You Are In the House of God

When you enter the church, you are entering the house of God. So many people forget this. They've been taught that God is not confined to a church. This is true... but that doesn't mean it isn't a place of reverence.

You have a home. You're not confined there. You can travel, visit other people, go on vacation... but you still have a home, and if you are in your home you don't want someone coming over and disrespecting you in your house.

Even Jesus became extremely upset when there were dealers disrespecting His Father's Temple.

Jesus went into the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves. And he declared to them, "It is written: My house will be called a house of prayer. But you are making it a den of robbers." (Matthew 21:12-13)

So even Christ looked at the Temple as the house of God. When Christ came into the world and thus began Christianity (where God's chosen people became those who followed his Son - because no one goes to the Father but through Christ), Christ's church became God's temple, the home of the Holy Trinity.

In the Catholic faith, we take the Eucharist very seriously. We truly believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. It is not merely metaphoric. Through Transubstantiation, we believe that the bread and wine truly becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Jesus said to them: "Truly I say to you. Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood, you shall have no eternal life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, shall have eternal life and I will raise them up on the last day." (John 6:53-54)

So the bread (hosts) kept within the Tabernacle, we look at that as Christ present in the church in a literal sense.

So when you come into the church, you are entering the house of God. There must be respect, decorum and dignity, lest you disrespect God in His own home.

In the Traditional Church... rules were much stricter than they are now since Vatican II... but that doesn't mean, just because the church is looked at as more lax, that God has changed his opinions on dignity.

Now, this blog comes around after I attended daily mass this morning. A girl who I assume was volunteering at the Church's daycare came in with a group of the little children attending the Daycare. She had on the shortest shorts. When she sat, it went from inappropriate for church, to grossly inappropriate for church. Sometimes I don't think girls see themselves from the angle others can see them. They don't realize how shorts or a skirt rides up when you sit.

Another Mass last year, a girl, very tall and skinny, wore a skirt so short, you had to look away whenever she'd bend over if you didn't want an eye full of underwear (God in Heaven I hope she wore them.)

And another mass last year, a girl came in wearing a strapless dress. It was so short, whenever she sat, you got an eye full of everything, and being on the thicker side, without a bra, gravity took effect and she spent half the mass either showing too much cleavage or yanking the top up.

What you do on your own time is between you and God... but in the house of God, this is unacceptable and priests should now allow it. Those dressed as inappropriately as in the last example, should be asked to cover themselves, or leave. This is God's house. Let us say you are visiting your parents and their neighbor comes in and disrespects your parents in their own home. Would you stand for it? Of course not.

Coming into the house of God looking as if you're about to go to the strip club right after is disrespectful. Would you go to work as a banker or as a nurse in a bikini? Then why would you come to the house of our Lord looking like you just came from a night of partying at a bar? If you would not allow someone to walk into your own home and disrespect you... why would you dress disrespectfully when walking into the house of God?

In the traditional church:

WOMEN

Mantilla (Chapel Veil)
Arms should be covered at all times (Short sleeves acceptable)
Long Dress or Skirt (no pants, shorts, or capris)

MEN

Suit (Winter)
Short sleeve polo shirt and dress pants (Summer)

In the post Vatican II Church:

WOMEN

Arms should be covered at all times (short sleeves are acceptable)
Pants, Skirt below the knees, Capris no shorter than knee length.

MEN

Same as the Traditional Church with the exception that you can wear a T-Shirt as long as it does not contain inappropriate language or art.

Although, in reality, we should be following the Traditions of the original church. It only changed because of the church's modernization and Feminism over-reaching.

Some still say a dress code is repressive. If you read my previous blog about the chapel veil, you will find a documentary that details exactly why dressing respectfully and wearing a chapel veil in the house of God is a way to build a woman up, to make her special and holy, rather than oppress her.

Even if you don't believe in dresses and chapel veils... try looking at yourself and say, "I'm about to walk into the house of my Creator. Would my grandmother cringe if I walked into her home like this? If she would, God definitely would." it's only an hour out of your time, once a week. What will it hurt you to dress with dignity in God's house?

Update on LizzieAnswers

Nearly 1 year ago (August 2017) I wrote a blog about a "Protestant Who Kind of Gets It" - she could see some of the lies spread about Catholicism, lies that I spent the first several blog posts trying to dispel myself, and it was nice to see a protestant who actually understood.

She wasn't quiet there, because she still had false beliefs (like birth control) but she was so close. I closed the blog post with "God Bless this girl. I will pray for her and her continued growth as a child of God. I hope if she ever finds her way to this blog, she'll find more truths about the Catholic faith."


UPDATE: 

I was looking through YouTube to find the movie based on the life of St. Therese of Lisieux because I am going to an exhibition on her life (fingers crossed) Next week, provided they haven't left yet to the next city. That is when I came across a face I recognized and the video title: Why I'm Becoming Catholic (From an ex-protestant)

Young Liz from LizzieAnswers, a protestant whose video I cited almost a year ago, has converted. Glory to God on High. 

She is still not 100% right with the faith. A lot of it is that she's young and has a lot of ideals that were embedded into her from an early age by those who hated Catholicism, and just by lack of education in the faith... but some of it is a misunderstanding because of the modernization of the Catholic Church through Vatican II and the papal misteachings, near heresies coming from Pope Francis... but as she grows to love the faith, she will learn it all. 

I'm 40 and I was 38 when I fell in love with the Traditional Latin Mass and Traditional (pre-Vatican II) Catholicism. So she has a lot of time to grow, learn and become closer to the faith. I hope she finds her way to Latin Masses where she can experience the wonder and mystery of Christ the way the church celebrated it for centuries, before the modernization. And the church will eventually come back around. Mary said as much. The church would go through turmoil, and apostasy, but it would not fall. The truth will return. And many churches are starting to revert back to Traditional Latin Masses. My church is coming up on the year anniversary of instituting the Traditional Mass on the first Saturday of the month in honor of Mother Mary. Upon the year anniversary, our church has the opportunity to extend it to more Traditional Masses than just once. 

This is happening all over. So she will eventually be exposed to the church as it once was before the modernization, and then she'll feel the splendor of the church in it's true Glory.

I'm also quite surprised she has changed her mind about sex and birth control since becoming Catholic. It was the one thing I gave her a hard time about. She didn't agree with the Catholic stance on birth control, however it is not our stance, it is biblical, and I gave examples as to how that is. While I doubt she actually read this blog, I see she is understanding the biblical precedence behind it.

God bless this young girl and her journey. I hope she finds love in Christ, and Peace in the Catholic Faith, as I have. If I come across more updates on her journey, I'll be sure to share. You can also follow her yourself, on her channel "LizzieAnswers".

Animals, FirKids, Disorder

A Catholic writer wrote an article recently about how people who look at their pets as members of the family, even calling them "furkids" are wrong. He further went to say that it is our duty to either have children as Catholics, or adopt. Anything else is disordered.

Some agree, saying that it is wrong to put animals above humans or in some way relate them to humans. They're merely animals.

But is that the truth?

God made us different than animals. He made us in his image and gave us free will. But God loved all that which he created. And all that he created with intelligence (and that includes animals) have souls that he will not dispose of. God's love is so eternal, he won't even destroy the fallen angels who became demons. God could wipe them out in a moment... but he allows them to exist and retain their angelic knowledge and powers. God can not destroy that which he originally made for good (even if their free will caused them to do evil) and who he gave intelligence.

We are different from his other creations, especially the animals, and we were created to be special... but that does not mean animals are merely animals and nothing special to him. To believe that is inaccurate and arrogant.

God made the animals for us, and one of the many roles they play in our lives is as COMPANION. 

And look at the role they play in the bible. God rode into town on what we now celebrate as Palm Sunday on a donkey. The witnesses to his miraculous birth were not the Magi, nor the shepherds, but the animals of the stable. The Dove is the symbol of God's peace. God commanded Noah to save each species of animal, two by two. Christ is often depicted in the book of Revelation as a lamb, or a lion.

As long as we remember, human life is precious, created to be special since we are in God's image, and important to protect above all else... There is nothing disordered about looking at a pet as a member of your family.

The true disorder comes on the part of the author of the article.

For one, he discounts the love God has for all his creations. Even the smallest blade of Grass is precious to God. All things have a purpose, all things are created with love. To believe otherwise, especially about an intelligent creature with the God giving capacity to feel emotion... is pure pride. It is making ourselves important instead of humble.

The disorder also comes on the part of the author for thinking it is so black and white. He states very clearly that our job as a Catholic is to either have biological children, or to adopt a child. It is a Disorder to do any less.

God does not grant all the ability to have a child. Are the barren disordered? Are nuns who live in seclusion and take the vow of silence which means they do not have children nor adopt/raise children, disordered? Are priests disordered for not taking a child into their home and raising them? After all, he merely gives a sermon on Sundays. That isn't raising a child, feeding them, clothing them, taking care of them when they're sick, reading them a bedtime story, getting their homework done... it's not the true role of a parent and according to this author, your role as a human is disordered if you don't have a child or adopt one.

Are the childless not good Catholics if they are not parents, not by choice, but by circumstance? My health, being single with no prospects right now, and the fact I've now entered my 40s, somewhat precludes me from having a child, as well as adoption. Am I less valuable as a Catholic? Or in the eyes of God am I disordered?

I have my... yes... FURKIDS. the ones God gave me to protect since a child is not in my future. They are as God created them to be. Companions. In turn they teach me patience, they teach me to be more giving, more loving, more kind. And they give love in return.

God only creates WITH PURPOSE! If God did not mean for animals to be loved and to love in return, he would not have created them with enough intelligence to feel, to be tamed and domesticated. He would not have created them to be faithful and understand what it is to be loyal.

I think God created animals more like himself than people are. They may not have free will or have been made in His image... but they are shining exaples of His love. Their love is pure, unconditional, unending. 

An animal loves you no matter what you look like, no matter how rich or poor you are, no matter if you're fat or skinny. When you've had a bad day and are cross with them because they knocked something over... they still love you unconditionally.

When you leave, they are heartbroken without you. When you return, they celebrate... so happy to see you they can barely contain their joy, even if you were only gone for 2 seconds to get the mail. If they are treated badly, or if someone they love are faced with evil... they will bite. They will even risk their lives for someone they love to protect them. Their love doesn't end. A pet looks at you and all they see is love.

That's God's love. When we turn our backs to Him, he is sorrowful, but when we come back to him, God's joy is so great, it can not be contained. When we hurt, he hurts. When we're lonely, he's there if we're only willing to accept him. When we blame him for all the wrong in our lives, he forgives us for being upset and waits for us to come to him for comfort. His love is perfect, unchanging, and eternal. 

God didn't create animals by mistake. He didn't make them to be these throw away things... or he wouldn't have given them the intelligence or the capacity to feel emotions and develop attachments. Did you know that if a deer loses a fawn, she can mourn herself almost to the point of death? She loves her child like a human loves their child, and if that child is lost, she grieves. God gave her the intelligence to know her child, and the heart to love her child. They are animals... but they are not JUST animals. 

The bible is filled with examples of how important animals actually are to God. Read Friar Jack's "I Will See You in Heaven" Is a great book that puts all of those biblical proofs on display.

Even St. Francis, a GREAT saint in the Catholic faith... he looked at all of God's creation as his family. He called the animals his brothers and sisters and even preached to them.

'Oh birds, my brothers and sisters, you have a great obligation to praise your Creator, who clothed you in feathers and gave you wings to fly with, provided you with pure air and cares for you without any worry on your part.’…The birds showed their joy in a remarkable fashion: They began to stretch their necks, extend their wings, open their beaks and gaze at him attentively.

That is from "the Sermon to the birds". St. Francis never missed an opportunity to tell animals to praise God. He called them his brothers and sisters, he related them to members of his family. Was one of our greatest saints "disordered" because he considers all that God created a part of his family in God?

Yes we are different from animals. Yes we were created set apart from animals. But no, it is not disordered to consider any of God's creations a part of our family in God, and treat them with the love and respect God calls us to treat all living things with. It is in God's most innocent creations, that we truly see him. His love, his faithfulness, his truth.

For more reading: Get Friar Jack's book "I'll see you in Heaven" for biblical proof of pets meeting us in heaven... and look up St. Francis of Assisi and animals. Lots of great resources. Then you will see... there is nothing disordered about loving an animal as a part of your family. 

Of course, as with anything, this is an over simplified response to the article I read. I could go into so much more detail, but this is a meager blog and after a while it would become redundant. I hit the finer points here. If you're interested in learning more... see the links below. 


FURTHER READING:

ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

I'll See You In Heaven

the Petrine Cross

Letter from a reader (anonymous) - "As someone who has left the church... is it that you found the use of the inverted cross as disturbing as I do? I'm looking at leaving to become a traditional Catholic and the more I look into it, the freakier the Roman Catholic church has become. There are inverted cross symbols everywhere. How do people not notice?!"

Thank you for your email. For others who would like to ask questions, please feel free to email me at traditionalcatholicamen@gmail.com. Again, I am not a Catholic Apologist or theological expert by any means, but I'll answer to the best of my abilities. Please be patient as well. I do not always have time to maintain this page as much as I would like.

To the question at hand.

1. I did not leave the church. There are many misunderstandings about Traditional Catholics. Believe it or not, this is a little more complicated to explain compared to the inverted cross in your question.

a. We did not leave the church nor did we become schismatic. Vatican II abandoned traditions. We merely chose to remain the same and follow the traditions of the Catholic faith that was set forth before Vatican II's modernization, the faith that closely resembles what Christ had laid out for those who follow him, unlike Vatican II's more protestantized form of Mass. We are still the true church. We still follow biblical teachings, traditions and Dogma passed down from age to age.

b. Most of us are not sedevacantists. Most of us believe in the Papacy and look to St. Peter as the first pope, and each pope, his successor. Most of us reject the Vatican II popes as many have taught heresy not found in Apostolic Tradition nor the bible... (such as: belief in Christ is not the only way to salvation. That is a common theme among false prophets, fake visionaries and anti-popes. Christ himself said "I am the way, the Truth and the Light, no one goes to the Father but through Me.") However, we believe in the papacy, and we believe there will one day be a legitimate successor to Peter again.

Christ called Simon, "Peter" which means "rock" and said that on that Rock he would build his church... he ordained Peter to be the first pope (leader) of the church.

2. The "inverted cross" is actually called the Petrine cross and it does belong on the throne of Peter.

When Christ rose from the dead and appeared to the Apostles, he had a conversation with Peter that is recounted by St. John. Jesus gives Peter 3 chances to proclaim his love for Christ (which erased the 3 times he denied Him.) After this, Christ then told Peter: "In all truth I tell you, when you were young you put on your own belt and walked where you liked; but when you grow old you will stretch out your hands, and somebody else will put a belt round you and take you where you would rather not go."

This is believed to have been the premonition of the way Peter would by Martyred for Christ. he would be led to his place of Crucifixion and he would stretch out his hands on the cross.

Peter was Martyred in Rome, for preaching the word of Christ, and because he felt unworthy to be crucified as Christ was crucified... he asked that he be crucified upside down. Now, while Christ telling Peter how he would be martyred does appear in the Gospel of John... the way in which Peter dies is not written in the bible. However, testimony of his martyrdom is extensive, including Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus.

It is believed Peter was Crucified not far from where Vatican City now exists, and was buried where the Vatican's St Peter's Basilica now stands. In the 1950s, bones under the basilica were unearthed. They were examined at great lengths in the 60's and found to be remains of an adult male. They are believed to be the actual remains of The Rock, Peter, on whom Christ's church was built.

Because of this ancient tradition of Peter's Martyrdom by upside down Crucifixion, because we look at him as our first Legitimate Pope, and because each legitimate pope is suppose to be his successor, it is not at all a surprise, or unusual, to find the pope wearing the Petrine cross or for there to be Petrine Crosses in Vatican City.

The Petrine Cross has been bastardized and used for malevolent purposes by those who try to mock that which is holy... Some may not even realize how holy it truly is. Especially to Christ.

So there is nothing Satanic about the Petrine Cross. They only want you to believe that.

The Upside down cross is actually a holy symbol of St. Peter's burning love for God... his obedience to Christ... his humility and humbleness as a servant of Christ. He was our Leader, but by being crucified upside down, he made the distinction that he wasn't our Savior, he wasn't to be worshiped as God the Holy Trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) he was only there to give us Christ's words, laws, and love.

So if you want to hang your hat on the appearance of the Petrine Cross in the Vatican, the home of the successor of St. Peter... the symbol of the martyrdom of St. Peter... then you're hanging your hat on a very loose nail which will eventually fall... because there is nothing unholy about the Petrine Cross.

Feminism and Catholicism

One topic that comes up quite frequently in the Catholic church is whether or not they should make a change in the Catholic church to allow for married priests as well as female priests to make up for the shortage the Catholic church has been facing. Then I was asked how I feel, as a woman, about female oppression in the church. This is where I silently hit my head against a wall. Got to love feminism being inserted where it doesn't belong.

Why does everyone think that because women can't be priests in Catholic church, that the Catholic church oppresses women?

Women have always had a place in the church, and play an important role to spiritual education and growth. They are just as important to God without the priestly collar around their neck. Think of all the greatest saints that we, as Christians, aspire to be like. St. Therese, St. Clare, St. Bernadette, St. Jacinta, St. Anne, St. Elizabeth, St. Joan of Arc, St Catherine of Siena, St Gertrude the Great, St Theresa of Avila, St Cecilia...

There are more female saints than I can actually name. Then there is the Blessed Virgin Mary. Venerated as our spiritual Mother, as the queen of angels and saints, as our most powerful intercessor who speaks directly to her Son on our behalf when we need her prayers.

All of these women are important figures and role-models of the church. We look to them as examples of how we should be, They intercede for us when we need prayers the most.

Many of these saints, in their lives spread God's word, they evangelized, yet they were not priests. Some never even took holy orders, (like becoming a sister/nun). Yet many were Martyred for Christ, many preached God's word, all lived as God wished them to. They accomplished just as much for the love of God as any priest or nun, some... even more so.

The church herself is actually referred to by female terms and is called the BRIDE of Christ. It is not a submissive term, it is not condescending, it is not oppressive.

So women are anything but oppressed in the church. If anything they are revered. The sheer amount of female saints shows how much the church loves women. Even today, we have a purpose. Our prayers are no less powerful than a man's, a woman's sacrifice for God is no less significant than a man's. That said... It is not about us, in the end, whether male or female. It is about God and what he wants. Being female doesn't mean you're not important simply because you're not allowed to be a priest. That is about tradition, not oppression. We focus too much on this, “Anything you can do I can do better” feminine equality when it comes to religion. There are other places it's acceptable (such as equal pay for equal work), however, it does not belong in the church.

There was a reason Christ chose 12 MEN as his apostles, who eventually sent out into the world as the first priests... it didn't devalue the women who followed him, by not ordaining them as well. We can still teach others about God's love, we can still pray for others and our prayers are just as strong as an ordained priest's, we can be sisters (nuns), we can be saints.

Being a priest wouldn't make us more equal since we're already equal in God's love. Wanting to be a priest for the sake of feminism, is making this about US and about our social agendas and NOT about God.

To seek feminism for the sake of feminism, against biblical tradition removes the necessary humility, humbleness and obedience necessary to the priestly vocation. It is making you and your agenda more important than God. If you truly love the church and God, you can be a sister, you can teach Catechism, study and teach theology, speak God's word, be a prayer warrior, there are so many other ways to be of service to God outside of changing the church's views on the priesthood, which was started by Christ himself when he chose the 12 male apostles.

Priests should remain men as they are a representation of Christ, who was born MAN. Unlike what feminists and liberals would have you believe today... there is nothing ambiguous about God. God is ONE God in 3 Persons... the FATHER, the SON, and the Holy Spirit. These are masculine terms used by Christ himself to describe the Holy Trinity. Christ became MAN, Christ constantly refers to God the FATHER, the Holy Spirit was sent when Mary conceived God's Word made Flesh. There is no ambiguity. The Holy Trinity is masculine. And since the priest is a representation of Christ (God the SON), then he MUST be male.

A woman can not represent the very male Jesus.

And again, the church's hierarchy is believed to have been set by Christ himself who consecrated the all-male apostles to be the first priests. He had female followers (like Mary Magdalene, and the sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha to name a few) but he ordained his male followers only. He chose the 12 apostles personally. Only Peter was said to be married, though it is believed he was a widower. The others were celibate and unmarried, like modern priests. After the betrayal of Judas, before Christ's ascension, he picked a few different MEN to be his apostles who he would in turn Ordain.

Jesus had a reason for choosing them, teaching them, then ordaining them, and not his female followers, of which he had many disciples. Jesus was a radical person by those standards back then. Not willing to stone a prostitute as was the law of Moses, flipping over tables and whipping people who were gambling and selling in the temple, speaking to a Samaritan woman when Jews and Samaritans never co-mingled. So Christ was not afraid to go against the grain of society. And since God is all knowing, if women priests were something to be praised and accepted... then Christ would have set the example by ordaining one of his beloved female disciples. Mary or Martha, Mary Magdalene... Mary, his mother who is called Blessed through the ages, would likely have been the first he ordained before ascending. That would have made it clear to all ages, that it was God's will for this to be so. Instead, This "Radical Rabble Rouser" realized exactly what the priesthood was to represent, which was HIM and his Sacrifice for us all, and thus chose all men.

It is not about oppression, it's about tradition, and trying to observe the bible. Modernization has caused a lot of trouble in religion, making religion more appeasing to man instead of asking man to make self-sacrifices to God. People want the power of the church to fight social agendas instead of spreading the word of the God. So many are trying to make religion conform so they can worship as they wish, guilt free... instead of conforming to their religion. Religion was not meant to be easy, or morally simplistic, it was never meant to lack intellectual challenge. It is about God and not bout appeasing man.

The church has no authority to change what Christ himself started. (no legitimate authority at least). Again, this is from a Traditional Catholic's perspective. I am a woman in the Catholic church and I don't feel oppressed because I understand the tradition and theology behind the roles of everyone in the church. If it is not something that attracts you, then you have to ask yourself, are you looking for religion to make you happy, or to save your soul? Then if you still don't find that in the Catholic church, instead of asking them to conform to your desires to make it tolerable for you, look into other religions. No one is forced to be Catholic. The church should not be forced to modernize based on changing social agendas.

It is not about you. It is not about Feminism. It is not about equality. It's about God and following the guidelines he set for us. If you insist that a female should be a priest simply because of Feminism... then you're doing it for love of self and not love of God.

Gift of Tongues

Someone sent me this question to my old email address which I haven't checked in a while. (If you have a question you were curious on my opinions on, the new email is TraditionalCatholicAmen@gmail.com)

It is an interesting question I've actually gotten a few times. Speaking in tongues. The person asking sent me a video (which I will not link because it is clear how "tongues" should be handled, and this person was not handling it the proper way.)

Basically this person claims they can "speak in tongues" when the Holy Spirit overcomes them. Then after going into a trance-like state, they start to spew out what sounds like gibberish. The "tongue speakers" will say they are speaking what the Holy Spirit tells them to, so it must not be a human language, it's the language of the angels or of God.

So what is tongues?

And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. (Acts 2:3-4)

In this case, "Speak other tongues" is often interpreted as "Speak other languages"

And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? So how is it that each one of us hears them speaking in his own native language: "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." (Acts 2:6-11)

So on this case... some believe the "gift of tongues" allowed the Apostles to go out and preach God's word to all, and everyone who came to hear, heard in their own language. The gift of tongues was given so all could understand God's word.

Some believe the Holy Spirit descended upon everyone present and they were all hearing and understanding a language that is a connection to heaven and not of any particular earthly language which is how so many nations understood at the exact time. They were speaking in an unknown tongue, but through the Holy Spirit all present understood.

Some believe there are different types of tongues.

1. Conversational - Speaking in other languages without realizing, and those who speak that language understand.

2. Transference - Speaking in your own language, but others who do not speak your language can understand what you are saying. You transfer the gift of tongues onto the other person through the Holy Sprit.

3. The language of God - Those speaking in a language no one understands, not even the speaker, outside of knowing they're praising God. Some who meet with those who have the same gift can often interpret for each other.

So it is unclear which if any of these Acts is referring to. Were they speaking their own language and all who heard understood through the Holy Spirit, were they speaking different languages in the tongues of those present, or were they speaking a non-known language and the Holy Spirit opened the ears of all to understand? We're not 100% sure which. We merely know, they transcended the language barrier to bring God's word to those present.

Many Tongue speakers point to St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians for the ultimate answer.

Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings, but to God. For no one listens; he utters the mystery of the spirit. On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to other human beings, for their building up encouragement, and solace. Whoever speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but whoever prophecies builds up the church. Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up.

Now, brothers, if I should come to you speaking in tongues, what good will I do you if I do not speak to you by way of revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or instruction? Likewise, if inanimate things that produce sound, such as a flute or harp, do not give out the tones distinctly, how will what is being played on the flute or harp be recognized? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? Similarly, if you, because of speaking in tongues, do not utter intelligible speech, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be talking to the air. It happens that there are many different languages in the world and none are meaningless; but if I do not know the meaning of a language, I shall be a foreigner to one who speaks it and one who speaks it a foreigner to me. So with yourselves; since you strive eagerly for spirits, seek to have an abundance of them for building up the church.

Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit is at prayer but my mind is unproductive. So what is to be done? I will pray with the spirit but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will also sing praise with the mind. Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing with the spirit, how will one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the "amen" to your thanksgiving? for you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up. I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you, but with the church I would rather speak five words with my mind so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. (1 Corinthians 14:1-19)

Some believe this could mean one of two things. That tongues is "gibberish" to most, but understandable to those with the gift from the Holy Spirit. However, St. Paul believed it is better to prophesy than to speak in tongues because speaking in tongues is only to build yourself, but prophesy is for all and will build up all. It is more beneficial to Christ's church. As St Paul Said... if you are speaking something that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said, so who will know when to say "Amen" to praise our God? Some believe this is St. Paul saying build up the church, rather than yourself, and do not be overly concerned with tongues. Not that tongues are not special gifts, but gifts should be shared to build up the church. If someone doesn't understand, then you are not building them up.

If anyone speaks a tongue, let it be two or at most three (persons) and each in turn, and one should interpret. But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Corinthians 14:27-28)

Paul states we should strive eagerly to prophesy, not to turn a scoffing eye to tongues, but everything must be done properly and in order. In other words, unless there is someone who can interpret what you speak in tongues so that all may praise God, someone who can TRULY understand and know what the message is... then "tongues" should be kept to yourself in private prayer to God.

We should strive to build up the church. To do that, all must be able to praise.

So tongues isn't something the church turns its back on... but people should keep videos of themselves speaking tongues off the internet. again, unless there is someone reputable to interpret, it should be kept private because speaking tongues that is unintelligible to others lifts YOU up, not the church. In other words, it's private prayer between you and God and no others.

Now, Tongues is often abused by all Christian religions. It's sometimes a game of "I'm holier than thou", or trying to look like you're special, a prophet, or what not, to lead people astray, take advantage of them. Televangelists use "fake tongues" frequently to up their ratings and donations. They con people into believing they too can speak tongues when they start to utter gibberish that sounds right in the excitement of the moment. That makes them feel special, and causes them to open their purses wider.

This, I believe is why St. Paul is basically telling us in a round about way to keep tongues private and just preach God's word.

Paul also stated there will be a time when tongues will cease.

Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing, if there are tongues, they will cease. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial shall pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)

The entry above is somewhat up to interpretation. Some believe Paul meant we would have the gift of tongues until the 2nd coming of Christ. Still, some see the final line "When I was a child I talked as a child, but when I became a man I put aside childish things" as to mean, he had a more perfect understanding of God's commands to love, have faith and hope, but of course, the greatest is to Love.

So it is possible the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit is revoked when we finally reach that understanding.

Either way, the gift of tongues is not to be taken lightly, nor is it to be shared if there is no interpreter, and if there is an interpreter, you should pray for the Holy Spirit to help you discern between those who are mentally ill, charlatans, and who have the true gift. When in doubt, pray. And remember, if you feel you have the gift, speak to your priest in confession, do not post it online as that goes against what Paul stated in the bible. Nonsensical tongues is for private prayer.

God bless.

- I Say Amen -

Protestant who kind of gets it.

Here is a protestant who actually gets it.

She's not 100% there yet, but if we can just educate her a little further, I can see hope for a conversion because she is almost there.

But she still has many things wrong.

For example: she does not believe in the Catholic stance on birth control because she plans to be on birth control.

For what reason? medical, the desire to not have children in marriage, or the desire to have sex outside of a Godly union so it does not lead to children.

It is not the Catholic faith that is clear on promiscuity, it's the bible. If you plan on fulfilling sexual desires before marriage and using birth control to prevent pregnancy, then you are going against the BIBLE... not the Catholic faith.

For evidence, look no further than in New Testament... letters from Apostle Paul. (Although you can find it in many other places in various ways in both the old and new testaments.)

In the letters from St Paul to the Corinthians, he states: "For "the two" it says, "will become one flesh". But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know your body is a temple of the holy spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body."

He goes on to say, "Because of cases of immorality, every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise a wife toward her husband."

he continues: "To the unmarried and to the widows I say: It is a good thing for them to remain as they are (IE abstinent), as I do, but if they can not exercise self-control, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire."

In other words, sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin, and if you can not resist the urge to have sex, then you should get married since it is better to fulfill your urges with your spouse, than to commit a sinful act that can lead you to fall from grace.

Many religions including Catholicism, for this reason, look at premarital sex the same way as adultery. If you are not married and have sex with someone who is not your spouse, then you are committing adultery on your future spouse, because you are depriving them of your fidelity for your own selfish gratification.

Paul mentions sexual immorality many times in his letters. (Hebrews, Thessalonians, Colossians, etc) That is how important he found the matter of abstinence, fidelity and the holy union of a man and woman becoming one.

Not to mention, birth control is not infallible. Many children have been born to those who thought they were protected. Either by human error or some mishap with the birth control, they welcomed a child into a situation that is outside of the family structure God intended. It is also not infallible when it comes to protecting against sexually transmitted diseases. Many who have used birth control were surprised to find they still ended up with an STD. Again, either from human error or something faulty with the "protection" itself. Birth control is not infallible. It is still a risk, even if that risk is lessened. And it leads us to feel free to indulge in sinful behavior because we feel 'safe'.

Now, there are those who have used birth control for health reasons. One is a treatment of diseases such as adenomyosis and endometriosis, Something that has nothing to do with sex. These are diseases that can lead to cancer, iron deficiencies, anemia... It has nothing to do with keeping yourself from fulfilling God's plan of joining together with your spouse as one flesh and being fruitful and multiplying. So the church does not teach that you can not use birth control for health purposes.

But if you are using birth control to stop yourself from having a child with your husband, or to not get pregnant so you can have sex without the benefit of marriage, then you are going against the BIBLE, not Catholic teachings.

Sex and what God intended for it, is in the bible. However you want to spin it, is between you and God. The Catholic church merely follows biblical teaching on the subject.

Birth control to stop yourself from having a child so you can enjoy sex without risk is about self gratification, and thus our mind is on our own pleasures and not God.

There are other things she said that didn't make sense. Maybe I misunderstood her, or she misspoke or, I'm not sure, but she still has a lot of research to do.

While I don't agree with everything she said as she still seems to have a few misconceptions about what's Catholic vs what's biblical... I give her much credit for doing her research with an open heart and open mind.

God Bless this girl. I will pray for her and her continued growth as a child of God. I hope if she ever finds her way to this blog, she'll find more truths about the Catholic faith. One day we'll tackle the somewhat complicated Papal theory.

Amen.