Charismatic Catholic

[Reepicheep]

Sure, but they didn’t personally benefit from their gifts and were under threat of death by martyrdom.

Fakes and frauds exist. That does not mean that all who claim the gifts must be frauds.
Nor is it necessary to be under threat of martyrdom in order to have the gifts.

The same way those monks do. People come to him, he spends time with them personally - no glitz, no glamor, no publicity, no cameras.

And no hope of help for those who can’t afford the journey to the hermitage. Nor for those who never hear of the healer.

I’ve seen some abysmal practices in the context of Mass/Divine Liturgy and devotions. Others were not to the spirit of solemnity. Others were not my taste but nothing forbidden.

Abuses happen, and so do frauds. That doesn’t make all claims fraudulent.

Why wouldn’t they, if they were actually moved by the authentic Spirit - one could reason that the same Spirit would lead them to act Catholic, join Catholicism, and become loyal to the Saints and the Church.

One could reason that. I disagree. One of the bravest, most faithful believers I know is not Catholic. He’s afraid for my soul because I am.
None the less he has allowed at least one semi-recovering drug addict to live in his house for a while, and taken in others (not addicted) because they were homeless, Because that’s what a believer does. “I was hungry and you fed me. I was a stranger and you took me in.” Shall I say this man does not have the Holy Spirit because he’s not a Catholic?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Well, if it doesn’t mean much one way or the other, then it doesn’t support your argument more than the other side’s argument.
And ‘friendly with the SSPX’ is a vague term. Friends with some supporters of the SSPX? Conciliatory toward the leaders? He attempted to reconcile them with the Church? None of that means he supported their claims.

Right. Well, I’m not here claiming that any of it means anything special, as the Charismatic supporters claim.

One would expect those filled with the Holy Spirit to be loving people. “Loving” does not equal “completely free of sin and imperfection”.
Further, if only those who had reached such pinnacles of perfection were allowed to receive the gifts, then the gifts would be unknown–there would be nobody to receive and exercise them.
Further, aren’t the gifts meant to build up the Church? Doesn’t that include building up the people who receive them?

Building them up how - financially, in leadership, in what way?

1. What makes you think authentic prophets are so rare?

Do a ratio of tongue speakers to confirmed prophets and you will come up multimillion to 1.

1. The gift of tongues is more common among charismatics than the gift fo prophecy? Well, so what? The Spirit moves as He will.

Or it’s much easier to mimick one and much harder to mimic the other. Prophecy can be disproven and the speaker dismissed as a fraud; simply speaking/praying/singing in tongues is like asking someone to guess what they are thinking at any given moment, the asker is left to the whims of the answerer without any way to prove or disprove the answerer.

 

[Medawlinno]

A few thoughts on “tongues” – due to length, presented in three parts.

PART 1

Let me first preface this post by making it clear that it is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’).

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of glossolalia from both a linguistic and cultural point of view. My primary concentration was on the linguistic aspect of this phenomenon. What follows is extracted from what was a considerably longer post – I have tried to edit it to be as brief as possible, but it’s still a bit long….presented in two parts.

The results of my study (as well as many I’ve read) can be summed up as follows:

Results were rather straightforward from which only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn: glossolalia in and of itself is simply an advanced form of subconscious word-play or “free-vocalization”, consisting of only those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to); anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in their glossolalia. American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” – it makes the glossic utterance sound more foreign. Glossolalia only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system’s practice. In these instances, with the possible exception of Christian glossolalia, it is viewed as a tool (with which to connect to the deity) rather than a means (by which the deity communicates to man, and visa versa). It must also be noted that certain forms of schizophrenia will present with glossolalia – this is an example glossolalia in a non-cultural/religious context.

Ermaneglossia (a/k/a “interpretation of tongues”), which in most cases goes hand in hand with glossolalia, can be viewed as nothing more than a Christian form of what is known as ‘direct spirit channeling’. Practitioners are simply channeling the Holy Spirit (sometimes via the tool of glossolalia, sometimes not). It can be done instantly by the practitioner – i.e. there’s no ‘preparation’ that needs to be done beforehand. As in other traditions that practice channeling, the method/tool used to initiate the process is not necessarily related to the actual ‘message’(the glossa). Practitioners will argue that channeling and what happens when one is speaking in tongues are two very different things; however, it really boils down to semantics – from every description given by Christian practitioners I have read or been told – both Christian and non-Christian practitioners describe essentially the same thing.

The above said however, it can be argued (and frankly comes across to me as such more often than not) that in the modern Christian tradition, interpretation of glossolalia are nothing more than random spontaneous generic praise or message phrases, typically inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance itself. In this respect it has really nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed corresponding glossic utterance.

The results of the many studies done regarding interpretation were very non-inspiring: Yes, there are people who can supposedly interpret a glossic string; however, if one were to record said string and play it to ten different people who are said to have the ability to interpret; you essentially get ten totally different answers.

The all too common come-back to the issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”

A very strong argument for tongues as being divine in nature frequently referred to by proponents is a study done by the University of Pennsylvania on the phenomenon of glossolalia. In a nutshell, the study determined via SPECT imaging that when a person exhibits glossolalia, the language producing areas of the brain are not really engaged; i.e. ‘tongues’ do not originate in the speech center of the brain. These results have been used to support its supposed divine origins or that a person is not in control of what s/he is saying. After reading the study, I would argue the results are exactly as what one would expect; it stands to reason the brain’s language producing center is not really being engaged simply because glossolalia is not language. It’s just free vocalization –simply playing with sounds does not require the language producing centers in the brain to be overly engaged. The results of the UP study are inconclusive at best in that they can be skewed to equally support either argument.

 

[Medawlinno]

PART 2

What I have also noticed is that any glossolalia that is non-Christian is automatically deemed “demonic” in origin by Christian practitioners despite the fact it’s produced the exact same way. Non-Christian practitioners of glossolalia (and schizophrenic glossolalics for that matter) are speaking and producing their glossolalia in the EXACT same way Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are – it can’t be stressed enough that there is absolutely ZERO difference between what they are doing and what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are doing. For any Christian practitioner to think that simply because they are Christian and these other practitioners are not, that what these others are doing is somehow “Satanic”, “demonic”, or “false” in nature (even though you’re both doing the exact same thing in the exact same way), is utter nonsense and religiocentric in the absolute extreme.

Biblical “tongues” (in Greek - ‘glossa’, but also ‘dialektos’) as referenced particularly in Acts and Corinthians is to always be translated and understood as real language(s), not ecstatic utterances. The only ecstatic utterances may have been those imported into the church in Corinth by converts who came from non-Christian traditions where glossolalia was quite common (e.g. Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth).
In the Pentecost narrative of Acts – tongues and “other tongues” are simply nothing more than Aramaic and Greek – the two mother tongues spoken by the Jews of the Diaspora who were in Jerusalem for the feast of Shavuot (as well as the mother tongues of all the “locals” in attendance). The disciples spoke both languages; however, religious teaching (as well as worship and praying) in the Jewish world had to be done in a specifically prescribed language – Hebrew. This is the concept of ecclesiastical diglossia – very simply put; the use of a specific language over all others with respect to liturgical use as well as teaching/preaching, etc. People were “amazed, astounded and bewildered” to hear the disciples speaking to them in their mother tongues of Greek and/or Aramaic rather than the expected (and, in this instance, culturally/socially correct) Hebrew – no language or hearing miracle, no xenoglossy, and no ecstatic utterances were necessary. The ‘list’, in Acts by the way is not a list of languages; it is a list of lands/countries the Jews of the Diaspora were from along with a few ethnic groups – not one place in the Pentecostal narrative is ANY language mentioned by name….not one. In fact, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest there was any type of a communication problem to begin with!

Corinthians also describes real languages – in this passage, Paul frequently uses the literary device of hyperbole which by many has been misinterpreted and taken literally; something it was never intended to do. To paraphrase a bit from an article written about the ‘tongues’ described in Paul’s letter:

“Paul is not a proponent of speech that is not understandable (1 Cor. 14:9) and in 1 Cor.14:10 states that no language is without meaning. Glossolalia does not fit his definition of language. He insists that whenever foreign languages are spoken in prayer, they should be translated. Throughout the whole, he is talking about real languages with real meaning. Paul’s overriding message throughout this whole chapter is that everything done in the public worship service is supposed to be edifying to the hearers. That is his key point. He is calling for intelligibility. He is appealing for clarity. When we say something in public worship, the people in the congregation need to understand the message.”

Many will use Cor. 14:4 as “proof” of tongues not being spiritual language(s) – it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearer”.

As one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.

Another way of looking at it is that, for example, I could teach you a poem or perhaps even a short song (or both) in say, Welsh, and you could learn them and recite/sing them perfectly well, even to near native fluency with enough practice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you understand Welsh or even exactly one word of what you’re actually saying/singing. As Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:14, “your spirit is praying/singing, but your understanding is unfruitful”. So, yes, “tongues” certainly can, and did, refer to real languages.

A few further thoughts on the “tongues” in Corinth paraphrased from a paper by Robert Zerhusen: “In 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul says some have ability in “kinds [Gk. ‘gene’] of tongues.” If non-cognitive non-language-utterances (“NC-NLU” - ‘tongues’) are not languages of any kind and have no cognitive structure, how can they be differentiated into “kinds” or “classes” (read ‘language families’ here)? Differentiation into individual, particular tongues types/classes seems to imply various real languages.

Sometimes tongue is singular, and sometimes plural: tongues. Can there be singular or plural NC-NLU’s? Did Paul engage in multiple NC-NLU’s (1 Cor. 14:18)? References to singular (“tongue”) and plural (“tongues”) fit the hypothesis of language (singular) versus languages (plural) much better.

 

[Medawlinno]

PART 3

NC-NLU’s cannot, by their very nature, be interpreted or translated. As W. F. Orr and J. A. Walther observed regarding the interpretation of tongues: “If the reference is to ‘languages,’ this (the word “interpretation”) should be rendered ‘translation’”. If the reference is to genuine NC-NLU’s, then interpretation or translation cannot take place.”

And finally, he states: “Careful examination of the text of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that Paul never explicitly states whether or not the language-speaker knew or understood the language that he was using. In fact, Paul’s emphasis throughout the chapter is, as Antoinette C. Wire observes, on the hearer of the problem languages, not the speakers: “He takes the hearer rather than the speaker as his touchstone, rejecting tongues (i.e. foreign languages) because the hearers do not understand them”.

Some practitioners will argue that there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” Yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today – unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.

As Linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with."
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: “Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I’m confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it.”
As a Linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia.
Xenoglossia must also be discounted in reference to ‘tongues’ – as demonstrated above, ‘tongues’ at Pentecost was clearly not xenoglossy. There are in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy……anywhere.

Despite this however, Pentecostal and Charismatic communities are rife with reported examples. Unfortunately, none are backed by any substantial proof; it amounts to essentially hearsay whereby virtually nothing is known of the speaker, his/her background, possible exposure to the purported languages, or the linguistic background of many the ‘hearers’. Are they hearing actual language or something that just “sounds” like ‘language X’? I have to discount reports of non-English speakers speaking in English – it’s just too common a language for people, even in remote areas of the world, not to pick up either consciously or subconsciously.

The subconscious mind can do some incredible things – who hasn’t struggled with learning a foreign language (the conscious mind at work) only to find that they are able to dream in the language….and, in the dream, speak it flawlessly (the subconscious mind at work).

As one internet writer put it (rather bluntly) “People who claim to speak in tongues need to understand that they are making a testable claim. The claim has been tested, numerous times. And the tongues speakers have failed the test, every single time.”

This writer further goes on to say: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not.”

The above is admittedly a somewhat harsh statement from a former tongues speaker, but it begs the question of just how accurate those three sentences really are. I suspect more than most practitioners would care to admit.

For most Christians, glossolalia is a way for that person to become closer to God (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). Many are taught from a young age to believe that the tool (i.e. ‘tongues’) is the actual medium by which one speaks to God or God speaks/reveals to man. From the many examples I have seen however, it is absolutely no different than how other faith traditions that practice glossolalia connect to their deities.

Tongues/Glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful phenomenon, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In the extreme, to some it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.

For anyone wondering, I am neither an atheist nor a so-called ‘cessationist’ (Frankly, I had never even heard the term prior to 2016).

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fakes and frauds exist. That does not mean that all who claim the gifts must be frauds.
Nor is it necessary to be under threat of martyrdom in order to have the gifts.

The threat of martyrdom would pretty much ensure that only those that actually believe they have this gift, and those that actually do have it, would publicly and openly exercise it. It’s no small wonder that these ‘gifts’ haven’t popped up openly in places like Saudi Arabia, North Korea and other places where they would probably be more ‘needed’ (since the Church is under persecution there); but where the institution of the Church is more free under governments and such actions are much less necessary to publicly evangelize, these phenomenon explode. Under threat of martyrdom, only the most loyal and authentic believer will exhibit such signs - as the Apostles did.

And no hope of help for those who can’t afford the journey to the hermitage. Nor for those who never hear of the healer.

Padre Pio was given the gift of bilocation; don’t dismiss what the Holy Spirit is capable of doing.

Abuses happen, and so do frauds. That doesn’t make all claims fraudulent.

It doesn’t but some claims are much more prone to fraud and much easier to make fraudulent. We should be weary of these.

One could reason that. I disagree. One of the bravest, most faithful believers I know is not Catholic. He’s afraid for my soul because I am.
None the less he has allowed at least one semi-recovering drug addict to live in his house for a while, and taken in others (not addicted) because they were homeless, Because that’s what a believer does. “I was hungry and you fed me. I was a stranger and you took me in.” Shall I say this man does not have the Holy Spirit because he’s not a Catholic?

Some of most kindest people I know are protestant, atheist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. As humans, made in the image and likeness of their Creator, they have the Spirit of God implanted into their hearts at their conception. This claim does not on it’s face give any value whatsoever to the claims of “charismatic movements” and its authenticity or lack thereof.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Very detailed post Medawlinno. It sort of confirms some of my suspicions that it is something anyone can do. If it’s something you want to do, fine, but an atheist could do it just as easily as a Christian once you overcome your inhibitions. If it works as a prayer form for some people, it’s fine, but personally I just feel that it is a tool to create a “buzz” from religious worship.

Which is why I don’t go to charismatic prayer meetings and others do

 

[SyroMalankara]

I appreciate the perspective of the linguist.

My concerns are mainly theological and historical. The origins of the movement and where it is today are of concern. The underlying theology that started this in the 2nd Century was a recent convert of Christianity and an ex-priest of Apollo’s temple - Montanus; the movement that re-started it in the 1960s also is outside Apostolic authority. The first movement was condemned universally by the Church, the second, because it reshaped itself under the auspices of Christian lingo and cover, has been cautiously incorporated, although under watch and under ever present derailment. Many leaders have come and gone out of the Church. I am not fond of it nor do I find the modern phenomenon en masse Apostolic or authentic. There may be someone that exhibits this authentically, but I don’t see why it would be necessary - as our linguist poster has clearly laid out.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I appreciate the perspective of the linguist.

My concerns are mainly theological and historical. The origins of the movement and where it is today are of concern. The underlying theology that started this in the 2nd Century was a recent convert of Christianity and an ex-priest of Apollo’s temple - Montanus; the movement that re-started it in the 1960s also is outside Apostolic authority. The first movement was condemned universally by the Church, the second, because it reshaped itself under the auspices of Christian lingo and cover, has been cautiously incorporated, although under watch and under ever present derailment. Many leaders have come and gone out of the Church. I am not fond of it nor do I find the modern phenomenon en masse Apostolic or authentic. There may be someone that exhibits this authentically, but I don’t see why it would be necessary - as our linguist poster has clearly laid out.

I understand the concern from those who are concerned about preserving the Mass in it’s current form. As there is truly not a more beautiful and meaningful form of worship on this planet - nothing else comes close.

What I can say as someone who has been attending Masses at a Charismatic parish is that the #1 difference I see between charismatic and non-charismatic is the constant invoking of the Holy Spirit in all that we do. And I see no negative whatsoever from this as He is our teacher and comforter. And from what I have seen, it has had a very tangible effect on our parish - very positive.

 

[MaryHelp777]

I appreciate the perspective of the linguist.

My concerns are mainly theological and historical. The origins of the movement and where it is today are of concern. The underlying theology that started this in the 2nd Century was a recent convert of Christianity and an ex-priest of Apollo’s temple - Montanus; the movement that re-started it in the 1960s also is outside Apostolic authority. The first movement was condemned universally by the Church, the second, because it reshaped itself under the auspices of Christian lingo and cover, has been cautiously incorporated, although under watch and under ever present derailment. Many leaders have come and gone out of the Church. I am not fond of it nor do I find the modern phenomenon en masse Apostolic or authentic. There may be someone that exhibits this authentically, but I don’t see why it would be necessary - as our linguist poster has clearly laid out.

The historical Origins of this Movement is Pentecost.
It’s biblical. It began in the Catholic Church at Pentecost. the early catholic church was charismatic just as the catholic charismatic renewal is. Read the acts of the Apostles and the letters of the new Testament.

Just because the Christians and Protestants have the word of God, the Bible, the Our Father, etc… does not mean these things are not catholic. Just because the Protestants also have the Holy Spirit’s charisms does not mean it is not catholic.

Are you questioning Papal Approval of the last four Popes and the approval and recognition of the Catholic Catechism of the charismatic renewal’s charisms? Are you questioning the charisms the early catholic church had starting with the Apostles and promised by Jesus in the Bible for His followers?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I understand the concern from those who are concerned about preserving the Mass in it’s current form. As there is truly not a more beautiful and meaningful form of worship on this planet - nothing else comes close.

What I can say as someone who has been attending Masses at a Charismatic parish is that the #1 difference I see between charismatic and non-charismatic is the constant invoking of the Holy Spirit in all that we do. And I see no negative whatsoever from this as He is our teacher and comforter. And from what I have seen, it has had a very tangible effect on our parish - very positive.

The Holy Spirit is constantly invoked in Eastern Liturgy, yet some of these groups start up in the Eastern Churches and start doing their ‘charismatic’ thing, meanwhile the Patristic manner of prayer handed down to us by our Fathers, are ignored, tweaked to fit into this, or forgotten.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The historical Origins of this Movement is Pentecost.
It’s biblical. It began in the Catholic Church at Pentecost. the early catholic church was charismatic just as the catholic charismatic renewal is. Read the acts of the Apostles and the letters of the new Testament.

the Charisma gifts of the Holy Spirit started at Creation in Genesis. We see it again at the reinstitution of orthodox worship at Pentecost, renewing the Church. Much of what we see today is not originated from this. It is a reworked Holiness movement offshoot that became popular in the 60s.

Just because the Christians and Protestants have the word of God, the Bible, the Our Father, etc… does not mean these things are not catholic. Just because the Protestants also have the Holy Spirit’s charisms does not mean it is not catholic.

All those things were taken from Catholicism when the protestants schismed.

Are you questioning Papal Approval of the last four Popes and the approval and recognition of the Catholic Catechism of the charismatic renewal’s charisms? Are you questioning the charisms the early catholic church had starting with the Apostles and promised by Jesus in the Bible for His followers?

No, I’m questioning the popular version of what I see that claims these approvals

 

[grannymh]

A few thoughts on “tongues” – due to length, presented in three parts.

PART 1

Let me first preface this post by making it clear that it is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’).

As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of glossolalia from both a linguistic and cultural point of view. My primary concentration was on the linguistic aspect of this phenomenon. What follows is extracted from what was a considerably longer post – I have tried to edit it to be as brief as possible, but it’s still a bit long….presented in two parts.

The results of my study (as well as many I’ve read) can be summed up as follows:

Results were rather straightforward from which only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn: glossolalia in and of itself is simply an advanced form of subconscious word-play or “free-vocalization”, consisting of only those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to); anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in their glossolalia. American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” – it makes the glossic utterance sound more foreign. Glossolalia only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system’s practice. In these instances, with the possible exception of Christian glossolalia, it is viewed as a tool (with which to connect to the deity) rather than a means (by which the deity communicates to man, and visa versa). It must also be noted that certain forms of schizophrenia will present with glossolalia – this is an example glossolalia in a non-cultural/religious context.

Thank you sincerely for this scientific study.

I have prayed in Tongues for years and I assure you I am not offended.

I do not “speak” in Tongues because according to St. Paul, that would be one of the nine Holy Spirit Gifts in the classical list found in 1: Corinthians, chapter 12. These nine gifts require extensive preparation in addition to proper discernment. Maybe the reason I am not called to this ministerial gift is that I can be lazy at times.

There is a proper use of Christian in the study. However, while the Catholic Church is Christian, not all Christians are Catholic. Thus, in my opinion, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal could be studied separately. For example, this Renewal sees the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist as primary truth. Recognizing the presence of the Good Shepherd Who promised not to leave us orphans (John 14:18) centers Tongues within the Catholic Church. In this way, praying in Tongues takes its place with all the other forms of personal prayer starting with the Our Father. Prayer is not a game where one competes for first place.

That being said…
Perhaps we could discuss language or any point in the study in comparison with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I hope that will interest you – considering that my formal science education ended in high school where I insisted that I first skin the rat before dissecting it. I took the pelt home. Nonetheless, being on CAF has taught me some basics about the natural science (inductive) method.

 

[grannymh]

Here is a simple thought/question for all those sincere people who are a tad confused about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Does one require human understanding of a language in order to name it language?

I ask because so many people are upset that they cannot understand the sounds of praying to God in Tongues. In my neighborhood, these people are known as eavesdroppers.

 

[Medawlinno]

@ SyroMalankara –

I can’t speak for the Catholic Charismatics, but in the Pentecostal world something interesting did occur in the 1900’s – Early Pentecostals were convinced that ‘tongues’ was xenoglossy; however, this quickly proved not to be the case and the doctrine of the Pentecostal understanding of tongues had to be revamped.

To paraphrase from an internet writer (a Lutheran minister), Charles Parham, one of the founders of modern Pentecostalism, was completely convinced that Biblical tongues was xenoglossy –real foreign languages; as a result, he organized and sent missionaries to foreign countries completely convinced that their ability to speak in tongues would negate the necessity of learning the languages of the countries they were going to. This quickly turned out to be, as they say, an ‘epic fail’. Not one person was successful in communicating even basic day to day needs.

The result of this ‘experiment’ was that Pentecostals were quickly becoming skeptical of tongues in general. After repeated proof that these tongues were not examples of xenoglossia, Parham’s doctrine of tongues had to be completely revamped. Pentecostalism had to rethink the entire phenomenon. They now needed another explanation for what they were practicing since it became painfully obvious real languages was not it – the end result was the modern Pentecostal “re-definition”, so to speak, of tongues as “heavenly languages” or “prayer languages”.

James K.A. Smith in “Thinking in Tongues” (April, 2008) sums it up nicely where he writes “The miraculous phenomena that manifested themselves at the Azusa Street revival, for example, compelled serious and sustained reflection. The events needed explanation, and the Pentecostal preachers and leaders turned to the resource that was most important to them: the narrative of Scripture. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy but rather a synthesis trying to make sense of experience in light of the narrative of Scripture.”

@Grannymh –

I’m not overly familiar with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, however, from a linguistic point of view, there is no difference in what you’re doing as opposed to what anyone else who practices glossolalia does – all glossolalia is produced in the exact same way and manner whether you’re a Shaman in Siberia or a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian, you’re doing the exact same thing.

What’s odd to me is that it seems that in the Christian practice of glossolalia, there are different “types” of ‘tongues’ (i.e. private prayer language, the ‘gift of tongues’ as you mention, etc.). These are really just artificial designations from a linguistic standpoint as there is absolutely no difference in the glossolalia produced.

I would argue that the ‘gift’ of tongues in 1 Cor. 12 is first, not a gift; the Greek uses ‘manifestation’ of the Holy Spirit, never ‘gift’ in reference to tongues. Second, I would argue that it is nothing more than the ability (courage, perhaps - ?) to witness/proselytize in a foreign language to non-Jews (i.e. the rest of the world) rather than having to use the previously socially and culturally ‘required’ language of Hebrew to do so., i.e. the formal breaking away, if you will, from the tradition of ecclesiastical diglossia. It should be noted that Greek was slowly becoming an acceptable language to use alongside Hebrew.

The thing is, the biblical usage of the word ‘tongue(s)’ and ‘interpretation’ are rather archaic English and should really be regarded and read/understood as ‘language(s)’ and ‘translation’. The terms ‘tongue(s)’ and ‘interpretation’ tend to make something very mundane and ‘normal’ sound very mysterious and unique. That said, as ridiculous as it may sound today, in Paul’s time, violating ecclesiastical diglossia was something that simply was not done; thus the ‘big deal’ about tongues/languages (understood to mean those other than Hebrew, and in some cases even Greek) in those passages of Acts and Corinthians.

BTW - being part Native American, I can relate to the rat and wanting the pelt

 

[Reuben_J]

…

Thanks anyway for the (name removed by moderator)ut on tongue.

No offense but the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has nothing in common with Protestant Charismatic Church, not that you are saying there is.

The fact there are Catholics who are allergic to the CCR is because they think that it is too Protestant. This is very far from the truth.

The phrase Charismatic for Catholic is a misnomer in the strict sense of the word because as the Church led by the power of the Holy Spirit, she is already charismatic. When it was decided that the name CCR was chosen it was because of want of better more appropriate word for it. Pentecostal was considered but that was even worse, even more Protestant leaning.

The word ‘Renewal’ for the Catholic Charismatic is in fact more apt. It is a renewal of their Catholic faith. That is why one see such strong and dramatic changes in those who experience this renewal. They have become stronger and more enthusiastic in their Christian lives, just like what the apostles experienced in Pentecost. Many of them received gifts of the Spirit that enable them to serve and to be used powerfully by God and to live the new life.

If anything, it is the fruits of the Spirit that many of them seem to develop, that is more important. Of course, this does not mean that they are better than any other Christians, but that they experience changes in themselves to be new Christians with a new love for God, prayers, Sacraments, the word, the strong urge to be witnesses and to serve, and faithful to the Pope and Church teachings.

For this reason. the CCR is being recognized by all the Popes since Paul VI as a great move of the Spirit to renew the Church.

Not all in the CCR has the gift of tongue much less speaking in it.

It is a great disservice for the CCR to be associated with only tongue but ignored the tremendous changes in their lives.

 

[Medawlinno]

Grannymh - “Does one require human understanding of a language in order to name it language?”

Great question!!

No, I don’t think so.

That said however, there are some underlying universal basics that ‘language’, no matter how it’s defined in detail, or no matter how it is manifested/produced, needs to contain or be composed of.

Take the animal world for example. Clearly there is communication there (despite what some people think). My own personal thought on this is that animals have been around a lot longer than us peeps – what and how they communicate is, in my opinion, far beyond anything we can grasp, but it is clearly identifiable as language, or perhaps better said, communication. It’s not always instantly recognizable as such though, and at times a much closer examination of what’s actually being done needs to be done.

I did a lot of linguistic observing many years ago when a cat we had had kittens – I was very keen to see how our cat would ‘communicate’ to her kittens – there was a lot of ‘non-verbal’ communication as one would expect, but as far as ‘verbal’ communication goes, there were a considerable array of meowing and purring sequences, each with what appeared to me to carry a very distinctive message as witnessed in the repeated responses of the kittens to each particular sequence.

The above illustrates the point that the purpose of language is communication – to convey a thought from one being to another (human or animal). With respect to human-dog communication, a writer sums it up pretty good: “A language will associate a communication action with a verb or object. If you hear the word ‘stop’ you associate it with ceasing something. Same in dogs. They cannot replicate the sound, but they can still make the association.”

The concept of making an association is key here – with glossolalia, this association is completely lacking.

Translations or “interpretations” of a glossic utterance are typically inordinately longer than the actual utterance; paragraphs of ‘interpretation’ as compared to a five second utterance. No language, no matter how it’s defined, works that way.

From a very basic universal definition of language – any language; human or otherwise – glossolalia fails.

Language comes in a wide variety of types: verbal language, ‘body language’, collective consciousness (a flock of birds flying straight and then all suddenly darting together in a completely different direction), specific movement (a honeybee telling its ‘hive-mates’ (boy that’s a weird word!) exactly how far a particular patch of pollen flowers is and even the direction and precise location by various ‘dances’ it does in the hive).

Are these later two language? Yes, I think they are – not as we understand it perhaps, but clearly language/communication of a concept conveyed from one ‘speaker’ to another’.

So, a human understanding of language is not necessarily needed to call something ‘language’.

Glossolalia, however, mimics language; it is not language in and of itself.

It is best thought of as other cultures that practice it regard it – namely, as a tool. A tool by which one connects to the divine and/or establishes a closer relationship with the divine. There is no message conveyed in glossolalia; it’s complete free vocalization. I believe rather that the message is conveyed subconsciously. In this respect, it’s really not much different than chanting, though chanting is usually done using words from real language. It’s a method, not the means.

If glossolalia presented as non-mimicking, non-repetitive syllables, and its phonemic makeup was completely different from that of the speaker, I would say, perhaps it could be construed as a form of language, but it does not. Further, spoken language requires some form of structure, whether that structure is very simple or incredibly complex doesn’t matter, but spoken language requires structure. I don’t think that’s a human way of looking at (spoken) language – I think that’s more a universal component of spoken language.

In the broadest of senses, glossolalia appears to do just that, i.e. convey a message. But upon further examination, it is really just a façade; the communication/connection, whatever one wishes to name it, occurs at the subconscious level using real language (the native language of the person involved).

Just my two kopeks.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The thing is, the biblical usage of the word ‘tongue(s)’ and ‘interpretation’ are rather archaic English and should really be regarded and read/understood as ‘language(s)’ and ‘translation’. The terms ‘tongue(s)’ and ‘interpretation’ tend to make something very mundane and ‘normal’ sound very mysterious and unique. That said, as ridiculous as it may sound today, in Paul’s time, violating ecclesiastical diglossia was something that simply was not done; thus the ‘big deal’ about tongues/languages (understood to mean those other than Hebrew, and in some cases even Greek) in those passages of Acts and Corinthians.

It’s a big deal today, imagine if a priest celebrating the Extraordinary Form were to decide on his own to celebrate it in English - the congregation would be shocked in a negative way. The first time I saw an Ordinariate Mass, I was amazed at it’s elegance and similarity to the Latin EF Mass and in English. The same awe is there when the Malankara Syriac Divine Liturgy is celebrated in English with certain phrases in Syriac and even Malayalam - three languages in one Liturgy heard fluently.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Grannymh - “Does one require human understanding of a language in order to name it language?”

Great question!!

No, I don’t think so.

That said however, there are some underlying universal basics that ‘language’, no matter how it’s defined in detail, or no matter how it is manifested/produced, needs to contain or be composed of.

Take the animal world for example. Clearly there is communication there (despite what some people think). My own personal thought on this is that animals have been around a lot longer than us peeps – what and how they communicate is, in my opinion, far beyond anything we can grasp, but it is clearly identifiable as language, or perhaps better said, communication. It’s not always instantly recognizable as such though, and at times a much closer examination of what’s actually being done needs to be done.

I did a lot of linguistic observing many years ago when a cat we had had kittens – I was very keen to see how our cat would ‘communicate’ to her kittens – there was a lot of ‘non-verbal’ communication as one would expect, but as far as ‘verbal’ communication goes, there were a considerable array of meowing and purring sequences, each with what appeared to me to carry a very distinctive message as witnessed in the repeated responses of the kittens to each particular sequence.

The above illustrates the point that the purpose of language is communication – to convey a thought from one being to another (human or animal). With respect to human-dog communication, a writer sums it up pretty good: “A language will associate a communication action with a verb or object. If you hear the word ‘stop’ you associate it with ceasing something. Same in dogs. They cannot replicate the sound, but they can still make the association.”

The concept of making an association is key here – with glossolalia, this association is completely lacking.

Translations or “interpretations” of a glossic utterance are typically inordinately longer than the actual utterance; paragraphs of ‘interpretation’ as compared to a five second utterance. No language, no matter how it’s defined, works that way.

From a very basic universal definition of language – any language; human or otherwise – glossolalia fails.

Language comes in a wide variety of types: verbal language, ‘body language’, collective consciousness (a flock of birds flying straight and then all suddenly darting together in a completely different direction), specific movement (a honeybee telling its ‘hive-mates’ (boy that’s a weird word!) exactly how far a particular patch of pollen flowers is and even the direction and precise location by various ‘dances’ it does in the hive).

Are these later two language? Yes, I think they are – not as we understand it perhaps, but clearly language/communication of a concept conveyed from one ‘speaker’ to another’.

So, a human understanding of language is not necessarily needed to call something ‘language’.

Glossolalia, however, mimics language; it is not language in and of itself.

It is best thought of as other cultures that practice it regard it – namely, as a tool. A tool by which one connects to the divine and/or establishes a closer relationship with the divine. There is no message conveyed in glossolalia; it’s complete free vocalization. I believe rather that the message is conveyed subconsciously. In this respect, it’s really not much different than chanting, though chanting is usually done using words from real language. It’s a method, not the means.

If glossolalia presented as non-mimicking, non-repetitive syllables, and its phonemic makeup was completely different from that of the speaker, I would say, perhaps it could be construed as a form of language, but it does not. Further, spoken language requires some form of structure, whether that structure is very simple or incredibly complex doesn’t matter, but spoken language requires structure. I don’t think that’s a human way of looking at (spoken) language – I think that’s more a universal component of spoken language.

In the broadest of senses, glossolalia appears to do just that, i.e. convey a message. But upon further examination, it is really just a façade; the communication/connection, whatever one wishes to name it, occurs at the subconscious level using real language (the native language of the person involved).

Just my two kopeks.

Thank you for your expertise. Could you perhaps explain some examples of universal language structures that might further shed light? An example I like to give is a linguist like JRR Tolkien/ His mythical languages were purely fantasy, no native speakers exist - yet they are fully within the parameters of a created language and can convey conversation. He and his brother would actually carry on conversations in their made up language.
The same could be said for ‘speakers’ of the Jedi language or Star Trek Klingon. Purely made up, yet they all follow a structure and pattern.

 

[grannymh]

quote=Medawlinno; post 115

BTW - being part Native American, I can relate to the rat and wanting the pelt

Respecting the pelt was my way of honoring the beauty of the rat. Could it be that we need to recognize the beauty of Tongues? I am not saying that one has to believe in Tongues. I am simply suggesting that we look at Tongues and talk about what we discover.

To begin. Your response to SryoMalankaara about something interesting occurring in the 1900’s is important because it eventually led to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the 1960’s. The story of Agnes Ozman is important. Please correct my memory – the book “Cross and the Switchblade” was also a part of the puzzle in the 1960’s. In a sense, all this forced the Catholic Church to go back to St. Paul writing to his beloved Corinthians.
From post 115

James K.A. Smith in “Thinking in Tongues” (April, 2008) sums it up nicely where he writes “The miraculous phenomena that manifested themselves at the Azusa Street revival, for example, compelled serious and sustained reflection. The events needed explanation, and the Pentecostal preachers and leaders turned to the resource that was most important to them: the narrative of Scripture. The resulting implicit theology was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy but rather a synthesis trying to make sense of experience in light of the narrative of Scripture.”

Catholic Bishops quickly gathered to find the explanation for the events which followed the “Retreat at Duquesne University”.

Before I forget – the proper term “Manifestation of the Holy Spirit” is used in describing charismatic gifts, especially those in St. Paul’s list found in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12.

Book link, page 42, Chapter Five, “Charismatic Gifts in General” continue to page 43
brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf

"A charismatic gift is a manifestation of God’s power and presence given freely for God’s honor and glory and for the service of others.

Specifically the term refers to manifestations of the power of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the scriptures, especially after Pentecost, and which have always remained with the Church in both her teaching and practice."

It seems to me that your comment – " all glossolalia is produced in the exact same way and manner whether you’re a Shaman in Siberia or a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian, you’re doing the exact same thing."-- needs an additional look at the mind set of the person(s) involved in Tongues when there is need for “compelled serious and sustained reflection.”

Looking at both the 1900’s and the 1960’s/1970’s, is it important to look at the psychology mind set factor? Perhaps you have already talked about psychology and I missed it. I need to catch up with the terminology.

Reviewing what I wrote above. It appears that the Scripture narrative was an important factor in the past. Today, within the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, the Scripture narrative is major. The difficulty is that the science realm of glossolalia does not permit a spiritual puzzle found in Scripture.

First, I want to make sure that I fully understand the scientific linguistic point of view. I am in awe of the rational brain. (shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27)

It looks like the rain is stopping and I can do some important errands. I am so sweet, I would melt.