Share this page!

Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Twitter logo
Mar 19 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
To all the people who are liking this. Bishop McCaig actually missed the point of my original post which (apart from being tongue-and-cheek) was about tongues and nit charisms in general. The bishop's point and his Catechism citation are true but nit relevant.
Also, it is begging the question to assume that this Catechism passage refers to tongues.
Also, it is a non-sequitur to conclude that when I say "not every putative instance of the gift of tongues is veridical" that I said "charisms are not a thing"
Also, I am not subtweeting the bishop here, who very generously acknowledged my replies to his point.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P.

Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @FrTotleben

Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Mar 20
So, to build on my infallibility remarks (and the "three levels" of the profession of faith). We say that there is "development of doctrine" -- but there are really three different ways that doctrine develops, based on the way that the Church teaches the proposition.
With respect to the "first level" propositions which are formally revealed and infallibly proposed to be of divine and catholic faith and which are to be held with theological faith . . .
What the Church teaches remains absolutely and entirely the same in every century. The deposit of faith was closed with the death of the last apostle, and the church never proposes anything new to be believed in the sense that it wasn't already at least incohately in the deposit.
Read 23 tweets
Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Mar 20
The big mistake that people make in discussions on infallibility is to think that infallibility is a *degree* of certitude, when really infallibility is a *mode* of certitude.
If you (wrongly) think that infallibility is a degree of certitude, then you will also wrongly thing that calling something "non-infallible" means calling it "non-certain" (or, maybe, less than fully certain).
But this actually contradicts the teaching of the Church. Because it supposes that the only way that we can know the truth with certainty is if the truth comes under infallibility.
Read 12 tweets
Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Mar 19
A curious fact about the parable of the Prodigal Son: at least in the story itself, the son never actually repents. In fact, in all three parables of repentance in Luke 15 (lost sheep, lost coin, prodigal son) there is no repentance. Interesting, no?
The first two parables really bring out this point. The lost sheep never repents. The shepherd simply leaves the 99, goes after the one and brings it back. Then he says, "there will be more joy over one sinner who repents." -- even though the sheep didn't repent.
In the parable of the lost coin, the coin obviously never repented, the woman just found it and rejoiced. But Jesus says, "Just so...there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
Read 5 tweets
Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Mar 19
The fundamental abuse in the charismatic movement (which it gets from its uncritical adoption of revivalism) is that spectacle and personal feeling is an ungainsayable sign of the work of the Holy Spirit.
And this error doesn't get corrected because any critique of the excesses of the charismatic movement is dismissed as a rejection of the notion of charisms themselves.
Usually with very bad and obviously fallacious arguments.
Read 26 tweets
Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Mar 18
So I riled some people up with my tongue-in-cheek post about the gift of tongues. As a penance for my sins, I wrote out what my actual position is. Hopefully you think this is helpful!
academia.edu/98755286/The_G…
If I am provoked again, I will write something about Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Read 4 tweets
Fr. Peter Totleben, O.P. Profile picture
Mar 8
The real debate about Vatican II (apart from the liturgical reform) centers on three documents: Nostra Aetate, Unitas Redintegratio, and Dignitatis Humanae. This trio of documents has one theme in common: they all attempt to grapple with the irreducible pluralism of modernity.
So the real debate centers on whether and how the Church should situate itself with respect to the pluralism of the contemporary world. Or, is pluralism a theological topic that the Magisterium of the Church should address?
The difficulty with addressing pluralism is that it can be hard to avoid relativism in so doing. It seems like giving a positive account of pluralism seems to compromise the Church's claim to teach *the* truth, and to be *the* definitive locus of God's saving activity.
Read 31 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(