AnonymousJanuary 11, 2015 at 9:35 AM
OMG, Diana! You claim the ELL (English Language Learning) RMS priests are like the Apostles and then, just like our Protestant brethren, quoted Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim" (NAB) but neglected to keep the quote in context.
In the verses that follow (5-11) we read there were "devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem" (v 5) and "they were confused because each one heard them [the Apostles] speaking in his own language" (v 6) which means that people from different nations CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD what the Apostles were saying, unlike what we in the pews experience when RMS priests ramble on at the pulpit. We can hardly understand what they are saying!
Let's move on. The "devout Jews from EVERY NATION" recognized that the Apostles were "speaking Galileans" (v 7) and then asked "Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?" (v 8) again showing that there was no hindrance to understanding what the Apostles were saying, which is very different from what happens when RMS priests stumble throughout their homilies. When asked why RMS priests don't have notes or prepared homilies, one presbyter said he lets "the spirit guide" him, which is clearly the case when there are long pauses between phrases (not even sentences) which makes it hard to follow the train of thought.
In verses 9 and 10 we can read a list of the places these Jews are from and in verse 11 we read once again speaking of the Apostles "yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God" which (again) informs us that the Apostles did speak in tongues and were understood by the Jews who heard them speak.
BTW: The RMS priests speak different languages but RMS priests DO NOT speak in "tongues" like the Apostles did on Pentecost Sunday.
In the verses that follow (5-11) we read there were "devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem" (v 5) and "they were confused because each one heard them [the Apostles] speaking in his own language" (v 6) which means that people from different nations CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD what the Apostles were saying, unlike what we in the pews experience when RMS priests ramble on at the pulpit. We can hardly understand what they are saying!
Let's move on. The "devout Jews from EVERY NATION" recognized that the Apostles were "speaking Galileans" (v 7) and then asked "Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?" (v 8) again showing that there was no hindrance to understanding what the Apostles were saying, which is very different from what happens when RMS priests stumble throughout their homilies. When asked why RMS priests don't have notes or prepared homilies, one presbyter said he lets "the spirit guide" him, which is clearly the case when there are long pauses between phrases (not even sentences) which makes it hard to follow the train of thought.
In verses 9 and 10 we can read a list of the places these Jews are from and in verse 11 we read once again speaking of the Apostles "yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God" which (again) informs us that the Apostles did speak in tongues and were understood by the Jews who heard them speak.
BTW: The RMS priests speak different languages but RMS priests DO NOT speak in "tongues" like the Apostles did on Pentecost Sunday.
According to this anonymous poster, he/she obviously thinks that those walking in the Way do not understand Catholicism and therefore goes on to instruct me as to what he/she thinks is "true Catholicism." He/she wrote (capitalization is mine): The RMS priests speak different LANGUAGES but do not speak in "TONGUES" like the Apostles did on Pentecost Sunday.
As we can see here, the anonymous poster SEPARATED "language" and "tongues" to mean different things. The Greek word for "tongues" is "glossa." According to Strong's biblical translation, it can also mean "language." As a matter of fact, the New Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible) uses the word "language" instead of "tongues" in Acts 2:4. These are the same passages found in different Catholic Bibles (the bold is mine):
Taken from the Douay Rhimes:
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.
Taken from the New American Bible (which the Catholic Church uses):
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.
Taken from the New Jerusalem Bible:
Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak different languages as the Spirit gave them power to express themselves.
The commentary notes found in the New American Bible is very straightforward. This is what it says (the bold is mine):
2:4 To speak in different tongues: ecstatic prayer in praise of God, interpreted in Acts 2:6, 11 as speaking in foreign languages, symbolizing the worldwide mission of the Church.
The commentary in the New Jerusalem Bible is much longer and more detailed, but pretty much says the same thing. So, how did this anonymous commenter conclude that RMS priests speak different "languages", but do NOT speak in "tongues" is beyond me. This is what happens when one interprets the Holy Bible on their own without the Catholic Church.
In the Neocatechumenal Way, we read the commentaries in the Bible especially during scrutacio so as to understand how the Church interprets it. We are supposed to go by the Church interpretation of Sacred Scripture, not according to our own interpretation. Only Protestants interpret Scripture on their own exactly like what the anonymous commenter did. He/she did not bother to read the Church's interpretation in the commentary of the Bible but proceeded to interpret scripture himself like the Protestants always do. Pentecostal Protestants also interpreted Acts 2:4 as something different that does not mean "language." The video below shows children "speaking in tongues" at a Pentecostal Sunday church service.
Yep they speak in tongues alright...twisted tongues!
ReplyDeleteThat has absolutely no "language" in it.
DeleteWithout a tongues, languages would not be spoken aside from those who ate mute. I know my religion Di
DeleteI know about the tongues of fire. I also know about the story of Babel and the different languages. I don't need catechetocal lessons from you or scripture readings.
No one can interpret the writings in the Bible, but you can reflect on it.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:59 pm,
DeleteYou do need a catechetical lesson because apparently you do not know your religion. The TRUTH is that even the mute can communicate. The deaf and the mute have a "language" of their own.
You can keep your catechetical lessons...I do not need to wear the white gown provided to go into the water of Baptism again and renew my vows. I have renewed am y times through the Baptisms of my children and on Easter Sunday. I do not need to take the MASK off that you are asked to do.
DeleteAs far as I am ,concerned, you guys are putting on the MASK!
Dear Anonymousat 6:42 pm,
DeleteThat is so unfortunate. If there was anything that you could have learned from this lesson.....it would be to READ the commentaries or footnotes in your Bible instead of trying to interpret scripture on your own as the Protestants do.
I don't know where you got that video from, but those children were not "speaking in tongues". It sounded more like a diabolical babbling.
DeleteSpeaking in tongues is a reality for many in the Catholic Church, however, and is generally a private, personally edifying experience. It is a beautiful gift of the Holy Spirit.
It would be interesting to know whether this phenomenon (the true glossolalia) is observed in the NCW? Anyone know?
Dear Anonymous at 8:46 pm,
DeleteThat is how the Pentecoastal Christians "speak in tongues." This is certainly not Catholic. I see that you are unaware of the many different Christian denominations.
What? Of course I'm aware fo the "many Christian denominations". I asked whether the phenomenon of "speaking in toungues" is observed within the NCW? Evidently not.
DeleteDiana, the official church teaching is in the catechism. We Catholics have our own catechism apart from "neocatechism" that you promulgate. Bible commentaries are not official teachings. Nihil obstat would not say it is official teaching, it only says there are no errors in it. The Bible is interpreted by the human mind under the influence of the Holy Spirit. What is in the official catechism is coming from human minds sitting in church bodies. So I have no idea what are you talking about. The church has outlined an overall interpretation of Scripture based on sound doctrine, the writings of church fathers and salvation history. But you should read, meditate and contemplate every passage of the Bible in order to grasp its meaning.
DeleteDear voce of faith,
DeletePlease read my posts. I never said that the commentaries were official teachings. I said they were the Church's INTERPRETATION. Only the Church can interpret Sacred Scripture.
Must read more. Church does not interpret Bible, Church is not person. The Magisterium interprets Bible, consists of bishops. The Holy Ghost works in interpretation. When you have the Holy Ghost, you can interpret the Bible. Along the Magisterium.
DeleteDear Jolene,
DeletePlease read the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Magisterium is part of the Church and is not separate from her. The Catechism also says that the Church is a person.
CCC 2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."
CCC 795 ....................Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person.
CCC 113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
You are correct that the Magisterium is the one who interprets Scripture, because lay persons are not supposed to interpret Scripture. But you are incorrect to say that the Church is not a person, and that the Church does not interpret Bible.
I saw Monsignor James meeting with Attorney David Lujan today at Shirley's Coffee Shop. What could this mean?
ReplyDeleteGood. Glad they were enjoying Shirley's.
DeleteThis is like popularity contest which completely ridiculous. So what if Dave Lujan is in the mix of their worldly intention. Worldly things they they can have it. We all know what they want is money. Msgnr Jame not single shadow I've ever see that priest made an effort to got to GHURA housing and bring the Nino for Christmas. His mission built structure and deepen the debt of this Archdiocese. Great you support him with emotion but did he tell you the whole mess was left at the Cathedral. He is lucky the Archbishop still care for him, if I had the power I would expose this guy this mess would end. Again he is lucky the Archbishop loves him.
DeleteDiana, this is what Tim wrote in his new post.
ReplyDeleteIf the AFC did advise the archbishop to sell the property, valued at $75 million dollars by the archbishop's legal counsel, then that would have been a very smart advice.
Here's why:
$75 million dollars, or even half that, could have wiped out the entire debt of the archdiocese, which is estimated to be nearly $20 million *, with plenty of money left over not only to build a brand new seminary, but create an endowment that could have paid for the education of seminarians for years to come, eliminating the need for the annual archdiocesan appeal.
* $20 million is the figure estimated by the former AFC. Note that the remainder of the debt incurred by the renovation of the Cathedral and the Cemeteries, a project overseen by Msgr. James, is only 1.7 million. That means the archbishop himself owes another 18 million. Yet we only hear about the debt supposedly incurred by Msgr. James - which as we have already explained, is another debt which Archbishop Apuron himself incurred, not Msgr. James.
Dear Anonymous at 10:08 pm,
DeleteOH MY...........and what about the donor's wish that the money he donated be used to build a seminary??? Is the Archbishop supposed to break his word to the donor?
Please don't forget the commission rohr may potentially reap by the sale....don't forget GPA..the water...misc repairs to A/C or other facility issues that the Arch Bishop is asked to assist with.
Delete@10:48 I thought you said the Gala Dinner paid for the seminary.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:25 am,
DeleteThe Gala Dinner only pays a portion of the seminary. The rest of the money comes from off-island.
"and what about the donor's wish that the money he donated be used to build a seminary"
DeleteSo, the donor gives $2M or thereabouts to "build a seminary". Once option would be to pay the loan on the Yona property, the sell it and build a seminary from part of the proceeds. This would satisfy the donors request, pay off all Archdiocesan loans and leave some spare for future developments. Its not rocket science, Diana
OHHHH, yet another piece of the puzzle. FROM WHOM? may I ask?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:47 am,
DeleteDon't you think we would have to buy the land first before building a seminary? And where is this available land that we could get to build this seminary?
Dear Anonymous at 2:42 pm,
DeleteIt is not your money, so why do you want to know?
You are being excessively arrogant, Diana. That money, all of it, belongs to the church. You have to give account.
DeleteIt's not YOUR money either.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:55 pm,
DeleteIt was the NCW who helped contributed in establishing the seminary. And it was the NCW who maintained the seminary even to this day.
Money is tricky. It belongs to Mammon. You cannot serve two gods...
DeleteDear Jolene,
DeleteIs it any wonder why the Financial Council wanted to sell the seminary??
This is gossip. All options were considered, including a reduction of maintenance costs of RMS by relocating and making it reasonable in size. The fact is neos do not deserve a whole Accion Hotel on Guam under their jurisdiction. It is simply oversize. However, no decision or recommendation by the council had been made about selling. Can you show evidence of what you say? Do you even notice when you publish unfounded gossip with no evidence at all?! Firing the financial council was a hostile and very immature act by any means that can never be justified.
DeleteDear Jolene,
DeleteWho are you to say what the NCW deserves??
Jolene - the fact the FINANCE COUNCIL attempt to sell the Seminary behind the Archbishop's back! That tells you the WHOLE Finance council back-stab the Archbishop.
DeleteTry shafting your father, which is completely disrespectful. This is a known fact. Believe it or not. Go right ahead and swim on vomit, have it your way,
Diana, RMS faculty told me the building is oversize. There is no money to operate central air. It also impedes good education.
DeleteDear Jolene,
DeleteLack of rooms is what impedes a good education. Having a lot of spacious rooms does not. It is actually a plus. That seminary was established in 1999. It is now 2015, and the seminary is still operation and there is no sign of it closing down.
Dear Diana at 3.35, perhaps you could ask that question of someone in the real estate industry? One name springs to mind.....#awkward
ReplyDelete