Charismatic Catholic

[SyroMalankara]

• SyroMalankara, you are not in the CCR, leave their spirituality to them. If you are against it, you are against a legitimate spirituality that is being recognized as one of the spirituality in the Church. Not to say, the Pope himself is very conspicuously supporting it.
• CCR is only a spirituality; it does not concern you nor will it replace SyroMalankaran Liturgical prayers. In fact it does not replace anything which it is not.
• The rest of your accusation is not valid. You are already told that there is no such thing as Charismatic mass.
• I agree that you should reflect as to why there is so much fear about the CCR. If SyroMalakaran parish should diminish because of the CCR, well, it is certainly not your fault or within your control, and there is nothing you can do about it. But my guess is, it won’t.
• Peace be with you.

I like these reflections you stated, and it is something i will think about before replying fully. But i want you to be aware that i am not singling out CCR, charismatic spirituality - whatever that is exactly, or tongues as i understand it (we seem to differ on the meaning of the word). I have the same concerns with importing Latin devotions like the Rosary (which in itself is entirely beautiful and wonderful) into the public practices of a Church that is outside of that Tradition. All kinds of liturgical chaos comes about as a result.

In addition, while im not an official member of CCR or any charismatic group like it, I recognize that God has blessed me with certain gifts/charisms or whatever you want to call them - a certain gift for languages, discerning of spirits and ministry/service/administration. Much of what I read from CCR, other recognized groups and a lot of their service is admirable.

 

[Reuben_J]

Much of what I read from CCR, other recognized groups and a lot of their service is admirable.

Thanks.

 

[Reuben_J]

Here is a question for the future.

When we are examining Tongues, what is wrong with glossolalia?

Maybe can start a thread on that, so that it should not be always associated with the CCR. If I have the time, I don’t mind to participate.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe can start a thread on that, so that it should not be always associated with the CCR. If I have the time, I don’t mind to participate.

I am Catholic and loyal to the Catholic Church. I am part of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal even though there is not an active prayer group in the area. I will remain associated with the CCR.

Medawlinno has provided excellent information about language in a variety of posts on this thread. I am grateful for these presentations. There is no need for us to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Reuben_J]

I am Catholic and loyal to the Catholic Church. I am part of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal even though there is not an active prayer group in the area. I will remain associated with the CCR.

Medawlinno has provided excellent information about language in a variety of posts on this thread. I am grateful for these presentations. There is no need for us to reinvent the wheel.

Look here. Your suggestion, not mine. I do not care about discussing this. I can only contribute if I feel the need to clarify.

There is no standard doctrine on tongue and your understanding on it can differ from mine. Does not mean you are wrong or I am right. We can disagree however.

 

[grannymh]

This is the original post 200

"Here is a question for the future.

*When we are examining Tongues, what is wrong with glossolalia?" *

​

I should have added that I will examine Tongues as they are used in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

​

 

[Reuben_J]

This is the original post 200

"Here is a question for the future.

*When we are examining Tongues, what is wrong with glossolalia?" *

​

Yep, for the future, and if there is a thread on it, I don’t mind to contribute.

What I am wary of is that it often been used as a topic for people to discredit the Renewal. So a thread by itself would be perhaps a good idea.

The Renewal has come a long way to where it is now. Tongue is the least that should be singularly identified with this. But thanks God, today the Renewal is not an issue with most Catholics, except for those who are still living in the past.

The Renewal is a relatively new phenomenon, next year being the 50th anniversary, and very much younger in many parishes. Moreover, the Renewal manifests in many movements that not necessarily where people know about tongue but one can see songs are being used and new enthusiasm abound.

There is really no single authority where people can teach authoritatively about it. When it was first experienced, people were puzzled, what was it? They tried to look into the scripture and to explain it from there.

But what was unmistakeable, was the effect these people experienced. The tremendous changes in a love for God, prayers, word, Sacraments, Church, Pope and personal holiness. There were healing and dramatic conversion happened. So these really have to come from God. If it was from the Devil, it would surely bring us away from God.

 

[Medawlinno]

From some of the posts here, there seems to be a differentiation wanting to be made between ‘tongues’ and ‘glossolalia’.

From a purely linguistic standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between the two; they are one in the same. ‘Tongues’ is simply the Pentecostal/Charismatic (and on a more global scale – ‘Christian’) nomenclature for what any linguist/anthropologist would call ‘glossolalia’.

The meaning of the term ‘tongues’ as used in the Bible is, of course, the subject of endless debates, but when these passages are read in a non-religious, historical context, they can only be regarded as language(s), i.e. real languages spoken by the various people involved. In Acts these were Aramaic and Greek, in Corinth, these were many due to the city’s position on two seas and it being a major international port of its day.

The term ‘interpretation’ which many use to support the idea/belief of ‘tongues’ as spiritual language(s) rather than real (foreign) languages, should really be read as simply “translate”.

With regard to “interpretation” –

The Greek text uses the word “hermenia” – of the something like 21 times the word and its variants are used in the Bible, 18 or 19 of them clearly have the meaning of ‘translate’.

The word in Greek literally means “to explain”. If we take a look at this with regard to translation, we first need to realize that there are three different types of translation– literal: the linguistic structure of the source is followed, but is normalized according to the rules of the target language, Word-for-word: each word in the source language is translated by a word in the target language. The result often makes no sense, especially if idiomatic constructions are used (a great one that comes to mind is “forty days and forty nights”). Free: the linguistic structure of the source language is ignored, and an equivalent is found based on the meaning it conveys.

Given the above, I would argue that “hermenia”, as Paul uses it in his letter, is best regarded as “free-translation”.

When it comes to languages, ‘interpretation’ and ‘translation’ are virtually interchangeable. When you get right down to it, it boils down to semantics: when you translate from language ‘X’ to language ‘Y’, you’re basically ‘explaining’ (interpreting) in language ‘Y’ what is being said in language ‘X’ either as literally as possible (a literal translation) or in idiomatic ‘Y’ (a free-translation).

Even today, both ‘interpret’ and ‘translate’ are used virtually interchangeably when it comes to languages. A person who translates English into ASL (American Sign Language) is said to be an “ASL Interpreter” rather than an “ASL Translator”, one ‘interprets’ for the deaf, not ’translates’ (though I have heard “translate’ on occasion). A government translator may be asked to provide an English ‘interpretation’ of a foreign ambassador’s address in his/her native language, etc.

When examining the semantic subtleties between ‘interpretation’ and ‘translation’, something interesting becomes apparent: ‘interpretation’ implies more to translating something spoken as opposed to something written. For example, take “German (language) Interpreter” vs. “German (language) Translator”. At first glance, the two would seem almost interchangeable; however, if you really get down to semantic particulars, a ‘German Translator’ may indeed translate the spoken word as well as the written, but the term ‘German Interpreter’ would typically never be used for one who specifically deals with written texts. Interpretation (hermenia – “to explain”) seems to imply translating specifically spoken language, which is exactly the case with what Paul is describing, i.e. interpreting, explaining; in other words, giving a free translation of spoken language.

Religious texts tend to favor archaic language (and, it seems a lot of preachers like to use it as well). The modern rendition of “interpretation of tongues” should read “translation of languages”, understood specifically to mean “free translation of the spoken word”.

Bottom line is that Paul’s “tongues” is referring to the many (real) foreign languages one would typically hear in a multicultural port city like Corinth, and his use of the word “interpret” or “interpretation” is to be understood as free translation of those spoken languages.

As far as examining tongues as they are used in the CCR – I tried taking a look at what’s out there on things like YouTube for examples of specifically Catholic Charismatic tongues – there do not appear to be many examples; mostly Pentecostal and other Charismatic groups, though I wouldn’t expect it to sound any different.

In light of some of my posts, I might encourage speakers to record their ‘tongues’, play it back (several times if you have to) and try and analyze what you’re hearing; listen to discern the open syllables, the simplification of sound patterns, the repetition, the absence of sounds not found in your native language(s), the word stress and intonation essentially the same as your native language, etc.

 

[grannymh]

From some of the posts here, there seems to be a differentiation wanting to be made between ‘tongues’ and ‘glossolalia’. (/quote)

I have a crazy idea. Going by your description of glossolaia, when would you say that phenomenon was somehow recognized in polite society in a stabilized geographic location.

Maybe I have grown crazy due to all the Catholics hung up with language What would happen if Paul never considered Tongues as a proper language in the same terms we apply to language?.

 

[Medawlinno]

Just a quick response for now…

On the first question- not sure if maybe there’s a typo or something missing (?) - I don’t quite follow the “when would you say that phenomenon was somehow recognized in polite society in a stabilized geographic location” part. Do you mean “what” instead of “when”, or am I just missing something?

As to the second thought - I would have to venture a guess that if Paul did not regard ‘tongues’ as real language he would have either used another word (or words) to describe it, or would have clarified in his letter exactly what he meant.

That clarification however though depending on how he stated it, may have left modern readers in just as much of a lurch. He could have clarified it by saying something like “you know what I’m talking about, remember what I pointed out to you last time I was there” or, “as Perseus did during my last visit” sort of thing. The original reader would know what he was referring to, but we’d still have no clue.

In other words, I think if he referred to or intended ‘tongues’ to be understood by the original intended reader of the letter as something other than real language, he would have clarified it somehow.

In that case, without a definite description, we’d really have no clue to what exactly he was referring to, but I don’t think that’s the case here. The context and even location seems to infer only to real language(s).

 

[Medawlinno]

In rereading your first thought, I think I might have an idea what you mean - I’ll post more tomorrow.

 

[grannymh]

Just a quick response for now…

On the first question- not sure if maybe there’s a typo or something missing (?) - I don’t quite follow the “when would you say that phenomenon was somehow recognized in polite society in a stabilized geographic location” part. Do you mean “what” instead of “when”, or am I just missing something?

What is a better word. Was the word glossolalia in use during Paul’s travels which is why I was looking for stabilized community such as the location of Corinth etc.

As to the second thought - I would have to venture a guess that if Paul did not regard ‘tongues’ as real language he would have either used another word (or words) to describe it, or would have clarified in his letter exactly what he meant.

That clarification however though depending on how he stated it, may have left modern readers in just as much of a lurch. He could have clarified it by saying something like “you know what I’m talking about, remember what I pointed out to you last time I was there” or, “as Perseus did during my last visit” sort of thing. The original reader would know what he was referring to, but we’d still have no clue.

In other words, I think if he referred to or intended ‘tongues’ to be understood by the original intended reader of the letter as something other than real language, he would have clarified it somehow.

In that case, without a definite description, we’d really have no clue to what exactly he was referring to, but I don’t think that’s the case here. The context and even location seems to infer only to real language(s).

In 1 Corinthians 14: 10-11, Paul is definitely aware of “many different languages in the world, and none is meaningless;” Yet, for Paul, there is a spiritual world in addition to the material world. Here is my dilemma. Paul preaches about the spiritual world. The Holy Spirit is part of the spiritual world. Could Paul have the power to restrict the Holy Spirit’s communication via language to only the material world? Could a Divine Being, such as the Holy Spirit, determine the type of communication coming from mortals? Personally, this is not an issue of belief or non-belief. It is an issue that in order to understand how Paul used language, we have to consider the environment he was living in. Paul was at home in both the material world and spiritual world.

Understanding Paul’s environment, is why I am so curious about glossolalia being a popular word. A bit of clarification. For me, it is not necessary to have the exact word glossolalia. Were there people who exhibited glossolalia?

Maybe tomorrow, I will have a better way to express this.

 

[grannymh]

In rereading your first thought, I think I might have an idea what you mean - I’ll post more tomorrow.

Note: I was writing and posting so I did not see this message. I look forward to tomorrow.

 

[Medawlinno]

OK - if I understand you correctly….

The term ‘glossolalia’ itself is not that old – coined in the late 1800’s, something like that. Glossolalia as a phenomenon, i.e. free vocalization used by practitioners as a tool to connect to the spirit world/deity, etc. is ancient.

The best known example in the ancient “European” world was the Oracle at Delphi dedicated to Apollo. There were also sanctuaries to Apollo elsewhere including Corinth. The utterances of Delphi seem however to be specific to that location. These “Delphic predictions” were not common, or maybe a better way to put it is that they were not something typical that took place with the worship of Apollo; Delphi (and another location near Ephesus) I think are the only two known places where this happened in connection with the worship of Apollo.

That said, however, contemporary accounts do not describe what we’d call glossolalia; the Oracle is frequently described as ‘cryptic’, but never specifically ‘unintelligible’ so that the utterances needed some sort of translation. There appears to be no contemporary evidence that the Oracle at Delphi spoke unintelligibly, i.e. glossolalia.

The sanctuary however had been razed to the ground about a century before Paul wrote his letters, so it’s doubtful the practice would have survived even at Delphi, let alone Corinth.

Other ancient places that practiced glossolalia include Egypt, (what we today call…) the Middle East, India and China.

Glossolalia is still used around the world today by various cultures where its use has been going on in those cultures for thousands of years and is regarded as a perfectly normal and acceptable part of the culture. I’m not familiar with every one of them, but it seems that in these cultures, unlike Christian ‘tongues’, the practice is not widespread amongst large groups of people. Rather, it is limited to a small group of spiritual leaders, healers, etc. that employ glossolalia as a tool by which to connect to the spirit world or a deity. Modern examples can be found all over the world; from various peoples of Siberia, to Africa, to the Pacific (Borneo and Micronesia), to Native Americans. Some of these use an interpreter/translator, some do not; the ‘speaker’ and ‘interpreter’ are one in the same.

Not sure if that answers your question or not.

Your last thought/question is, I think rather tough.

I think it very likely that Paul, in his many travels, probably encountered what we would today call glossolalia, possibly right in Corinth itself, but it’s hard to know what he may have thought about ‘glossolalia’ since he never wrote specifically about it in his surviving letters. He seems however to appeal for clarity in public worship – i.e. speak so that everyone can understand and benefit even if you need to use a translator to do so. If there’s not one available, better not to say anything at all.

 

[grannymh]

OK - if I understand you correctly….

With a third reading, I am finding evidence to take with me when I tackle the possible use of Glossolalia as a way to discover the fundamental meanings of the special Tongues in Paul’s corrections to the Corinthians.

However, there is one thing which needs clarification. There could be a scientific reason for Glossolalia because the mind and brain does not always connect perfectly. The ability to communicate via an intelligible string of sounds (language) requires unique brain cells working in union with each other.

Down Syndrome, because it is considered a random type genetic chromosomal disorder, could have occurred at any point in time. Because it can affect intellectual ability, it is reasonable that some of the physical/mental skills necessary for true language can be affected. In addition, the first humans had an inherent sense of the super-natural meaning that there was some recognition of something not in the normal material world of humankind. Ancient legends and gods are evidence of the human sense that there is “something out there.” The following is pure speculation. Is there a possibility that free vocalization, which at times was unintelligent to listeners, was not considered normal for the material world? Coupled with a sense of the spiritual world, there could be a conclusion that a strange structure of utterances was a tool to lift one out of the material world and thereby connect with some kind of spirit world/deity.

The fact that free vocalization is ancient does not omit the possibility of it occurring “genetically” in descendants. However, in the centuries before and after the presence of Jesus Christ, people generally referred to work of demons.

What I am now exploring is a scientific explanation for Glossolalia which could exist in individuals depending on individual cases of Down Syndrome. Considering the lack of medical science at the beginning of the Christian area, surviving Down Syndrome victims would be rare and overlooked. Nonetheless, shamans continued the perception of a tool to connect to the spirit world/deity. The Hebrew people also believed that it was possible for humans to connect with the spiritual world of the Creator God.

If the above makes minimum sense, then it is possible for Paul to put the sounds of Tongues in last place when considering communication between a resident in the material world and a Super-Natural Being in a super-natural spiritual world. Doing this, it then becomes essential to differentiate the Christian practice from shamans when the public (assemblies) is involved.

Unfortunately, I have to stop here. I have a week of heavy commitments and it is doubtful as to when I can properly return to CAF. I will try to read posts, but due to the complexity when science and religion are in the same arena, I need “peace” to think.

Thank you sincerely for all your work. I happen to love science in all its forms.

The term ‘glossolalia’ itself is not that old – coined in the late 1800’s, something like that. Glossolalia as a phenomenon, i.e. free vocalization used by practitioners as a tool to connect to the spirit world/deity, etc. is ancient.

The best known example in the ancient “European” world was the Oracle at Delphi dedicated to Apollo. There were also sanctuaries to Apollo elsewhere including Corinth. The utterances of Delphi seem however to be specific to that location. These “Delphic predictions” were not common, or maybe a better way to put it is that they were not something typical that took place with the worship of Apollo; Delphi (and another location near Ephesus) I think are the only two known places where this happened in connection with the worship of Apollo.

That said, however, contemporary accounts do not describe what we’d call glossolalia; the Oracle is frequently described as ‘cryptic’, but never specifically ‘unintelligible’ so that the utterances needed some sort of translation. There appears to be no contemporary evidence that the Oracle at Delphi spoke unintelligibly, i.e. glossolalia.

The sanctuary however had been razed to the ground about a century before Paul wrote his letters, so it’s doubtful the practice would have survived even at Delphi, let alone Corinth.

Other ancient places that practiced glossolalia include Egypt, (what we today call…) the Middle East, India and China.

Glossolalia is still used around the world today by various cultures where its use has been going on in those cultures for thousands of years and is regarded as a perfectly normal and acceptable part of the culture. I’m not familiar with every one of them, but it seems that in these cultures, unlike Christian ‘tongues’, the practice is not widespread amongst large groups of people. Rather, it is limited to a small group of spiritual leaders, healers, etc. that employ glossolalia as a tool by which to connect to the spirit world or a deity. Modern examples can be found all over the world; from various peoples of Siberia, to Africa, to the Pacific (Borneo and Micronesia), to Native Americans. Some of these use an interpreter/translator, some do not; the ‘speaker’ and ‘interpreter’ are one in the same.

Not sure if that answers your question or not.

Your last thought/question is, I think rather tough.

I think it very likely that Paul, in his many travels, probably encountered what we would today call glossolalia, possibly right in Corinth itself, but it’s hard to know what he may have thought about ‘glossolalia’ since he never wrote specifically about it in his surviving letters. He seems however to appeal for clarity in public worship – i.e. speak so that everyone can understand and benefit even if you need to use a translator to do so. If there’s not one available, better not to say anything at all.

 

[Medawlinno]

Guess this will need to be two posts due to length…

“There could be a scientific reason for Glossolalia because the mind and brain does not always connect perfectly. The ability to communicate via an intelligible string of sounds (language) requires unique brain cells working in union with each other.”

With normal language, yes – Let’s take an example…. Simple everyday reading mistakes work good. With reading a text, the brain does not look at individual letters, but rather the shape of the word as made by the letters. Simple dyslexia (by that I mean the common every day mistakes people make reading a word wrong, etc.) is because when a person is reading at a fast clip, the brain “mis-reads” the shape of the word, not the letters. In going back and re-reading the mistake, you’re looking at the actual letters. The brain can also “fill in the blanks” of missing vowels and to some extent also letters that are turned around and written wrong either on purpose or not.

Consider the following:

I cnduo’t bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slel(name removed by moderator)g was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.

Perfect example of the brain looking at shapes. Now you can begin to get an idea of what dyslexia is all about 

S1M1L4RLY, Y0UR M1ND 15 R34D1NG 7H15 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17.

Good example of the brain “filling in” the missing letters even though there are graphic ‘markers’ in those spots.

The thing with glossolalia, as a well- known and very frequently sited study done the Univ. of Penn. Demonstrated with SPECT imaging, the language producing centers of the brain are really not all that engaged in the production of glossolalia/tongues. Many have used this as evidence of it being divine in nature, that it’s not the actual person in control, etc., however, I think the answer is much simpler and the results of the study are somewhat inconclusive and can be skewed either way: it stands to reason the language centers of the brain are not all that engaged: glossolalia is not language; it is random free vocalization – no need to think about doing it, you just do it. Sort of like humming a random tune in your head; you’re subconsciously making it up as you go along. Another reason why speakers cannot repeat what they’ve just said, let alone try to write it down.

The idea therefore that the mind and brain do not always connect perfectly does not really apply to glossolalia – they don’t have to; it’s completely free vocalization.

“What I am now exploring is a scientific explanation for Glossolalia which could exist in individuals depending on individual cases of Down Syndrome.”

I have never heard of Down’s Syndrome being at all related somehow to glossolalia. The only psychological condition (if I may call it that) where glossolalia is known to present is in some patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenic glossolalia is produced the same way as ‘tongues’. From the few examples I have heard, it does sound a bit different than what tongue speakers are doing in that schizophrenic glossolalia, to me anyway (again, based on the few examples I have heard), actually sounds more like ‘real language’; I had to listen to one speaker’s example more than once to determine that what I was listening to was glossolalia; the telltale patterns were there, just a bit more subtle in this speaker.

“Is there a possibility that free vocalization, which at times was unintelligent to listeners, was not considered normal for the material world? Coupled with a sense of the spiritual world, there could be a conclusion that a strange structure of utterances was a tool to lift one out of the material world and thereby connect with some kind of spirit world/deity.”

I think this sounds like what I mean by that in many cultures glossolalia is a tool by which to connect to the “spirit world” or the deity, not the means by which any communication was done between the two. It seems it (glossolalia) has always had an aura of the ‘other world/spirit world/realm of the gods,’ etc. In most cultures, it’s only certain people that practice it or perhaps a better way to put it is, are ‘allowed’ to practice it. But in these cases, it’s not something they just get out of the blue (as far as I know anyway), but rather something they are taught to do by their teacher/mentor, usually an elder shaman/healer/priest(ess), etc. who passes this knowledge on.

 

[Medawlinno]

Here’s the other half…
“The Hebrew people also believed that it was possible for humans to connect with the spiritual world of the Creator God.”*

Possible, if glossolalia in this tradition were attested. Biblical usage of “tongue(s)” however seem to refer solely to real language(s).

It’s only in modern times that (modern) glossolalia has been regarded as private prayer language or the language of angels, or things along those lines – I suspect a lot has to do with the failure of Parham’s missions and the fact he was convinced ‘tongues’ was xenoglossy. When that was proven beyond a doubt not to be the case, the entire Pentecostal doctrine and understanding of ‘tongues’ was revamped. The end result was the modern Pentecostal “re-definition”, so to speak, of tongues as “heavenly languages” or “prayer languages” and the like.

There seem to be two ways of looking at the “problem tongues” in Corinth – either as real languages or glossolalia (as practiced by the native religion(s)) which found its way into Christian practice in Corinth.

I do not believe it was glossolalia, but rather real languages given the city involved (Corinth) and its multicultural population. It would seem to me that if what would have been considered as the ‘pagan practice of glossolalia’ started to be used in this new fledgling religion called Christianity, Paul would have squashed it out immediately. Instead we see him setting down rules by which these tongues had to be used. The rules set down imply real languages being referred to, not the glossolalia of some of the non-Christian inhabitants

 

[grannymh]

I have never heard of Down’s Syndrome being at all related somehow to glossolalia.

Me too. I have not heard of Down’s Syndrome being related to glossolalia.

When Down’s Syndrome popped in my head, I wanted to dance on the ceiling because I can still think like I did “centuries” ago. Back then, before the birth of Google, when we were solving a problem or finding answers to a perturbing question, we would throw any kind of a silly idea into the discussion. Back then it was “run it up a flagpole and see who salutes.”

Because Glossolalia is external physical anatomical sounds, I started to look at the entire physical anatomy to find a source and/or cause. With language, we look at the complete speech mechanism, tongue, lips, etc., to decipher how sounds are formed into a discernible language. We now have the capability to look at the physical brain as part of the total human genome. Down’s Syndrome popped into my head because of all the knowledge we have about it. A brief search gave me enough information that an undiagnosed condition could happen at any point in human history.

My intention was not to “relate” the syndrome to glossolalia.

That would take hundreds of research papers to do that. My intention was to find a scientifically known physical condition, preferably due to genetics, that could exist at any point where there was a modern human anatomy. Also, it would be possible for the individual to somehow interact in some manner with the condition. Because of the range of Down’s Syndrome, I was pleased with it.

Unfortunately, one of my commitments is calling me in a loud voice. Thus, I cannot continuing commenting especially on the concept – “The only psychological condition (if I may call it that) where glossolalia is known to present is in some patients with schizophrenia.” and following.

Personally, I am a blood and guts individual so I prefer using the physical anatomy. When I read science research papers in the past, I usually went straight to the materials and methods section. The physical nitty-gritty is important to me. That is why I need to explore the nitty-gritty of what could be physically happening in ancient human environment.

Thank you for your science approach.

 

[ffg]

I have attended some charismatic protestant services were I witnessed speaking in tonugues, singing in tongues, clapping and verbal confirmations.

I am curious how the charismatic element would fit into the Mass services I have experienced because I can’t see much room for it.

How would I identify a charismatic Catholic in the phone book in order to locate one? I would like to experience it.

I know this is super late into the thread, but to address the OP - if you were in Steubenville in the 80’s and 90’s when Fr. Scanlan was running the school, you would have seen it.

Outside of the school, but in the town, there is a fairly strong, though I don’t know how large anymore, ‘Community’ for it.

After Fr. Scanlan, the charismatic presence took a back seat. They moved out the priests that were more charismatic, and they took out the great songbooks which had songs that were attractive to college kids / younger crowd and replaced with more traditional hymnals. If I remember correctly the person in charge of music was changed to someone with a classical drive.

Though in general ‘being charismatic’ was never my cup of tea, nor did I grow up with it, the music side of it is quite attractive. When we go back to the school (which is often) we miss the distinct difference that existed when getting on campus 20 years ago.

That said, ‘back seat’ is not ‘gone’, but you would find it less at Mass and more at the FOP’s (Festival of Praise) at the school.

Around the country, I’m sure the Steubenville (name your location) summer camps are still fairly festive / charismatic, but I haven’t been around one in a couple decades.

Take care,

Mike

 

[grannymh]

My current position is that science has clearly presented the difference between glossolalia and language. Nonetheless, a few questions remain when we are examining Paul’s use of the word Tongue or Tongues.

When we accept that glossolalia was exhibited by ancient shamans and temple priests, can we say that these persons could produce glossolalia at will? Because glossolalia consists of sounds produced by the physical material anatomy, the rational tools of the human mind would be able to influence the actions of the speech mechanism. Knowing human nature and its search for power, in my observation, glossolalia could be humanly produced when it would be profitable for shamans and temple priests.

Still, it is noticeable that there are times when thoughts are not easily translated into precise terminology. How does one put beauty or love into precise language? The precise language which the listener may agree to or not.

From the position of anthropology and its various disciplines, I consider it acceptable that there was glossolalia in the ancient cultures. We could also consider the development of language as an element leading to glossolalia and then dramatically away from glossolalia because communication (language) involves two persons.

Because of intense curiosity, I find that a pathological genetic condition could also account for a form of glossolalia. While the odds are low, we cannot rule out the possibility that an individual’s Tongues could be due to the physical condition of the individual even in the time of Paul. Obviously, in our time, there are some Catholics who automatically consider Paul’s Tongues as glossolalia.

The above comes from science which “observes without prejudice.” When it comes to the original Christian use of Tongues, we cannot go back in time to observe the people who followed Paul. The best we can do is to evaluate Paul’s corrections given specifically to his beloved Corinthians. There is no doubt that in 1Corinthians, chapters 12 & 14, Paul is hard to follow. This is because the Corinthians were already instructed in the classical list of Holy Spirit gifts and in the common gift of praying in Tongues.

It is important to me, that time be allotted for possible questions regarding the above.