without beginning or end.

It has nothing to do with a ''relationship'' with humanity.-- God was [IS] the Holy Trinity before all Creation; we came later to be His children. The Almighty Father would still have been FATHER as God even if man had never been created; as His Holy Son makes Him that. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as third Person in the Trinity. --

It takes a very perverse Christian to deny even the words of Jesus christ as written in the Gospel. Baptism is NOT in the name of Jesus, or He certainly would've said exactly that. His name is holy, we confess; but He commanded baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit absolutely. Furthermore, the Church didn't institute infant baptism after a time. Baptism is and always was administered to infants, and CHRIST instituted it that way. We know it because the Apostles would have taught us so if it were otherwise. We would not have been ignorant of something so important.

---

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Eugene, some of your posts above seem to suggest that if "Bible" believing Christians believe it, it surely must not be true. "Bible" believing Christians generally believe that Jesus Christ is God-man, born of a virgin, was crucified, buried and resurrected, so I don't see how you can use that what some of them teach as a litmus test for authenticity.

I do not see any prohibition in the Bible OR in the Catechism AGAINST speaking in tongues. Au contraire!!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), September 01, 2003.

"JPII has also endorsed the charismatic movement. I am sure you are all aware of that."

How so?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Personally, Gail, I am not forbidding anything. If a good man wishes to believe something false, and yet loves God, let him. He may not understand. Why ask if it's ''prohibited''--? Rather we ask is it prescribed, or even shown?

Tongues as I see them are what the Holy Spirit permitted in the early Church for one purpose: to spread the Holy Gospel to EVERYONE. Every soul who didn't understand the languages common to Christ's apostles & disciples. This is clearly described in Acts 2. --We are not free to believe anything we wish.

The Church may approve of the movement; but that doesn't endorse the practice of babbling in unknown ''languages''. That may or may NOT be a true charism of the Holy Spiirt. Until the Church teaches us the actual and true nature of these ''tongues'', we have nothing concrete from her related to that phenomenon.

Charisms are still genuine, as we understood them from ancient times: Gifts of healing, preaching, miracles, discernment, and prophesy. Not ''tongues'' for the confusion of the faithful. What grace can come of babbling, and then subjectively presuming it was the Holy Spirit who moved you? That's NOT what the Pope confirmed about charismatic groups.

____________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Let's just twist the screw in a little tighter, Gail.

Give us the Saints that have spoken in tongues.

There are none.

There are none.

There are none.

Give us the explicit endorsement of the Holy Father clarifying or defining, and I mean clarifying or defining, the charasmatic phenomena known as speaking in tongues as you, Paul and Theresa reckon it to be and to exist.

So far it seems to me that my case is clearer: that

1. As Frank points out above, private interpretation, far from being the proprietary product of traditional Catholicism, really does belong to the novelties of post-conciliaria; that

2. People claim that old documents which make unambiguous, clear statements need "interpretation" while new, ambiguous statements with multitudinous possible interpretations are seen as "clear evidence" by those who want to hear something they want to hear, that

3. Nobody really cares about Papal infallibility and the real nature of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, because they'll just deny what he said needs to be believed, or, they'll take whatever else he has to say and blow it into an agenda far beyond Catholicism, and that

4. People have no clue what real actions and manifestations of the Holy Ghost really consist of, and that

5. Basically, everyones looking for something in the here and now instead of in the hereafter, and just want to feel the living night; they don't want to contemplate the four last things; they don't want to die with Christ; they don't want to be marginalized; they don't want to hear of sacrifice, penance, prayer, or hell. They want to look good; feel good... feel the power, feed on the energy, and they

6. Don't see what's almost about to come upon them.

Give us Holy Mother Church's perennial teaching from the Deposit of the Faith on speaking in tongues.

It's not there.

It's not there.

It's not there.

Frank wonders, you know, what's Emerald's problem.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Gail,
Let me add, my reference to the Bible Christian had just made one point: That no matter how far afield SOME of these ardent Christians stray from truth (and some do,) they assume they must be speaking in the light of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't referring to the great truths they almost all still believe, despite their other errors. But they base everything misinterpreted from scripture-- somehow on a supposed revealing Spirit. No matter how outlandish.

This is also the pretext used here; as if the Holy Spirit made one able to speak in tongues. But WHY? Who says so?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Perhaps John Gecik's work would come in handy here. He's listed tons and tons of Saints on the Today's Saints thread.

Frank, why don't you run along and grab us a couple of those Saints, you know... the ones that have developed, in particular, this charism of speaking in tongues.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Oh, quit thinking that.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Emerald,

Thanks for the heads-up on the pornography, I deleted that. And to stave off a debate, I haven't and don't intend to delete anything else (but would do the same again for someone posting blatent porn). Paul's doing a great job his way, and I'd like him to continue doing it without interference!

I actually agree with your above statement, that we should obey the church.

In response to your statement immediately above, I don't think that *anyone* can give you a saint that ***developed** a charism, these are developed and given by the Holy Spirit, not men. I DO think that the gift of tongues can be real, but it allows people or people and animals even to understand each other, the saints I'd shown earlier (Francis & Anthony) would IMO support this. OTOH, lives of the saints aren't my thing, JFG would unquestionably know more.

Again, if someone looked upon the modern expression of "tongues" as a spiritual excercise that they used to *become closer to Christ*, that's o.k. with me. If people use "tongues" to say "look, I'm a better Christian because God has given me this gift" or "this way of prayer is the best for everyone" IMO they've lost their way, they've put the "tongues" before Christ.

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 01, 2003.

No fear, Frank. After I posted it came sounding kind of flippant and angry.

Hamburgers. I'm going to go out and perform mighty deeds of barbequing. No protracted debate from me! lol!

Gene is doing a better job than I could, and they're probably more likely to listen to him anyways.

Godspeed Eugene.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 01, 2003.

Emerald,

No reason you can't flip hamburgers as a means to get closer to Christ! I remember being out barbequeing (sic?) a while ago and it really hit me how much I loved being alive & able to do just this simple thing for my family. I got into prayer over that, at the time (but not SO immersed I burnt the meat LOL)! I don't purposefully go out to barbeque to pray though, I've just become more consious of things I'm thankful for.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 01, 2003.

Dear Frank:
Let me know, if possible; why Saint Francis had to speak animal language to the little birds & animals. I always understood these stories (and believe them) as something less sensational. Francis spoke to the animals, birds, and other people, in Italian. God helped them to understand him. Nothing very charismatical; and I say it with certainty.

If Saint Francis had ''spoken in tongues'', it would be recorded that way. His brothers were oh so meticulous in the way they wrote of his every action. Nothing escaped them. Had he uttered one charismatic syllable we would have their testimony. He didn't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Eugene,

If I spoke in Italian, and spoke to birds would they understand and obey me? No. There's nothing "magical" about Italian, they obeyed St. Francis because of a gift from the Lord. Similarly, I don't think there's anything magical in speaking gibberish, but if other people understand it, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY brings you *closer to Christ* it too is most likely a gift of the Holy Spirit. BTW, saying that something CAN'T be a charism because it hasn't been done before is foolish IMO, there would be NO charisms if that were the case, all of them had to be given to SOMEone first. I would judge them by the *results* of their charism. Are they bringing in Christians to the church, and inspiring the worship of Christ, or are they off forming some schismatic sect of "tonguers"? By their fruits shall we know them, right?

OTOH, if what "tongues" does for them is give them earthly fame or pride, and does NOT bring them closer to Christ, it is probably NOT from God.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 01, 2003.

Frank,

My point as addressed to you is that we can't say Saint Francis bears out something like this. Not because we need him to support the notion of a charism; we know charisma has a place in the Church, movement or no movement.

It's the spurious distortion of the truth which I'm warning us against. There's no basis for believing unless God reveals a mystery. This is not a revelation; if it were so, the Church would know it firsthand.

Where was the Church up until now? If we are introduced to the ''renewal'' of tongues at this late hour, was something missing before?

We do not believe because we see a result, supposedly. We believe when it's revealed by God. The rest is speculation. The Church never relied on probables, she has the truth from God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 01, 2003.

Dear Eugene,a question , are you for our Holy Father Pope John Paul 11, or against?

Em, the Lord desires us to be right at His heart. The veil has been torn, remember, at Calvary? We most certainly are welcome at His holy place. It is we in our limitedness who stop ourselves. Thankfully He is more then willing to wait for us. Dear St. Therese reveals her confidence in approaching Him.

The author of Hebrews urges us, "Therefore,brothers, since through the Blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary by the new and living way He opened for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water" {10:19-22}.

..and again in 4:16.. "So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and to find grace for timely help".

May our Lord bless us all on our journey toward Him. I have been grateful for this discussion as it's led me to ponder and pray, and draw close to His heart of love. It is good exercise for us to vocalize our stance, and share with each other, strengthening our convictions and faith. It's good training for us all, don't you agree? God is good. May the Holy Spirit have His way with us today!! Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 02, 2003.

Dear Eugene,a question , are you for our Holy Father Pope John Paul 11, or against?

At the risk of sounding confrontational (I'm not trying to), this is a loaded question, and I think, an unfair one.

1. The Pope said something that may or may not be taken as tacit approval of the Penecostalist movement within the Catholic Church.

2. Gene expresses healthy skepticism with respent to "speaking in tongues," so

3. The hidden premise is that Gene must be "against the Pope."

The problem with this is that it attempts to paint Gene into a corner and force him to choose between union with the Pope and his skepticism regarding the subject matter at hand, or at least the common (mis?)interpretation of what "speaking in tongues" means; as if it's one or the other.

It's not.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 02, 2003.

Believe me, Therese, and Jake also:
I am always subject to His Holiness John Paul II, even if some question remains on a purely subjective plane. In other words, I believe he is the authority when speaking on faith and morals. On the subjective level, opinion of the ordinary kind, my mind is completely open to his guidance even if we may disagree on something. For instance, I had no qualms about the war in Iraq; the Pope did. I was in favor, in the purely human aspects; and to this day I have no problem with conscience. I sincerely believe Pope John Paul II could not decide it for us. Christ gave him authority, but John Paul II is not elected to rule the world. He is entitled in Christ to rule on faith & morals-- i.e., religion. If the act of war could be shown to be clearly immoral it would've been altogether different.

Same in the matter of Charismatic Catholics. If all activity within the movement is sane and conducive to holiness (grace not the relevant question) it doesn't invite denunciation. Not mine, or Jake's or Isabel's or David's. I do not denounce Charismatic groups within the Church.

Obviously, neither does the Pope. So, to this point, I agree with him entirely. But I'm not bound to believe ''tongues'' make one holier, or bring grace, or are even a true charism. I doubt whether the Pope believes it. My guess is, the Pope doesn't know, or isn't concerned. If those who participate are living holy lives and in sanctifying grace (by the sacraments) it results in virtuous acts of faith, hope and charity. Not grace; this comes by love of God entirely, and the active Communion of saints in the Church. With or without charisms as we know them.

Tongues make no sense because they are a complete departure from common sense. Which opens up another, greater subject, and it comes under FAITH. I'd rather leave discussion of common sense as relates to faith for a separate thread; but clearly, tongues (without charismatic origin) is opposed to common sense. Enough for now. God bless you, Therse, et al. I haven't intended to say unkind things, but I believe I'm speaking the unvarnished truth, which is sometimes cruel. Forgive me this time.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 02, 2003.

Emerald,

If John G. did "gab a couple of saints" that possibly did speak in tongues a thousand years or so ago, this is still a little different than what I read here.

See how far fetched this seems to me? You are asking the genius to "maybe" pull up a saint that could of possibly spoken in tongues a century or two ago.

We have people saying there whole parish speaks in tongues now, at a given time every Sunday. Maybe St. Francis did, but do you see far people are going to pull a "rabbit" out of there hat?

Maybe St. Francis did? But are Catholics suppose to believe that Pauls' whole parish has this special gift at a certain time every Sunday? And this is a deeper form of prayer?

The deeper form of prayer is praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament. It doesn't matter if you speak English, Chinese, Korean, Russian whatever, etc..... God doesn't need tongues. He sees straight to the soul.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 02, 2003.

Amen.

St. Francis, ora pro nobis.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 02, 2003.

GOD doesn't need tongues! Well no kidding! That's probably why He gives such gifts to His people, rather than using them Himself. It is our weaknesses, not His, that requires such divine intervention. We are the ones in need of healing, not Him; so He gives the gift of healing. We are the ones who need His guidance; so He gives us the gift of prophecy. We are the ones who need to know which apparent spiritual gifts are truly from Him; so He gives us the gift of discernment of spirits. And we are the ones whose feeble attempts to pray as we should are in need of divine assistance. For without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5), and that includes praying. But thankfully, "the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for when we do not know how to pray as we should, the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God". (Romans 8:26-27)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 02, 2003.

YOU took the words right out of my mouth! There is such a misunderstanding of the gifts. The Lord searches our hearts. This gift is custom-designed for each person. It expresses GOd's very personal love and concern for each of us. In this scripture He reminds the Romans that praying in tongues {glossolalia} assures us that in our petitions we are seeking God's will and not necessarily our own, and He then urges the Ephesians to frame their peitions in their Heavenly language, "Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests" {Eph. 6:18}. Jude reminds us in his epistle in verse 20 that the mountain-moving faith that should animate those petitions is itself fostered by the use of tongues.

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 03, 2003.

I wish this were so for your consolation, Therese. The words you quote have nothing to do with speaking in tongues. In the Spirit is not what you think, it means under His inspiration. That is what I pray with, and the German, Frenchman, Englishman all speak --in the Spirit. Without glossolalia, simply in their own tongue.

You expand the interpretation of the verse to serve your cause. In the Spirit does not translate as ''in tongues''. Be intellectually honest, do not bend Holy Scripture to your purpose; that is sacreligious if carried to extremes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 03, 2003.

I agree with you, David, believe me.

Theresa, you mentioned:

"Fr. Robert Faricy, SJ, {a leading authority on Marian apparitions and professor at the pontifical Gregorian Univsity in Rome}..."

Actually, he seems to be a leading authority on Medjugorie. The Mary of Medjugorie has an urgent message, he says, on one website I looked at. She says

"I have come to tell the world that God exists."

Wow. I'm floored.

Do you want to see something really cool? Check this out. There's an Irish Catholic proverb or saying something to the effect of this: the evil one can decieve us in any number of powerful ways, but it is not given to him to disguise his feet, and if shown, they will give him away because they are goat hooves.

Alright, so it's a little backwoods and goofy. But check this out:

Medjugorie's Mary

Medjugorie's Mary

Medjugorie's Mary

Medjugorie's Mary

Medjugorie's Mary

Medjugorie's Mary

Now if you go look at images depicting what was seen at Fatima, in the images her feet are clearly visible. Generally, Mary stands with the moon under her feet. This also would seem to mesh with the Scriptural images of the Virgin striking the head of the serpent while she stikes at her heal. According to St. Louis De Monfort, this is a reference to the striking at the simple and humble ones of the Church, who by means of humility she will use to crush the demon. After all, that's her method and weapon of warefare.

By no means an authoritative method of discerning the Medjugorie phenomena, but I thought that was kind of fun and hey, it's a certainly a lot more intriguing than usual.

Of course, the doctrinal and magisterial refutation is far more clean, far more precise. All it takes is one little heresy, one little denial of a true need of obedience. But we've all been in that Medjugorie discussion before, and I only bring it up because it seems, in my mind, to be all part of this same spirit you speak of, which to me is no other than the spirit of the age.

Question: if I buy what Fr. Robert Farcy says about speaking in tongues, does Medjugorie come as standard equipment?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

Emerald,

I'd say that's more than a little silly. The same would also apply to visions of Jesus right? Here's a Link to Sister Faustina's vision of Jesus from the Vatican and... no feet. Better ashcan that one too Emerald, well, that or revise your hypothesis.

Frank

P.S. Our Lady of Guadalupe (Patroness of the Americas) didn't have her feet showing either. Better to not even post this stuff IMO, you could distract people from true things without meaning to.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 03, 2003.

Here's the real thing.

http://www.newjerusalem.com/Mercy25K.JPG

Faustina would never have had herself placed in the picture.

I hate it when they hijack a good cause.

You and I should grab some beers and go down to the range sometime. It would be religious. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

Oh yeah; I looked at the Tilma. In fact, a friend of mine went down there and emailed me some pictures he took.

I think I see them, but I can't tell for sure. But that's one of the first things I did.

But I've got my disclaimer in place already though...

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

Emerald,

Actually, here is what I think is THE image

and Christ's feet are showing LOL! I still think you're nuts if you believe you've got to see someone's bare feet to know they aren't Satan though. That to me would be putting man's ideas over following God.

Here's a picture of the tilma

There looks like there's one foot's toes showing, is that good enough? I seem to remember from Faust that Satan could look like whatever he wanted, but only used the goat hooves at a witches' sabat to *prove* he was Satan. So whose folklore is more reliable, the Irish, or the German (I think Goethe was German, too lazy to look it up).

And I agree with the range idea, you could even go to what is definitely a licit Tridentine mass if you're in the neighborhood on Sunday.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 03, 2003.

Satan doesn't have feet. He is a spirit. Mary does have feet. She is a human being.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

"I still think you're nuts..."

I have to hand that to you. You're completely right.

I see I've come to the right place. lol!

Paul, of course he doesn't. I mean in his appearances, his manifestations to the eye, etc. His deceptions.

Hey Frank, check this out.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 03, 2003.

I love St. Gemma. She had a simple, profound love for Christ, expressed through her desire to re-orient her human desires to be subject to the desire for heavenly things. She put first things first, and that's the essence of sainthood.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 03, 2003.

Very much a saint. I wouldn't wish to have that amount of trial heaped on ME though, I guess it shows that the greater the grace, the greater the trial.

I did wonder what The Galgani’s were Traditional Catholics meant though. Were they "old Catholics" in that late 19th century schism, or what? Do you know what end of the century change they were "traditional" in comparison to?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 03, 2003.

"Do you know what end of the century change they were "traditional" in comparison to?"

I'm guessing, I don't know... maybe the middle of the first century?

"I wouldn't wish to have that amount of trial heaped on ME though, I guess it shows that the greater the grace, the greater the trial."

I know how you feel because I feel the same way, but I think it's the wrong feeling to foster. It seems normal enough, but we need to break out of that and excel into something real; we need to flip that statement upside down and around if we're going to make it. Maybe something like this:

"I wish to have that amount of trial heaped on ME; I guess it shows that the greater the trial, the greater the grace."

It hurts me to look at it and think about it, but I think it's the truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Well looky here... apparently St. Gemme had a devotion to this Saint.

Extra bonus points!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 04, 2003.

Emerald,

If it's all the same with God, I'd rather have the grace *without* the trial LOL! Doubt that's possible though, I think that to some degree growth is linked with suffering. Suffering is quite a teacher.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 05, 2003.

We agree! Check it out. That's my struggle; cheerfully picking up the Cross with Christ.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 05, 2003.

"I wish to have that amount of trial heaped on ME; I guess it shows that the greater the trial, the greater the grace."

I'd factor that out even a bit further. I think what God really needs from us is to say to Him:

"My miserable fallen nature abhors trial, and avoids suffering and seeks its own pleasure as much as it can. Still, I beg of Thee the grace to bear whatever trials it pleases Thee to send me in this world; for the sanctification of my soul, the expiation of my sins, and in immitation of Thy Divine Son."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 06, 2003.

Actually, we have a better answer:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 06, 2003.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 06, 2003.

Good one Jake, mocking people's beliefs and attempting to be witty too!

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 06, 2003.

I don't think that cartoon mocked beliefs. I didn't read Jakes other posts but the cartoon as it stands by itself is just cute. Gotta laugh a bit. I bet Pentecostals would think it was funny too.

G.K. Chesterton wrote: "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. Never forget that the devil fell by force of gravity . . . A good joke is the closest thing to divine revelation . . . They who have the faith have the fun."

Good cartoon Jake

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), September 06, 2003.

Yea, Frank. Lighten up or I shall get some SSPX nuns on your case. They can be very.....persuasive.



-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 06, 2003.

Sorry Jake, I'm just too familiar with your particular brand of evil to misunderstand it. My only consolation is that this is most likely an Episcopalian cartoon.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 06, 2003.

Frank.

It was a cartoon.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 06, 2003.

Frank,

To jake, you said:".I'm just to familiar with your particular brand of evil to misunderstand it."

Maybe you should look at the picture again. And don't think you arn't capable of misunderstanding jake. We all are capable of misundertanding each other at any given time.

Even someone as smart as Mateo is capable of misunderstanding someone (once in a great while :-)). And also your comment to jake," .."your particular brand of evil...." What is your barometer for different brands of evil that you use? I only ask because you said,"..I am just to familiar with it[jakes evil] to [mis]understand it."

May the Holy Lord bless all of our children, and keep them healty and safe.

-- - (David@exite.com), September 06, 2003.

Now go back and look at the first cartoon. If you could mesh those two pictures with the nuns on the left, and the first cartoon on the right, you could have a Holy Hold-up.

St. Gabriel Possenti pray for us. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

I have a family member who, I believe either in the past or maybe even now, has been somewhat into the Charasmatic Movement.

Recently I came across this person at a family gathering. Now she's sweet, she really is and I love her; she's a good hearted person. I hadn't seen her in a while, but she knows some of what I've been through, and she comes up to me and says something like this: Ask for the Lord to bless you and rid you of pain; ask him to bless you richly, etc. etc. I wish I could remember the exact words. Things aren't so bad, but she doesn't know that because it's been a while.

I refused it, I said no. She insists, and I break away from it. She is, with all good intentions and real concern, asking me to do what I cannot accept, and that is to seek a remedy that will make this life palatable.

This is not the way of God, this is not the Way of the Cross. To accept such a thing is not the narrow path, and it does not lead to eternal life. It must be rejected in the waiting for the marriage banquet. Anything that smooths the path in the here and now which is the desire of the human heart and does not come by the "chance" of God is, in a certain measure, a "giving up" or a recession, a compromise, a letting go.

We have to have our sites set upon the finish line as St. Paul says, and run the race. Have you ever run Track? I have. It kills your gut and it is a real excercise in perseverance. There's no setting up a picknick table and a party when running the 880. There's no time, and no time to catch up.

The Charasmatic way, imho, is taking a loan off the equity in the Eternal Real Estate that, quite frankly, we haven't come up with the downpayment for yet, even.

There are many ways to escape the Cross, and they all feel powerful and good.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

The scriptures are absolutely overflowing with instances of people asking God to relieve them of pain, and in virtually every case God responded by healing them. There was no occasion where God reprimanded an individual for asking to be relieved of pain. Can you imagine someone imploring Jesus for healing, and Jesus responding "Sorry, that's not the way of the cross. Live with it." We are to accept UNAVOIDABLE suffering with a spirit of acceptance. And even some avoidable suffering is appropriate, as in fasting. But failing to ask God for relief of suffering, failing to take needed medication or required medical intervention out of a false sense of spiritual pride OR a false sense of humility is not in accord with the teaching of the Church, the clear example of scripture, or the will of God. Your charismatic friend apparently has a far clearer view of the situation than you do. We are to implore God to provide all of our needs, including physical, mental, and spiritual health, but always in a spirit of submission to his holy will. Jesus gave us the example ... "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:39) If Jesus was not too proud to pray for relief from suffering, why are you?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

"If Jesus was not too proud to pray for relief from suffering, why are you?"

If Jesus didn't get what He prayed for, why should I?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

He did get what He prayed for. He prayed "yet not as I will, but as You will".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

Scroll up to the link to St. Gemma. She had a cure, too. Which Catholic person doubts cures? However:

"Can you imagine someone imploring Jesus for healing, and Jesus responding "Sorry, that's not the way of the cross. Live with it.""

Yes.

"We are to accept UNAVOIDABLE suffering with a spirit of acceptance. And even some avoidable suffering is appropriate, as in fasting."

Total agreement here. The part about avoiding necessary medications and so forth though, that's extraneous to this conversation and belongs to the Christian Scientists and Mary Baker Eddy's heresy that evil is a substance.

"We are to implore God to provide all of our needs, including physical, mental, and spiritual health, but always in a spirit of submission to his holy will."

Well sure; it's even in the prayers of the Mass at the Tridentine Mass; I've taken note of it: "...sed pro tua pietate prosit mihi ad tutamentum mentis et corporis, et ad medelam percipiendam..." and other places as well, and in the prayers the Saints have written.

I think you think I'm thinking something I shouldn't be thinking, because I might think things that you think, except I might think them all the way through to a conclusive way of thinking about certain things.

No, my relative is a sweet and loving, good person, but if I take her view, I would be wrong. Wrong for taking up the wrong way of thinking, that is. What we are talking about here is the question of whom do you serve.

Paul, these people are asking for financial blessings, an abundance of wealth; they're asking for huge... tracts of land. They are asking for their inheritance upfront and in this life. Unless they come back empty handed to their Father's house after having fed the pigs and eating their food as in the parable, and asking to only be servants and nothing more, then how can the Father slaughter the fatted calf for them? I'm serious, this is a different spirit than the Holy one; it's a different one that makes people lust after the goods of this life. It's a very fine line of discernment here; or maybe, actually, it should not be so fine but obvious. This should be obvious!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

He did get what He prayed for. He prayed "yet not as I will, but as You will".

Well sure, if you look at it with reference to His desire to submit to the will of the Father, absolutely He got what He prayed for.

I mean "let this cup pass from me". It didn't; the Father nailed Him to it, literally.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

Right. So follow His example. Beseech Him to provide your needs, to heal your illnesses, and to rescue you from distress. And then leave it in His hands. And you will always receive what you pray for. Which stands head and shoulders over not praying at all!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

Emerald,
He was the Lamb of God. The Father Almighty didn't nail Jesus it was our sins which made His immolation necessary.

Our Father sees every aspect and outcome to infinity. He only allowed His Son to die because the alternate choice did not help toward our salvation. This was His divine Will, that we all might be saved; and for this Christ had to drink of the cup.

Your suffering & mine are not seen by Him as the same alternatives. Your petition may well be in accord with God's Will, and only by asking would you ever know. Do it with faith in His infinite wisdom and ready always to accept as Jesus has; ''Not my will but Thine.'' God may not definitely want you to suffer in this life.

The straight and narrow way you keep sounding on is only a figurative insight. Christians by definition can exist ''in the world and not of the world''. The straight & narrow way is an alternative for souls as opposed to every broad avenue, where no assurance of salvation lies. But it isn't a Christian imperative at all. --God in His wisdom and justice doesn't demand a life of suffering for everyone.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 07, 2003.

What does He demand then?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

"And you will always receive what you pray for. Which stands head and shoulders over not praying at all!"

I believe this more than you might believe that I believe it. Do I have your permission to test the limits of this? For instance, may I pray that, if it is in the best interests of the salvation of your soul, that you lose everything you have in order to die with Christ?

Only with your permission, of course.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

God demands unswerving faith in His Divine Son; through good times & bad. In the course of your life, He will demand from you the return of all His blessings, one by one.

We'll give up our youth. Our loved ones, each one. Then finally our life. But we'll live in peace and serenity, pain or no pain. As long as we reject sin and love Jesus Christ -- God Almighty-- and one another. This is the way of every saint.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 07, 2003.

I agree with that statement completely Eugene.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

I know what you're looking for from me, and I can give you what you want.

Now that that's out of the way, tell me please, what is the primary distinction between truly following the guidance of the Holy Ghost as opposed to being a Jabez Junky?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

Emerald,

Fwiw, you can pray *to Jesus* anything you want to about, for, or to me. I trust His wisdom over your maledictions. I also think you've gotten nuttier than ever if you think you are actually doing God's will by NOT praying to Him! Unbelievable, and I wouldn't have believed it if you didn't write it yourself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 07, 2003.

" I also think you've gotten nuttier than ever if you think you are actually doing God's will by NOT praying to Him!"

OMG do you people think??? Do you ACTUALLY take the TIME to THINK?

Did I EVER say such a thing?

I did not.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

I think what Emerald is getting at, and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that Pentecostalism is a religion based on the premise of stepping up and receiving all the wonderful things that you're entitled to have, and do , and feel.

They don't make reparation, they "speak in tongues." They don't attempt to appease the Divine Justice, they "heal". They don't unite their suffering to that of their crucified Lord, they have fits of "holy laughter." It's an easy out. It promises relief. It promises pleasure and emotion. In other words, there's nothing Catholic about it.

The paved, five-lane, sunlit highway does not lead to Heaven.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 07, 2003.

says something like this: Ask for the Lord to bless you and rid you of pain; ask him to bless you richly, etc. etc. I wish I could remember the exact words. Things aren't so bad, but she doesn't know that because it's been a while.

I refused it, I said no. She insists, and I break away from it. She is, with all good intentions and real concern, asking me to do what I cannot accept, and that is to seek a remedy that will make this life palatable.

This is not the way of God, this is not the Way of the Cross

Emerald, you love quoting old texts so much, show me where a saint or anyone else was given something to them by God that was BAD for them.

I'm waiting....

O.K., now that we know you can't, rather than assuming YOU know what God wants for your life better than He does, try praying for everything, and letting God decide what to give you. I really am shocked you feel like you can't pray for things that don't involve suffering. Who taught you THAT was appropriate? Do you really never pray that someone who is suffering will get well, or someone who's dying may live? Do you never pray for pregnent women that their babies are born healthy and whole, or pray that the suffering of the souls in Purgatory be shortened?

Jake, Regina, Isabel, do you guys believe the same thing Emerald does, that one shouldn't pray for God's help in all things? Is this a belief of your whole group, or just his?

Frank

-- Someone (Chimingin@twocents.cam), September 07, 2003.

Yeah, that's exactly it jake. Who would have guessed that you, jake, who have no understanding, you who are not in touch with some reality beyond the guilded cage, would have had this keen insight.

After all jake, you're the walking dead of the Catholic Church, right? If so, wait up for me.

Frank says:

"Emerald, you love quoting old texts so much, show me where a saint or anyone else was given something to them by God that was BAD for them. I'm waiting..."

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

How many do you want? How much of what type? Name it.

I guess it all hinges on your private interpretation of the word BAD... at any rate, sorry for the wait.

Would you like fries with that? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

Hi, Frank

I think you took Emerald the wrong way, like you did jakes' picture. You asked him,"...or pray that the suffering of the souls in Purgatory be shortened?"

Don't you rember when he asked us to pray for his buddy Larry who passed away? You should because you said you would offer up prayers for Larry. So you should know that Emerald believes in praying for the Holy souls, right?

Slow down a little Frank.

May God have mercy on Larrys' soul.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 07, 2003.

I second that one.

David, you may have seen this already

, but in case you haven't, you might find it a really good read.

In a good twist on a nasty old song, I get by with a little help from my friends...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 07, 2003.

Jake, Regina, Isabel, do you guys believe the same thing Emerald does, that one shouldn't pray for God's help in all things?

Speaking only for myself, I don't think that's what Emerald said, and I know that you don't really believe that's what he said, but rather the way you wish others to perceive and interpret what he said.

Of course we pray for God's help in all things. We are completely and totally dependent on Him for all things, for our next breath, for the next beat of our heart; and none of us could lift a finger without His constant aid and protection. Where we differ is on what "God's help" is, or how that grace manifests itself.

We pray for heavanly aid, but at the same time resign ourselves to the fact that whatever suffering God has permitted us to endure is wholly and entirely deserved on our part and yet at the same time profitable to our souls. We beg for the grace to bear it worthily.

You (or maybe it was someone else) correctly pointed out upthread that our Blessed Lord begged His Father to let the chalice of suffering pass from Him. Pentecostals, however, pervert the rest of that divine prayer to say "Yet, not Thy will, but mine be done." Not only do they shun the Cross, they seem to feel as if they have some sort of divine appointment to side-step it, and to feel good in the process. They want to be on Calvary, but not at the foot of the Cross with Our Lady of Sorrows. They stand in the crowd and shout "You saved others; save us, too!"

Pentecostalism is stepping up and claiming what's yours, except that nothing is yours unless God in His mercy decides to grant it. If He grants us some extraordinary grace like physical healing, or even an ordinary one like the will to get up & go to work in the morning, we can only humbly thank Him for deigning to give us something we do not deserve.

Emotion is what Pentecostalists have instead of doctrine. Feelings instead of dogma. Personal experience instead of Tradition.

Living on a lighted stage approaches the unreal.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 07, 2003.

Nice pics Emerald, they've been posted here before. Where is it that God is doing something BAD to people again?

Jake,

If you will reread Emerald's post, it's quite clear that his relative thought he was still suffering in some way, and was asking him to pray for help. Do you disagree with this (without your aspersions on the whole Pentacostal movement)? Let's start there.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 07, 2003.

Never mind, you two. It's really a waste of time.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.

I believe you are correct.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

Frank,

You "tickle me".

You misunderstood a picture that jake posted on a tongue thread, and mentioned how you are too familiar with (jakes) evil. Than you questioned whether Emerald prays for Holy Souls.

You even tried to tie Isabel and Regina into this? Now a few people question you and you after almost 100 posts later say this is a waste of time? And you are trying to get jake to agree with you?

Slow down, bro. How can you be taken serious in this thread? Even Mike H. thought jake cartoon wasn't evil.

Why is it now a waste of time, and wasn't 10 posts ago when you where questioning Isabel and Regina? Is it because you where showed your err's?

-- - (David@excite.com), September 08, 2003.

Kind of like when I posted pieces from Pascendi on another thread. I have no idea exactly why, because nothing I posted was contrary to the Catholic Faith, (heck, it was written by the first saint pope in a few hundred years) but it was deleted. All I asked was for people to reconcile their current beliefs with that which was stated in Pascendi. Granted, I may have gotten a little pert, but it's not like we haven't seen that before here. The only logical conclusion was that their position could not be defended against what was written in Pascendi, and so the easiest thing to do was to get rid of it.

I don't think most of you people understand us at all. Our words are constantly twisted out of spite, when (Frank) you all know that we do not mean certain things that you make it appear that we mean. But we keep plugging away. Why? For truth's sake. Read. How many times do I have to beg this of you. If current 'teaching' cannot be reconcile to the Deposit of Faith, you must run. Modernism has infected the Bride of Christ, and while we must still remain faithful to her, we must reject the errors. It is a cross, it is difficult, but it is the only way to salvation.

Pascendi. It is a must read for those refusing to see anything else. Especially in this day and age. Read it. Study it. Try to reconcile it with your current beliefs. Leave your Mass preference (and ours) out of it. This is strictly concerning the doctrine and Deposit of Faith. But this is where you must start.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 08, 2003.

"Granted, I may have gotten a little pert..."

I didn't see that in it at all; I thought it was a fine presentation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

If you will reread Emerald's post, it's quite clear that his relative thought he was still suffering in some way, and was asking him to pray for help. Do you disagree with this (without your aspersions on the whole Pentacostal movement)? Let's start there.

If you're asking if I agree with his decision to not pray as his relative requested, the answer is yes. A firm and resolute yes.

I say this because I have had a nearly identical experience. Recently, too. My father (who is a deacon, BTW), invited me to come with him to a "prayer group" headed up by some woman who supposedly had supernatural healing powers. He peddled it on me by saying that "She has an inside track to Jesus," and strongly sugested that I "take advantage."

After opining to my father that all Roman Catholics in the state of grace have an "inside track to Jesus," I refused. I told him that not only was I not interested, but that the whole thing stunk of Pentecostalism and, as such, he should run, not walk, in the opposite direction. This incensed him quite a bit. I assured him up & down that I knew he was only looking out for me, and has my interests at heart and so on, but I still don't think he understands, either. That's why I understand your being baffled/miffed/whatever at Emerald's situation with his relative.

I knew he didn't want to hear it, but I explained to him that I thought it was infinitely more profitable to do my best to embrace whatever it is that God has allowed to befall me. It's an opportunity, and a tremendous one. It's a great grace. A wonderous gift. To this day, he can't for the life of him understand. I don't blame him, or you. It doesn't seem to make much sense on the face of it.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

Jake, Regina, Isabel, do you guys believe the same thing Emerald does, that one shouldn't pray for God's help in all things?

No, and that isn't what he said.

When God, in His infinite Wisdom, places trials and tribulations in our lives, we pray for the grace to bear them patiently. God knows us better than we know ourselves and knows that these sufferings aren't easy. The thing to keep in mind is that the sufferings God permits are blessings in disguise. Each suffering gives us a golden opportunity to: Participate in Our Lord's Passion, work out our own Salvation, release soul(s) from Purgatory, make reparation for blasphemies and sacreliges committed by others, etc.

Now, there's nothing wrong with asking God to lessen or bring complete relief from our sufferings, but until He does (or if He doesn't) we should always strive to be grateful to suffer for the sake of the things I mentioned above. It's not easy, but due to the sins of our first parents, our lives aren't meant to be easy.

There's so much talk of "healing." What ever happened to *sacrifice?*

Our goal is Easter. But we must bear our Good Friday first.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 08, 2003.

Here is Jake and the loving Regina, quick to assume the upper hand for the elitist version; as if the charismatic brou-ha-ha gives their ''traditionists'' leverage. It certainly does not. Whatever difficulty a charismatic movement presents, it's within the true Church. It has its resolution in and of the Church after Vatican II, ever holy and guarded by the Holy Spirit. What Jake wishes is to pry away Catholics, not help them, much less understand their human foibles.

He uses the word ''modernism'' as a code word for sin; and sin is not imputed to the Catholic Church. Our Church is traditional and completely orthodox with the Creed, the holy sacraments and the priesthood in Jesus Christ. She is no less traditional than she ever was prior to Vatican II.

Whoever says she isn't is flirting with protestantism just as surely as Luther had it. We are One with the Holy Father and God the Holy Spirit. Difficulties are to be resolved strictly within the Church. No modernist Church has ever been founded; our faith is the same one traditionists claim to be guarding from error. They do not guard-- they divide.

The charismatic movement is not a departure from the faith. It has some way to go yet. We will have faith in God and pray he clears away the misapprehensions in the faith of charismatic Catholics. It needs God's intervention and He will not fail His faithful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 08, 2003.

We'll take the trail marked on your father's map

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

Suit yourselves, but mapquest won't be much help when you realize where you've ended up.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

He uses the word ''modernism'' as a code word for sin;

-Gene Chavez, Greenspun Catholic forum, Sept 8, 2003

"They [Modernists] lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.

Pope St. Pius X, September 8, 1907 Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Docrtines of the Modernists)

96 years to the very day since His Holiness tried to sound the alarm. Needless to say, it fell on deaf ears.

Still does.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

the loving Regina, quick to assume the upper hand for the elitist version; as if the charismatic brou-ha-ha gives their ''traditionists'' leverage.

Show me where in my post to Frank regarding prayer and suffering where I tried to score anything for the Traditionalist position.

It certainly does not. Whatever difficulty a charismatic movement presents, it's within the true Church. It has its resolution in and of the Church after Vatican II, ever holy and guarded by the Holy Spirit. What Jake wishes is to pry away Catholics, not help them, much less understand their human foibles.

Show me where in my post to Frank I brought any of this up and/or argued it one way or another.

He uses the word ''modernism'' as a code word for sin; and sin is not imputed to the Catholic Church. Our Church is traditional and completely orthodox with the Creed, the holy sacraments and the priesthood in Jesus Christ. She is no less traditional than she ever was prior to Vatican II.

Show me anywhere in my post to Frank about prayer and suffering where I argued for or against any of what you mention above.

Whoever says she isn't is flirting with protestantism just as surely as Luther had it.

Show me what was protestant in my answer to Frank regarding prayer and suffering. We are One with the Holy Father and God the Holy Spirit. Difficulties are to be resolved strictly within the Church. No modernist Church has ever been founded; our faith is the same one traditionists claim to be guarding from error. They do not guard-- they divide.

Please explain how this is relevant to the topic of prayer and suffering which Frank asked my opinion on.

The charismatic movement is not a departure from the faith.

Please show me where I argued that it was or wasn't.

It has some way to go yet. We will have faith in God and pray he clears away the misapprehensions in the faith of charismatic Catholics. It needs God's intervention and He will not fail His faithful.

When you ever manage to get off your high horse, will you please tell me what any of this has to do with the question Frank asked me to answer, and what was so troubling or contrary to the Faith about my answer? Thanks.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 08, 2003.

so, jake, with that last post you openly admit that you believe that modernism and hence sin has imputed the church?

and regina, i dont think eugene should have to limit himself to ONE of your posts. i would hope that there is more to you than three or four incomplete paragraphs written to ONE person. no, here you are known, and you should be considered as a whole, so if eugene wants to comment on your beliefs based on all the anti catholic material youve posted here, then he should be more than welcome...

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 08, 2003.

so, jake, with that last post you openly admit that you believe that modernism and hence sin has imputed the church?

Absolutely. Yes. Without a doubt.

It was true in 1907, and it's all the more a sad reality today, mostly because what St. Pius X said 96 years ago was either ignored or dismissed as nonsense. Read what he said:

The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things" (Acts xx. 30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. i. 10), "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

Isabel,

Our words are constantly twisted out of spite, when (Frank) you all know that we do not mean certain things that you make it appear that we mean

What are you saying I "twisted out of spite"? Emerald's relative asked him to pray for help and he said NO. Where's the twist? How did I purposefully misinterpret his words?

Jake,

If you're asking if I agree with his decision to not pray as his relative requested, the answer is yes. A firm and resolute yes.

Thank you for your response. I think you mean you feel as Emerald does although I don't see anything in his post about "supernatural powers". I admit I would shy away from that too, but would want to be sure I wasn't missing out on something. If your father meant several Miracles had been performed by the Lord through her, then you may have missed out on the biggest opportunity of your life. OTOH if he meant that SHE was performing these cures, then you did the right thing to bolt. This doesn't seem to apply to Emerald's situation though, she was asking him to PRAY. If you are refusing to PRAY, I think you have your priorities seriously wrong, same as Emerald. I personally have never heard of anyone having a bad outcome by praying to Christ! Other than Emerald's silly post, I've never heard anyone else say they have either. Refusing to pray? Sheesh. I pray for people I see on the street.

but I explained to him that I thought it was infinitely more profitable to do my best to embrace whatever it is that God has allowed to befall me

Why did Christ and the apostles heal people then? Why not just say "deal with it, it's better for you"? Suffering can be a good growth experience, but Christ doesn't call us to spend our lives in agony! I think you've missed a part of the church somewhere, the Joyous part. It's not ALL supposed to be Good Friday.

Regina,

I don't understand your response, in that you say both we should pray to profit from our suffering and then that there's nothing wrong with praying to be healed. From your wording it makes it sound as if you think there is something *inferior* about asking to be healed, is this true? I don't think so, I think by your "no" you believe we SHOULD pray to God for what concerns us, but given the rest of these posts, I'm not so sure.

There's so much talk of "healing." What ever happened to *sacrifice

Sacrifice is what Christ did for us all, and what we MUST do during our daily lives. Christ did NOT tell the Romans to scourge him more, He put up with what was given Him. Healing is a gift we should thankfully accept when it comes our way. It is a sign of foolishness IMO to turn down a gift from God, not holiness. If the Lord passes you the cup, you should drink from it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.

Though the old modernism (or a neo-modernism) may exist in the world today, the current pope is no modernist, and this forum hasn't had any modernists visiting for quite a while. Ergo, there's no need to link Pascendi.

Beware of red herrings.

-- (Just@Passing.By), September 08, 2003.

I don't see anything in his post about "supernatural powers". I admit I would shy away from that too, but would want to be sure I wasn't missing out on something. If your father meant several Miracles had been performed by the Lord through her,

I'm quite sure that my father meant that miracles were being performed through this woman. Again, we differ on the path chosen; our response to something presented to us.

Suppose I went, and my suspicions were confirmed; that this lady was just another dime-a-dozen faith healer, and that I had attended something I knew deep down was diabolical in nature, but I came anyway. That would not only make me guilty of the sin of attending such worship services, but it would put me in the position of hurting my father by walking out. I don't want to fall into sin, and I don't want to hurt my father, so I opt out. Worst case scenario: Whatever God's permitting Will allowed to be wrong with me is still wrong with me. "Better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with one leg," so to speak. Same scenario: I spare myself an awkward moment and my father some humiliation. No brainer.

then you may have missed out on the biggest opportunity of your life.

As I stated before, I'm presented with many more opportunities on this path, opportunities that have as a goal something a lot more important that me feeling good.

Me Feeling Good is not the idea.

The absence of suffering does not equal happiness.

Comfort in this world is not necessarily the will of God.

I pray for strangers, too, BTW, but I would never be so obnoxious as to tell anyone that they should pray to hit the lottery, or be miraculously healed of some ailment. God knows our needs before we ask Him.

St. MAtthew Chapter 10:

29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and yet not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father's knowing.

30 The very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear not therefore: you are worth more than many sparrows.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

Me Feeling Good is not the idea

Who said anything about you feeling good? I thought we were talking about *being healed*. Any junkie can "feel good".

but I would never be so obnoxious as to tell anyone that they should pray to hit the lottery, or be miraculously healed of some ailment. God knows our needs before we ask Him

Are you "so obnoxious" to tell someone to pray for their salvation? If so it seems to me that YOU are saying you know which prayers God wants and which He doesn't. That is not your place. Yes, God knows our needs, we should pray as much as possible even when we're not asking for anything, just saying "thanks" or "nice day". It's IMO really arrogant and foolish to say you think some prayers are good and some bad. That's God's call. Anything sincerely asked of God will be listened to by God, which is enough of a reason to do it. How do you pray, just say "Well God, you already know what I need, there's no reason for me to spell out what's troubling me, just give it to me."? Crazy.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.

Who said anything about you feeling good? I thought we were talking about *being healed*. Any junkie can "feel good".

Feeling good is the aim of Pentecostal prayer. It's the ultimate end. There are other needs we have, real ones that are far more important than being free of disease, or having enough money in the bank. Health & money can be taken away in an instant. Don't put any stock in either, and if you do, prepare to one day learn a great lesson from God about just how unimportant those things are. Your soul is immortal. Sure, we have temporal needs, it's just that I don't see the Pentecostalist movement being about anything other than trying to get peoples' temporal needs met, and in a very extraordinary way, at that. First things first. Seek first the Kingdom.

Are you "so obnoxious" to tell someone to pray for their salvation? If so it seems to me that YOU are saying you know which prayers God wants and which He doesn't.

Not at all. I'm just recognizing that there's a hierarchy of need. Some needs are necessarily subject to other needs. "

"What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and then lose his soul?"

I'm not making judgements abuot which prayers are better, just saying that if we re-orient our wills to the Divine Will, and live that way every day, we wouldn't need to bother seeking signs and wonders. Some things are more important things to pray for than other things. That's all I'm saying. How do you pray, just say "Well God, you already know what I need, there's no reason for me to spell out what's troubling me, just give it to me."?

Not exactly. I do acknowedge before God that He knows all my needs, because He has revealed that through the Scriptures. I ask for the graces I rely on to get me through the day, for the patience to bear the things I have to bear, for the spiritual and YES, temporal needs of my family, and so on (intentions as they come to mind, intentions of the people who have asked for my prayers, etc), and finally an act of thanksgiving for the innumerable favors and graces I have received, unworthy as I am. I usually pray this way before or during my Morning Prayers, but sometimes during my Rosary. In any event, I don't pray nearly as much as I know I should.

Crazy.

Maybe.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

and regina, i dont think eugene should have to limit himself to ONE of your posts.

How is it constructive to a discussion/debate when old arguments are constantly introduced? This topic of prayer and sacrifice is beneficial to ourselves and each other, I think. Gene has attempted to steer the conversation away from it's original purpose (my answer to Frank's question) and I'm not going to play into it. I said I wouldn't 'go there' any more in this forum and I meant it. This topic has nothing to do with the SSPX, the Pope, the old Mass vs. the New, Trad vs. Neo. So why bring it up? I believe that in a discussion/debate the rebuttals ought to be contained within the topic at hand. My reply to Frank did not contradict the Faith, nor did I 'plug' the Traditional movement. I base my replies to you and Gene based on what you've said here and now in this thread. How for instance, would it benefit the conversation at hand if I were to bring up Gene's (unfounded and completely false)past charge that my husband jake is a racist? It wouldn't. It's irrelevant. The arguement has been had and it's over.

i would hope that there is more to you than three or four incomplete paragraphs written to ONE person.

Incomplete? What did I leave out in my reply to Frank?

no, here you are known, and you should be considered as a whole, so if eugene wants to comment on your beliefs based on all the anti catholic material youve posted here, then he should be more than welcome...

God help me that I *never, ever* think, feel, say, or post *anything* anti-Catholic. Don't waste your time pulling up past postings from me which *you've* decided are offensive. I've defended everything here I've ever written ad nauseum and I'm not doing it again. Besides, I'd like to get back to the subject of prayer and sacrifice. It's far more interesting and beneficial to us all than bickering over old arguements. In fact, I'll tell you what, unless Gene wants to debate about my post to Frank, I'll ignore him. That way the subject stays where it should.

If you regard Traditional Catholicism as "anti-Catholic" do so at your own risk, but duke it out with someone else.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 08, 2003.

I don't understand your response, in that you say both we should pray to profit from our suffering and then that there's nothing wrong with praying to be healed. From your wording it makes it sound as if you think there is something *inferior* about asking to be healed, is this true?

Oh, not at all, and I'm sorry if my post came across that way. Asking God for help demonstrates our Faith in Him. When He permits our suffering to continue and we use that suffering for the benefit of our souls, it demonstrates that we surrender to His Will. So both prayers - those for help and those which ask that we bear our suffering for love of Him, are equally pleasing.

Sacrifice is what Christ did for us all, and what we MUST do during our daily lives. Christ did NOT tell the Romans to scourge him more, He put up with what was given Him. Healing is a gift we should thankfully accept when it comes our way. It is a sign of foolishness IMO to turn down a gift from God, not holiness. If the Lord passes you the cup, you should drink from it

I couldn't agree more! If Our Lord so chooses to relieve some amount of our suffering, we are grateful. If He doesn't, we must accept it, and not fight it. In my opinion, seeking the aid of a self- proclaimed "healer" is no different than thinking you can talk to a Heavenly angel through a Ouija board.

Now, there are people out there who God works through, no doubt. But be very, very leery of and steer clear of people who boast about their supposed "gifts." Padre Pio didn't advertise his gifts, nor did Our Lord Himself.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 08, 2003.

Regina, Dear:

Why? -- ''Would it benefit the conversation at hand ***if I were to bring up*** --'' What did you just now DO? ''. . . Gene's (unfounded and completely false) past charge that my husband Jake is a racist? It wouldn't.--''

If you think I called ANYBODY a racist in this forum, you're out of your senses. I never have, (founded or unfounded).

You took a few of my words about the pre- Vatican II days completely out of context and now make this false claim. It had nothing at all to do with your husband, no matter how you twist logic. You are repeating the lie. That's why once I had to state that you don't have much respect for the truth. You speak falsely.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 08, 2003.

Regina,

Thanks, that is much more clear, and is something I agree with (not that that's important in any way, but it's nice to know I have some common ground with someone). I *also* agree with staying away from people who claim to use arcane powers of any sort, or Ouija boards.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.

Frank, this is what I'm getting at; I can't speak for the others but only from my own experience.

One time I was looking around for things concerning the Virgin Mary. I went to the search engine and innocently typed in "A woman clothed with the Sun". You know the one from Scripture "Who is she that cometh forth like the dawn", etc. I was casually looking to understand what this meant.

Here's what I got:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/cws/

I didn't make a link to it because it's a bad site; not anything offensive to the eyes but it's esoteric. I started to read through some of it to try to determine what this was all about, and I backed off and said forget this. It's evil.

When you get something at that level, you just walk away from it. At that level, the aping and mimicry of the demon becomes so strong that you could easily lose your sense of up and down. What's right is always the way of the real Mother of God, which is humility and readiness to do the will of God, not our own wills, as she did. To be content with little, not lots. Not to draw up any powers that be so to speak, but to seek out humility and littleness and let God do what He wishes.

In the Charasmatic Movement I sense something not at all unlike that site above. It's dangerous. I realize that this may offend some people, but I'm just speaking my mind. I hope this example helps.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

It's not offensive when someone with no knowledge or experience of a subject condemns it. Just silly. And all the sillier when those who HAVE experienced it and DO know what it's about almost universally support it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

It's not offensive when someone with no knowledge or experience of a subject condemns it. Just silly. And all the sillier when those who HAVE experienced it and DO know what it's about almost universally support it.

People who jump out of airplanes generally rgard it as a wonderful experience.

I have no firsthand knowledge of skydiving.

Regardless of my feelings on skydiving, it's still a dumb thing to do.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

Jake,

Don't be so quick to judge others' forms of prayer! That is not your job, nor do you have any way of proving yourself correct.

Take your skydiving example: If that brought someone *closer to God* would you criticize it still? Who gives you the AUTHORITY to say that this is incorrect? Also, please explain how Saints scourging themselves, etc. was a "good" thing to do (or do you think the saints who did "dumb" things were also, well, dumb? Isn't our body a temple, and we are supposed to care for it? How is abusing it legitimate, but *potentially* abusing it not?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 08, 2003.

What ever you say, Gene.

Do you have any thoughts with regard to the topic at hand?

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), September 08, 2003.

Don't be so quick to judge others' forms of prayer! That is not your job, nor do you have any way of proving yourself correct.

It's really pretty easy to judge something like this. We have the entire history of the Church to search through for an example of a holy person praying like a Pentecostal. There's just one problem.

You guessed it.

There ain't one.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Rarely has so much theology been packed into so few words.

Take your skydiving example: If that brought someone *closer to God* would you criticize it still?

Closer to God? Figuratively or literally? Just kidding. To answer your question, I would criticize it as a dumb way to try & get close to God, and I maintain that it's just dumb thing to do.

Who gives you the AUTHORITY to say that this is incorrect?

No authority, just Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Also, please explain how Saints scourging themselves, etc. was a "good" thing to do (or do you think the saints who did "dumb" things were also, well, dumb? Isn't our body a temple, and we are supposed to care for it? How is abusing it legitimate, but *potentially* abusing it not?

You're comparing undertaking pennance for the purpose of making satisfaction for sin to leaping from a plane for the purpose of getting an adrenaline rush. It's one thing to attempt to bring one's body in line to be subject to the spirit. It's quite another thing to hurl yourself into harm's way for no purpose other than a transitory thrill. Not to mention, I think a pretty solid argument could be made that such behavior is a sin against the 5th Commandment, because by doing those things we take unnecessary risks with our lives.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

Check this out, from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1274. What sin is it to destroy one's own life, or commit suicide, as this act is called? A. It is a mortal sin to destroy one's own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial. It is also wrong to expose one's self unnecessarily to the danger of death by rash or foolhardy feats of daring.

Baltimore Catechism. Church teaching, that.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 08, 2003.

"It is also wrong to expose one's self unnecessarily to the danger of death by rash or foolhardy feats of daring."

I better go to confession... I had no idea coming into this forum and talking about traditional Catholicism was a sin... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

So......ummmm.......would........ummmm........bungee jumping be a sin? There's a big inflatable....thing.....underneath you. I have to admit, I'm quite the adrenalyn junkie. No skydiving though. :) Couldn't pay me enough. There's nothing between me and the ground, except a parachute that may or may not work.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 08, 2003.

So......ummmm.......would........ummmm........bungee jumping be a sin?

8,763 years in Purgatory for you, my dear.

How does it feel to have a hurricaine bearing your name bearing down on the U.S.?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 09, 2003.

I've been told I can be relentless like a raging storm. :)

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 09, 2003.

Jake,

Also, please explain how Saints scourging themselves, etc. was a "good" thing to do (or do you think the saints who did "dumb" things were also, well, dumb? Isn't our body a temple, and we are supposed to care for it? How is abusing it legitimate, but *potentially* abusing it not?

You're comparing undertaking pennance for the purpose of making satisfaction for sin to leaping from a plane for the purpose of getting an adrenaline rush. It's one thing to attempt to bring one's body in line to be subject to the spirit. It's quite another thing to hurl yourself into harm's way for no purpose other than a transitory thrill. Not to mention, I think a pretty solid argument could be made that such behavior is a sin against the 5th Commandment, because by doing those things we take unnecessary risks with our lives

Perhaps we aren't speaking about the same thing. Many saints from the middle ages didn't just occasionally discipline themselves, but in fact wore spiked crowns, bound themselves with chains, didn't eat, etc. every day for years. Several of them also died quite young. I'd say you could make the same argument against the 5th commandment on their actions. I doubt you will though, LOL! Somehow someone praying by sticking a crown of spikes on their head and binding themselves with rope or chain so tightly that flesh grows over it is o.k. and NOT against the 5th commandment, but hypothetically jumping out of a plane to pray is. Is that your point of view?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 10, 2003.

I'd say you could make the same argument against the 5th commandment on their actions. I doubt you will though, LOL!

No, I won't. LOL!

Somehow someone praying by sticking a crown of spikes on their head and binding themselves with rope or chain so tightly that flesh grows over it is o.k. and NOT against the 5th commandment, but hypothetically jumping out of a plane to pray is. Is that your point of view?

That's precisely my point of view. Happily for me. that's also apparently Holy Mother Church's point of view, since it was Her through the acts of the Supreme Pontiffs who raised those great men and women to the altars and declared them Saints; something you apparently have a problem with.

Let's talk about that.

Oh, and if anyone jumps out of a plane to pray, they're not only sinful, but stupid. There's a lot of that going around.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 10, 2003.

Jake,

That's precisely my point of view. Happily for me. that's also apparently Holy Mother Church's point of view, since it was Her through the acts of the Supreme Pontiffs who raised those great men and women to the altars and declared them Saints; something you apparently have a problem with.

Let's talk about that.

Happy to. Do you know of anyplace that the Church RECOMMENDS permanently disfiguring oneself or abusing their bodies to the point of shortening their lives? I don't, and would not recommend that to my children. Do YOU wear chains that continually eat into your flesh? (and don't use antibiotics if they get infected, earlier Saints didn't have the luxury of this), or put said chains or other implements of torture on your children? Probably not. If this is a RECOMMENDED practice of the church, why don't you? Don't you want your children to become saints?

My point is that some Saints may have found this useful for them, but that doesn't mean it's something we should aspire to. The church asks us to have self-discipline, not to torture ourselves. There are plenty of nuts today who do similar things to themselves, destroying their bodies for no good reason, do they become saints? No, there's nothing in the actions themselves, obviously, that lead to sainthood. Now the *intent* of the Saints was quite different, and my suggestion to you is that it is their *faith* that led them to sainthood, not their self-mutilation. Maybe they "had" to do this to themselves, I can't say. I do know I've never read where the church recommends that we practice this severe a pennance ourselves. If it WERE, I'm sure one of the Popes from the middle ages would have recommended binding everyone, did they?

"Self-deprivation" to strenghthen the will? Fine. Self-mutilation? Bad. I guess if I had to sum up my appreciation of this practice it would be that these people were saints in spite of this practice, not because of it. Seriously, if the Church thought this was the *reason* for their attaining the graces of sainthood, then the Church should recommend we ALL do this right?

We are all recommended to pray,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam`), September 11, 2003.

Do you know of anyplace that the Church RECOMMENDS permanently disfiguring oneself or abusing their bodies to the point of shortening their lives?

Well, no, but I do know where it's recommended that we perform exterior acts of mortification:

"If you live after the flesh", you shall die, but if through the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" St. Paul (Rom., viii, 13; cf. also Col., iii, 5, and Gal., v, 24).

"The exercise of bodily mortification -- far removed from any form of stoicism -- does not imply a condemnation of the flesh which sons of God deign to assume. On the contrary, mortification aims at the liberation of man, who often finds himself, because of concupiscence, almost chained by his own senses."

Pope Paul VI, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ON PENANCE Paenitemini, 17 February, 1966

Do YOU wear chains that continually eat into your flesh? (and don't use antibiotics if they get infected, earlier Saints didn't have the luxury of this),

Nope. That's not what God calls most people to do, particularly in my state of life. The few He has called and does call, though, are models of heroic virtue. Hence, Holy Mother Church has given them to us as role models.

put said chains or other implements of torture on your children?

I think the practice of morification is undertaken voluntarily so, no. I can't impose it on anyone else.

If this is a RECOMMENDED practice of the church, why don't you?

See above.

Don't you want your children to become saints?

Of course, and if God calls them to a life that requires extraordinary virtue, I pray that they'll have all the necessary graces to do what He asks. That way, not only will they become saints, they'll become great saints, and hopefully intercede for my miserable soul before the throone of God.

There are plenty of nuts today who do similar things to themselves, destroying their bodies for no good reason, do they become saints? No, there's nothing in the actions themselves, obviously, that lead to sainthood.

If St. Theresa of Avila, or St. Rita, or St. Francis (all of whom undertook the most harsh penances) were to walk into one of the houses of their orders today, where do you think their superiors would do? My guess is have them locked up in an institution somewhere and kept heavily sedated. Sounds like you'd hastily second that motion.

I'm sure one of the Popes from the middle ages would have recommended binding everyone, did they?

I'm not sure. Meantime, read the quote from Paul VI above.

my appreciation of this practice it would be that these people were saints in spite of this practice, not because of it.

So they were all deviant lunatics who still somehow managed to attain some degree of holiness despite their weird propensity to whip themselves? Funny thing about that is, I'm quite sure they'd unanimously agree!

Seriously, if the Church thought this was the *reason* for their attaining the graces of sainthood, then the Church should recommend we ALL do this right?

See above.

We are all recommended to pray

That's not enough, says Our Lord. Wake up, Frank. The time for all this foolishness is growing short.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 11, 2003.

Jake,

The spurious parts of your post aside:

That's not what God calls most people to do,

It looks like we agree on the essential part.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 11, 2003.

"So they were all deviant lunatics who still somehow managed to attain some degree of holiness despite their weird propensity to whip themselves? Funny thing about that is, I'm quite sure they'd unanimously agree!"

roflol!

-- (emerald1@cox.net), September 11, 2003.

http://www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/bishops.htm

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 13, 2003.

A link, Theresa, for those who have trouble copying URLs.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 14, 2003.

Another link: tongues translator

Charismatic- ese for "jake has lost his mind, poor fellow."

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), September 28, 2003.

Jeremy Claiborne I was tickled to death to read Jeremy's post. The Lord is trying to give him more truth.It sounds like he has quite a handle on it already.If you check out the scriptures (after praying) there will be more God will show you. If you let him.There is no private interpedtation.How many authors do you know who write a book, and leave the interpedtation to the reader?Here is some more information. eugene--said "The Church from the very begining already knew and followed the exact formulary as Jesus gave it; our Trinitarian one." Well, If this is true, show us the verse in the Bible where they baptized in the titles Father Son and Holy Ghost, using those titles. It's not in there. -Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4 :12 There is no other name. If there is a trinity, and there is three persons then it would read names not name.

-Then Peter said unto them," Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38 In the name of Jesus. But, of course you already know that.

For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. In the name of Jesus. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 10:48

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Acts 19:5

Look at church history. Look at the Bible. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus, "Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The Trinitarian baptismal formula, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The Trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning. Baptism into the name of the Lord was the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid." Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

This statement - "The Trinitarian baptismal formula found in Scripture (Mt 29:19): "in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It dates to the church's earliest days;" Does not hold water.

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? The Trinitarian formula is a tradition of man. 325A.D.

-- Johnny R. Williams (johnraysr@msn.com), December 30, 2003.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" - Matthew 28:19

They either baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, or they disobeyed a direct command from the lips of God Himself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

That pretty much settles it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

There is nothing too plain about a passage of scripture that a self-ordained minister will not dispute; even if it makes Jesus Christ a liar. But all authority is given the one Catholic Church by Jesus Christ. If tomorrow this Church told us, ''A baptism is valid when imparted in the name of Jesus and no other name,'' --We would know it for the truth.

As things are, Johnny and his church say so-- and there's NO authority given anybody there. It's just a church of wishful thinkers, but no Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

In keeping with the thread, though, Paul and Gene, the gifts of the Holy Ghost come from the particular Sacrament of Confirmation; that's traditional Catholicism, and that's their origin.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

Wonder if Johnny Williams isn't breathing a sigh of relief at this moment. The pressure is off him. Emerald arrived in the nick of time to muddy the waters. The subject has been taken off the table for a while._______________________________________________________________ _

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

When stating Church doctrine with certainty and clarity muddies the waters, then you know you live in interesting times.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

Did that figure in the current discussion, a valid baptismal method? You have a strange way of enlightening the others on baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Injecting the sacrament of Confirmation for what purpose? I won't jump to conclusions; maybe you have a true contribution to make here. Show us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

Of course there's a point to it; goes like this:

Some guy comes in here with what looks like some kind of argument that we shouldn't baptise in the name of the Trinity. Paul whips out a single quote from Scripture and slams said heresy to the floor. Hurray, Paul... or better yet, hurray Scripture.

Baptism is one of our Catholic Sacraments. We have another one: Confirmation.

Confirmation has to do with gifts of the Holy Ghost. Some say that the Charasmatic Movement also has to do with the Holy Ghost.

But the Charasmatic Movement had it's origins around 1967.

But the Sacrament of Confirmation had it's origins around 33 and in Pentecost.

Maybe we should place our trust in the Sacrament of Confirmation and not the Charasmatic movement. It's simpler, easier, safer, and we already knew it. Do you see the connections here? Don't tell me you don't see it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

For the Apostles, "baptism in the Holy Spirit" was a direct and immediate effect of their Confirmation on Pentecost. The sacrament of Confirmation has continued to be administered by the laying on of the bishop's hands, ever since that time. Several instances are recorded in scripture. Unfortunately over the centuries some of the charismatic effects of the sacrament have been lost, not by any act of God but by the Church's gradual neglect of teaching in this area of Catholic spirituality. The Charismatic Renewal is just that - a renewal, not an introduction, of that which was originally common practice in the Catholic Church, a greater openness to and experience of the power of the Holy Spirit in the everyday lives of ordinary Catholics.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

... the gifts of the Holy Ghost come from the particular Sacrament of Confirmation; that's traditional Catholicism, and that's their origin.

The above is not correct.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are first bestowed upon us in Baptism. Then they are increased in Confirmation. (Catholics, old and new, have often not been catechized on this fact.) Here is how the Catechism teaches it:

1266 -- The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
- it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";
- it unites us more firmly to Christ;
- it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
- it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;
- it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross ...

-- (The@Scoop.com), December 31, 2003.

Indeed, the Sacrament of Confirmation completes our baptism, where we first receive the Holy Spirit.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), December 31, 2003.

Indeed this is fundamental to the Catholic faith. But here we were not debating the relative merits of a sacrament and one charismatic sect. The main argument was whether the rite of Holy Baptism is preached in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit --or in Jesus' name -- as scripture would have it.

We know this one sect is adamantly for the latter formula, and couldn't care less about Confirmation. So; Emerald starts pitching the ninth inning before the ball game is even started.

He never even considered the problem we have with Johnny R. Williams. But then, Emerald has no interest at all in Johnny. He wants to post whatever tickles his own fancy.

Johnny R. Williams: ''Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.''

I made a reply quite worth repeating here: But all authority is given the one Catholic Church by Jesus Christ. --If tomorrow this Church told us, ''Baptism is valid when imparted in the name of Jesus and no other name,'' --We would know it for the truth.

As things are, only Johnny and his church say so-- and there's NO authority given anybody there. It's just a church of wishful thinking, but no Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

Thanks for making the clarification on the Sacrament of Confirmation.

By why then, this:

"If tomorrow this Church told us, ''Baptism is valid when imparted in the name of Jesus and no other name,'' --We would know it for the truth."

This certainly is not true; Church doctrine does not and cannot change.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2003.

Don't be dense. It's not about what the Church is able to do tomorrow. It's about who has the final word. Here's a fundy preacher telling us all about the sacrament of baptism. His word against the Church of the apostles? The Church is the ONLY authority. If it had ever been done in Jesus' name, the apostles would have ordered it so. The Church would have taught it; not Johnny R. Williams.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 31, 2003.

Don't be dense. It's not about what the Church is able to do today. It's about who has the final word. Here's a few Catholics telling us all about the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Their word against the Church of the apostles? The Church is the ONLY authority. If the Holy Ghost had ever acted in the name of the Charasmatic Movement, the apostles would have ordered it so. The Church would have taught it; not the Charasmatic Movement.

That is my point. Consistant with the topic of the entire thread, my own personal mistakes as an aside.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 01, 2004.

A good friend of mine made an interesting comment. He said that perhaps if one claims to speak in the name of the Holy Ghost, but says things that are not, or could not possibly be, of the Holy Ghost, then perhaps it could be construed as a species of taking God's name in vain.

I wonder if he might have a point.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 01, 2004.

The Bible is the teaching of the Church, compiled by the Church, for the Church. It is full of descriptions and instructions regarding the charisms of the Holy Spirit, all positive, all supportive. It is a shame that such an important element of Catholic spirituality, which is stressed so strongly in the Word of God, fell into gradual disuse. But God has a way of calling us back, re-offering us what He wants us to have.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 01, 2004.