Charismatics? - heeelp!

[fineca]

I hope someone can help me. I have a huge problem and I can’t find a solution…I attended a weekend meeting with some leaders of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I’ve heard and read about the movement and I’m utterly perplexed. All the charismatics witness to this experience called the Baptism in the Holy Spirit in which you receive the Holy Spirit with power, giving you the whole Christian life as a supernatural gift basically. I believe it is a genuine experience based on all the testimonies and changed lives and the fruits of the experience. Plus it’s just like the experience of the first Christians in the Acts and early Church fathers, the charisms, miracles and all that.

But here’s my problem:
We’re supposed to receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation, so why do we need this Baptism in the Holy Spirit, why doesn’t God let us have that grace through the sacraments? They have heard this question many times and the standard response is: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a release of the graces of baptism/confirmation that we already had from the sacraments but were not active due to our lack of faith/openness to the Holy Spirit, since we probably received these sacraments when we didn’t really understand that much. This sounds reasonable at first but it actually confuses me even more, because:

1. Many people convert as adults so they have consciously choosed to follow Christ in the Church and yet when they are baptised/confirmed nothing special happens to them.
2. Pentecostals have the same experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (that’s where it started in the 20th century, it came to the Catholic Church from the Protestants) but they often have it even before water baptism and they don’t even have confirmation.

If the Holy Spirit really came in the sacraments, it should be an exception in adult conversions (that is, if someone with no real faith converted) if the person receiving them didn’t experience the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it never seems to happen. On the other hand the Spirit seems to come to people frequently before and after the sacraments, indicating that the sacraments don’t really have anything to do with it.

Another problem: all the charismatics unanimously say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is meant for ALL, that the charismatic renewal is not a movement meant for some while other spiritualities are meant for others. They say that all people should experience it and continue in their spiritualities. This is a huge problem for me because it follows then that if God really wants to give the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to all, then the only reason for the fact that someone hasn’t experienced it is that they have not opened themselves to the grace of God (this is what the charismatics say). But of course there are many holy souls in the Church, priests, nuns, Opus Dei numeraries, monks, neocatecumenals and whatnot who constantly pray to the Holy Spirit and who let God use them, but still they don’t have the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Thus we must conclude either that the charismatics are wrong in saying that God wants to Baptise all in the Holy Spirit (which the charismatics wouldn’t agree to admit, the Cardinal who has done most to promote the Renewal said it is a serious misunderstanding of the Renewal to think that it’s a movement/meant for only some and not all) which would divide the Church, and which now doesn’t seem possible because the Church endorsed and supports the Charismatic Renewal (even the Papal preacher Raniero Cantalamessa has been Baptised in the Holy Spirit and he says that he has had two lives: one before and one after this Baptism) OR we must admit that the charismatics are really the only Catholics who have truly opened themselves to the grace of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be true.

Another problem: it seems that we must either deny the experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (which we cannot do since the Church supports this Renewal and because the experience is evidently genuine, scriptural and from God) or we must say that the sacraments have ceased to work or then we must assume that basically everyone who receives the sacraments receives them without faith. I think all of these are impossible to hold, which leaves the problem unsolved and my mind extremely boggled. I wish I could call the Pope and ask him.

I appreciate your comments!
Thanks!

 

[corvidae]

I am not very involved in the charismatic movement, but I think you may have become involved with some radicals within the movement itself.
For example, in my experiance, you were told not to expect a gift of the Holy Spirit, and neither should you be jealous of those who recieved a gift that you did not. Basically, God gives different gifts to all, it is not the same gift that is given.
And there is grace given outside of the sacraments. However, the sacraments are the normal avenues of Grace that God gave to the Church. So while they may be getting grace, it is not the same as if they are recieving the sacraments.

In my experiance, the charismatic movement is all about realizing what God has done for us, and responding. It should not be about “we are better than you” or “we will replace you”.

However, as with any movement, some will be confused by it, and some will take it too far.

I hope this helps

A lone Raven

 

[Truthstalker]

I have not yet integrated my charismatic theology into Catholic theology. That’s a fancy way of saying I don’t know what I’m talking about. But let me lay out my muddled suspicions in a disorderly manner with my traditional sprinklings of hearsay, error and random gossip:

1. There are many charismatic theologies running around. They haven’t integrated with themselves internally or externally. Often the emphasis is on the experiential without a thorough pondering of the implications.
2. Sancitification is a process, despite what some Wesleyans maintain. I dispute the Ultimate Conversion Experience, after which one lives in such a state of grace on earth that one no longer sins. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit in some ways, as practiced by some of today’s advocates, is the child of the UCE: power and sanctity follow it. In contrast the Church maintains that grace is given through the ordinary means because they are, well, ordinary. Not to say the BHS doesn’t happen in confirmation, but grace in not given in a once and for all manner. Most advocates of the modern spectacular BHS will admit that one can have subsequent infillings. “We leak.” Catholics will agree with this. As we yield ourselves to Christ and surrender, there is more of our lives we are willing to give Him and so He will go deeper into us, in all possible dimensions: reality, areas of our life, faith, power, etc.
3. Some of your either-ors may be false dichotomies. That is just a suspicion.
4. Jesus said blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. I think He gives a lot of people this blessing. Some would argue with Him about it being a blessing when the bishop lays hands on them and “nothing happens.” They’d rather be knocked across the room in a bolt of lightning, see a chorus of angels and be speaking in tongues at 90 miles an hour. If that happened every time a bishop did that, after a while people would claim “nothing happens”. Human nature. The gifts are God’s and He distributes them as He wills. There is “shove the Dove” and “choke the Ghost” at opposite ends of the charismatic spectrum: forcing God to act or preventing Him from acting. Both are wrong. Presumption is wrong. Disobedience is wrong. We are all wrong when facing the mystery of God and sometimes all we can do is to stand silently, in wonder at His majesty, power and love.
5. Beats me. These are good questions.
6. I am not an authority. I am only an expert in demonstrating to others what a fool I am. In all other things I am an amateur.

 

[USMC]

I hope someone can help me. I have a huge problem and I can’t find a solution…I attended a weekend meeting with some leaders of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I’ve heard and read about the movement and I’m utterly perplexed. All the charismatics witness to this experience called the Baptism in the Holy Spirit in which you receive the Holy Spirit with power, giving you the whole Christian life as a supernatural gift basically. I believe it is a genuine experience based on all the testimonies and changed lives and the fruits of the experience. Plus it’s just like the experience of the first Christians in the Acts and early Church fathers, the charisms, miracles and all that.

But here’s my problem:
We’re supposed to receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation, so why do we need this Baptism in the Holy Spirit, why doesn’t God let us have that grace through the sacraments? They have heard this question many times and the standard response is: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a release of the graces of baptism/confirmation that we already had from the sacraments but were not active due to our lack of faith/openness to the Holy Spirit, since we probably received these sacraments when we didn’t really understand that much. This sounds reasonable at first but it actually confuses me even more, because:

1. Many people convert as adults so they have consciously choosed to follow Christ in the Church and yet when they are baptised/confirmed nothing special happens to them.
2. Pentecostals have the same experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (that’s where it started in the 20th century, it came to the Catholic Church from the Protestants) but they often have it even before water baptism and they don’t even have confirmation.

If the Holy Spirit really came in the sacraments, it should be an exception in adult conversions (that is, if someone with no real faith converted) if the person receiving them didn’t experience the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it never seems to happen. On the other hand the Spirit seems to come to people frequently before and after the sacraments, indicating that the sacraments don’t really have anything to do with it.

Another problem: all the charismatics unanimously say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is meant for ALL, that the charismatic renewal is not a movement meant for some while other spiritualities are meant for others. They say that all people should experience it and continue in their spiritualities. This is a huge problem for me because it follows then that if God really wants to give the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to all, then the only reason for the fact that someone hasn’t experienced it is that they have not opened themselves to the grace of God (this is what the charismatics say). But of course there are many holy souls in the Church, priests, nuns, Opus Dei numeraries, monks, neocatecumenals and whatnot who constantly pray to the Holy Spirit and who let God use them, but still they don’t have the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Thus we must conclude either that the charismatics are wrong in saying that God wants to Baptise all in the Holy Spirit (which the charismatics wouldn’t agree to admit, the Cardinal who has done most to promote the Renewal said it is a serious misunderstanding of the Renewal to think that it’s a movement/meant for only some and not all) which would divide the Church, and which now doesn’t seem possible because the Church endorsed and supports the Charismatic Renewal (even the Papal preacher Raniero Cantalamessa has been Baptised in the Holy Spirit and he says that he has had two lives: one before and one after this Baptism) OR we must admit that the charismatics are really the only Catholics who have truly opened themselves to the grace of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be true.

Another problem: it seems that we must either deny the experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (which we cannot do since the Church supports this Renewal and because the experience is evidently genuine, scriptural and from God) or we must say that the sacraments have ceased to work or then we must assume that basically everyone who receives the sacraments receives them without faith. I think all of these are impossible to hold, which leaves the problem unsolved and my mind extremely boggled. I wish I could call the Pope and ask him.

I appreciate your comments!
Thanks!

Here’s the answer to your questions: The charismatic movement is a deception of the devil. The “experiences” are produced by demons, who have the power to produce such feelings.

This false movement began in heresy (in Protestantism), around the year 1900, and finally worked its way into Catholicism in the 1960’s. God does not begin true movements in heretical sects.

When this movement began to enter the Catholic Church, a Bishop (or Cardinal) absolutely condemned it as being of the devil.

 

[rr1213]

Here’s the answer to your questions: The charismatic movement is a deception of the devil. The “experiences” are produced by demons, who have the power to produce such feelings.

This false movement began in heresy (in Protestantism), around the year 1900, and finally worked its way into Catholicism in the 1960’s. God does not begin true movements in heretical sects.

When this movement began to enter the Catholic Church, a Bishop (or Cardinal) absolutely condemned it as being of the devil.

So Corinthians was written only for the 1st Century Church and the gifts of the Spirit have no place in today’s Church? You’re starting to sound like a fundamentalist Baptist. I am not charismatic, but there is nothing in Scripture that says that the Spiritual Gifts are no longer with us, be they prophetising, speaking in tongues or more of the “mundane” gifts. They are real, not of the devil, but all of us need to remember that of all of these gifts, Love is the Greatest.

 

[mosher]

All I can say about this is what I have experienced with charismatics and the movement.

First we can say that all the gifts of the spirit are given at Baptism and confirmed at Confirmation. It seems that the authentic goal of the Charismatic movement is to make these gifts manifest in the individual person. There is nothing wrong with this in principle.

The idea of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for a Catholic is silly because this is given in Baptism as it is not the Baptism of John but is the true Baptism of Christ in that the Holy Spirit descends upon the new Christian. It seems that this idea that began with certain protestant sects is born out of a poor understanding of baptism itself.

As for the experience of the movement we must consider a few things. The first is that we must be cautious when we bring into question an individuals experience of God. Witnessing man dramatic things I have a hard time denying a persons experience as it is their own. However, it can be judged objectively if it brings them closer to authentic Catholic doctrine and faith practices as we hold and have always held the fullness of of the faith given by Christ. The second aspect is that of the emotional need to experience the divine. This is more troubling because I have seen many who have a “charismatic spirituality” who feed off of the emotional consolation. This seems no different than only a cathartic experience to express repressed emotions. This is dangerous because the emotions cannot lead to truth unless they are governed by reason. The problem is that many who have a tendency toward the charismatic movement base their faith in these emotions and that is indeed building on a foundation of sand.

 

[MariaG]

The biggest problem I see is the Charasmatic Catholic movement has chosen to adopt Protestant terms. Terms that have already been defined in the Catholic Church. And since the definitions of these words differ from Catholic to Protestant, this causes confusion to some extent.

Another problem that many Charasmatic Catholics seem to suffer with is the same problem that charasmatic Christians seem to suffer from and it is the attitude of superiority over all other Christians who have not received the same gifts. (even though scripture tells us we all have different gifts )

But the Charasmatic renewal does have the seal of approval from the Church. Just like with anything else though, you will find pockets of abuse within different areas of the Church.

I know when I have tried to get some Charasmatic Catholics explain what they mean, they end up contradicting Catholic teaching as you have found, mostly I believe, to sloppy terminology.

And although I label myself a “charasmatic Catholic”, there are no Charasmatic Catholic churches even close to my neck of the woods and so I still have been unable to understand and explain their terminology in a way that it makes a cohesive whole to Catholic teachings. But neither have I tried very hard since there are no such churches in my area.

I trust that since it has the seal of approval from the Church that there is a good explanation somewhere that does not contradict Catholic teaching but I do not think that explanation has yet made it’s way to the rank and file of most charasmatic Catholics.

:twocents:

 

[USMC]

So Corinthians was written only for the 1st Century Church and the gifts of the Spirit have no place in today’s Church? You’re starting to sound like a fundamentalist Baptist. I am not charismatic, but there is nothing in Scripture that says that the Spiritual Gifts are no longer with us, be they prophetising, speaking in tongues or more of the “mundane” gifts. They are real, not of the devil, but all of us need to remember that of all of these gifts, Love is the Greatest.

Speaking in tongues has taken place throughout the Church age, not just during the time of the Apostles. However, this “speaking in tongues” is what is described in Acts, chapter two. It was a special gift that was used to preach to people of different languages. The person would speak in their own language, and the other people would understand them in their language.

Mary of Agreda, for example, who lived in the 16th century, bilocated to east Texas and preached in tongues to the Native American Indians. She taught them catechism by speaking her own language, but was understood by the Indians in their language (just like in Acts). When the Catholic missionaries arrived, the Indians already knew the catechism and explained that they had been taught by nun.

Speaking in tongues has always been understood to mean that the person spoke in their own language and was understood in other languages. As far as I know, speaking in tongues has never been understood to mean that a person bables in a strange “language” that no one understands.

Regarding 1st Cor.14, I have to admit that I am not sure what to make of it. It does sound like they were babling, but that is not what speaking in tonges has been understood to be.

In the Summa, St. Thomas discusses the gift of speaking in tonges. I am not sure if you are familiar with St. Thomas’ Summa, but he goes into each particular subject in great detail. In the section on speaking in tongues, he never even discusses babling in a tongue that no one understands. He only addresses speaking in tongues as it has always been understood: viz, that a person speaks their own language and is understood in other languages, which is what Acts 2 describes.

There have been numerous cases of people who were possessed by demons babling in an unknown “language” like we find in the charasmatic movement today.

The following was taken from the Charismatic “new covenant” magazine. A reader wrote in with the following question, which was answered in the magazine:

“New Covenant” Charismatic magazine:

“Q: Someone recently attended our prayer meeting and spoke out as a prophecy a word glorifying Satan. He could not be quieted and most of the people attending the meeting were quite upset. What can we do when this type of situation arises?”

"A: It seems that some kind of evil spirit was attempting to disrupt the prayer meeting. Many prayer groups have had similar occurrences. The group’s leaders should do everything possible to comfort and reassure the other members of the group. "

So, at a Catholic Charismatic prayer meeting a person spoke a “prophecy” glorifying Satan; and according to the pro-Charismatic magazine, “many prayer groups have had similar occurrences”.

The magazine blames this on the devil who was trying to “disrupt the prayer meeting”. The only problem is, the devil is not able to speak through someone unless they have possessed the person. This “prophecy” of the devil is evidence that the Charismatic who “prophecied” was possessed.

Just look at the other strange fruits of the Charismatics. Some experience “holy laughter”, the “gift” that causes a person to laugh absolutely hysterically and uncontrolably. Another “gift” is when the person begins to bark like a dog or oink like a pig. This is said to be evidence of the Holy Ghost. Another so-called “gift of the spirit” is the uncontrolable bodily gyrations, shakes, and screams which are additional evidence of being “filled with the spirit”.

Obviously, such things are not of the Holy Spirit, but the unholy spirit.

 

[Truthstalker]

USMC,

“Some doctors are bad therefore the field of medicine is not to be
trusted”? Sounds like. I think we need to take care that we not confuse the work of the Holy Spirit with the work of the devil.

I think you make a good observation in referencing Aquinas. The Protestant mythos is that the gifts were silent from about 100 AD to 1900 AD. The Catholic response is that there has been a Catholic Charismatic revival, non-stop, since Pentecost. Its doctrine, practice and history are all at odds with modern Pentecostalism, especially that which is based in sensationalism rather than in Christ. I heard a steadying opinion from an Orthodox site that said that while these gifts happen, they are not central. Christ is central.

 

[Aureole]

We’re supposed to receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation, so why do we need this Baptism in the Holy Spirit, why doesn’t God let us have that grace through the sacraments?

We don’t, at least from what I understand from Charismatic teaching (Which is very, very limited). What we need is the Sacraments, anything else is a bonus. Besides, the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” could be in the form of anything; it’s a fairly ambiguous term. How can we quantify or observe a “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”? We can’t. A Charismatic may received a “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” through the Charismatic renewal; I would say I received a “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” through my meek and nervous First Confession.

I don’t think that the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” is exclusive to the Charismatic renewal. Those who take it in the exclusive direction (Either way) would be denying the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit at best.

 

[rr1213]

Speaking in tongues has taken place throughout the Church age, not just during the time of the Apostles. However, this “speaking in tongues” is what is described in Acts, chapter two. It was a special gift that was used to preach to people of different languages. The person would speak in their own language, and the other people would understand them in their language.

Mary of Agreda, for example, who lived in the 16th century, bilocated to east Texas and preached in tongues to the Native American Indians. She taught them catechism by speaking her own language, but was understood by the Indians in their language (just like in Acts). When the Catholic missionaries arrived, the Indians already knew the catechism and explained that they had been taught by nun.

Speaking in tongues has always been understood to mean that the person spoke in their own language and was understood in other languages. As far as I know, speaking in tongues has never been understood to mean that a person bables in a strange “language” that no one understands.

Regarding 1st Cor.14, I have to admit that I am not sure what to make of it. It does sound like they were babling, but that is not what speaking in tonges has been understood to be.

In the Summa, St. Thomas discusses the gift of speaking in tonges. I am not sure if you are familiar with St. Thomas’ Summa, but he goes into each particular subject in great detail. In the section on speaking in tongues, he never even discusses babling in a tongue that no one understands. He only addresses speaking in tongues as it has always been understood: viz, that a person speaks their own language and is understood in other languages, which is what Acts 2 describes.

There have been numerous cases of people who were possessed by demons babling in an unknown “language” like we find in the charasmatic movement today.

The following was taken from the Charismatic “new covenant” magazine. A reader wrote in with the following question, which was answered in the magazine:

So, at a Catholic Charismatic prayer meeting a person spoke a “prophecy” glorifying Satan; and according to the pro-Charismatic magazine, “many prayer groups have had similar occurrences”.

The magazine blames this on the devil who was trying to “disrupt the prayer meeting”. The only problem is, the devil is not able to speak through someone unless they have possessed the person. This “prophecy” of the devil is evidence that the Charismatic who “prophecied” was possessed.

Just look at the other strange fruits of the Charismatics. Some experience “holy laughter”, the “gift” that causes a person to laugh absolutely hysterically and uncontrolably. Another “gift” is when the person begins to bark like a dog or oink like a pig. This is said to be evidence of the Holy Ghost. Another so-called “gift of the spirit” is the uncontrolable bodily gyrations, shakes, and screams which are additional evidence of being “filled with the spirit”.

Obviously, such things are not of the Holy Spirit, but the unholy spirit.

Paul de-emphasizes speaking in tongues, but he does not discredit it. He talks about how tongues do not edify the Body if there is no one to provide an interpretation. And, as you noted, 1 Cor. 14:2 states that “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” Later, Paul says that “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” So, we have to be careful here. I am not Charismatic and, to be candid, I am uncomfortable with it. Still, if we read Scripture, we must come to the conclusion that the Spiritual Gifts, even the controversial ones, are there to edify the Body of Christ. Who are we to deny the Holy Spirit just because it “wigs us out”? As for anyone who praised the devil while speaking in tongues, that is evidence that his manifestation of the tongues is not from God. 1 Cor. 12:3.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi fineca, read the book of Acts. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is simply being filled, empowered by the Holy Spirit. The words you want ot look for in the bood of Acts are “filled with the Spirit”, “full of the Spirit”, “poured out”, fill spirit, any combination of filling, full, filled with Holy Spirit. It does not always result in speaking in tongues as the intial evidence. So, don’t let anyone lay a guilt trip on you. Basically, God through our obedance ( Rom 12 ), and our choice to draw close to God, will enpower you to live the chrisitan life. Also, take the time to outline I Cor 12-14.

Ephesians 5:18-20 (New International Version)

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The purpose of spiritual gifts is to build up the church as a cooperate body, not to make a single person super spiritual.

Ephesians 4:11-14 (King James Version)

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

enjoy our Lord

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

When dealing with a charismatic - pentecostal type, feel the fruit, that is look for the fruit of the Holy Spirit ( Gal 5 ) because the real deal will not produce pride, nor one upmanship.

 

[USMC]

I did a little research to see if I could find any information on the kind of “tongues” described in 1 Corinthians 14, since it is so different than the tongues spoken of in Acts 2. The tongues described in Acts have taken place in the lives of certain saints at various times throughout the Church age, whereas the “tongues“ spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14 have taken place in cases of diabolical possession, and began in the Protestant (heretical) Pentecostal movement of the early 1900‘s, before finally working its way into certain the Catholic Church in the 1960‘s. The two tongues are exactly contrary to one another. In Acts 2, the apostles spoke their language and everyone understood them in their own, whereas in 1 Cor. 14, they spoke in an unintelligible “language” and no one understood.

The Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org discusses both of these tongues - those described in Acts as well as that which took place at Corinthians. I found the explanation very interesting. Before we look at what the Encyclopedia says, let’s review a quote from St. Thomas’ Summa that discusses speaking in tongues:

St. Thomas, Summa: I answer that, Christ’s first disciples were chosen by Him in order that they might disperse throughout the whole world, and preach His faith everywhere, according to Mt. 28:19, “Going . . . teach ye all nations.” Now it was not fitting that they who were being sent to teach others should need to be taught by others, either as to how they should speak to other people, or as to how they were to understand those who spoke to them; and all the more seeing that those who were being sent were of one nation, that of Judea, according to Is. 27:6, “When they shall rush out from Jacob [Vulg.: ‘When they shall rush in unto Jacob,’ etc.] . . . they shall fill the face of the world with seed.” Moreover those who were being sent were poor and powerless; nor at the outset could they have easily found someone to interpret their words faithfully to others, or to explain what others said to them, especially as they were sent to unbelievers. Consequently it was necessary, in this respect, that God should provide them with the gift of tongues; in order that, as the diversity of tongues was brought upon the nations when they fell away to idolatry, according to Gn. 11, so when the nations were to be recalled to the worship of one God a remedy to this diversity might be applied by the gift of tongues.

continue…

 

[USMC]

continuation of previous post

In the above quote, St. Thomas discussed speaking in tongues as it is described in Acts 2 - that everyone understood what was being said. But what about the tongues described in 1 Corinthians, which was the opposite? I think the Encyclopedia hit’s the proverbial nail on the head.

new advent.org: The gift of tongues: A supernatural gift of the class gratiae gratis datae, designed to aid in the outer development of the primitive Church. … The glacially [speaking in tongues] thus described [in Acts 2] was historic, articulate, and intelligible.

Corinthian Abuses (I Corinthians 14 passim).—Medieval and modern writers wrongly take it for granted that the charism existed permanently at Corinth—as it did nowhere else—** and that St. Paul, in commending the gift to the Corinthians, therewith gave his guaranty that the characteristics of Corinthian glossolaly were those of the gift itself**. Traditional writers in overlooking this point place St. Luke [Acts 2] at variance with St. Paul [1 Cor 14], and attribute to the charism properties so contrary as to make it inexplicable and prohibitively mysterious. There is enough in St. Paul to show us that the Corinthian peculiarities were ignoble accretions and abuses. They made of “tongues” a source of schism in the Church and of scandal without (14:23). The charism had deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10) with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which sometimes might be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). The Corinthians, misled not by insincerity but by simplicity and ignorance (20), were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit (pneuma), or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding (nous) of the Spirit of God (15). What today purports to be the “gift of tongues” at certain Protestant revivals is a fair reproduction of Corinthian glossolaly, and shows the need there was in the primitive Church of the Apostle’s counsel to do all things “decently, and according to order” (40).

Faithful adherence to the text of Sacred Scripture makes it obligatory to reject those opinions which turn the charism of tongues into little more than infantile babbling (Eichhorn, Schmidt, Neander), incoherent exclamations (Meyer), pythonic utterances (Wiseler), or prophetic demonstrations of the archaic kind (see 1 Samuel 19:20, 24)….

Interesting. According to this Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in the early 1900’s, the gift of tongues spoken of in Corinthains was not true tongues, but rather an abuse that resulted from “frenzied emotions”. “The Corinthians, misled by simplicity and ignorance, were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding of the Spirit of God”. Now that makes sense.

 

[Truthstalker]

note the CCC:

2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.

Note 1 Cor 14:4: He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself…and 1 Cor 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy…" There is speaking in tongues without interpretation, which is for the edification of the individual believer. Doubtless you are aware of this passage. If Satan is imitating one of God’s gifts, then there must be something to imitate. Paul goes on in verse 13 to say “Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.” Paul also said (v18) “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all;…”

Paul’s desire, and since this is inspired Scripture, God’s desire is clear.

Since the Catholic encyclopaedia was written, the Catholic Church has changed its view of the charismata. I don’t have the details, but it seems more widely accepted today than it was - and not as an infiltration or a seduction but as an acceptance of a valid gift of the Holy Spirit for today.

I would suggest you consider the number of charismatic Masses and the investigations that have occured in the Catholic church since 1900 before making such a one-sided statement on this particular gift. In this diocese, there are charismatic masses that occur at different sites on a rotating basis, fostered by the bishop who has a full-time liaison on his staff to pastor the charismatic Catholics in the diocese whose needs may not be met by non-charismatic priests. The approach is not antagonistic but rather to encourage the gifts and the spiitual development of those involved. If the diocese wished instead to censure the movement, it would have. Likewise the Vatican would have moved on it. I believe John Paul II praised the charismatic movement.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

. Another “gift” is when the person begins to bark like a dog or oink like a pig. This is said to be evidence of the Holy Ghost."

This is evidence of demon activity, acording to my mother who has been in the charismatic movement for 25 years. She is a good and holy woman and I take exception at your blanket statements. I really don’t think you have a true knowledge of the movement and think you shouldn’t speak on it until you know all the facts. This is a movement approved by the Vatican, there are many abuses in the movement, there are also many abuses in the Mass around the world and around our country.

 

[rr1213]

continuation of previous post

In the above quote, St. Thomas discussed speaking in tongues as it is described in Acts 2 - that everyone understood what was being said. But what about the tongues described in 1 Corinthians, which was the opposite? I think the Encyclopedia hit’s the proverbial nail on the head.

Interesting. According to this Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in the early 1900’s, the gift of tongues spoken of in Corinthains was not true tongues, but rather an abuse that resulted from “frenzied emotions”. “The Corinthians, misled by simplicity and ignorance, were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding of the Spirit of God”. Now that makes sense.

I don’t think that is a reasonable readings of Corinthians. Over the years, I’ve also known some very Godly persons who are charismatic and, so, I don’t think that speaking in tongues is diabolical. Not necessarily edifying to the Body, yes, that is what Paul wrote, but perfectly fine under the right circumstances. If there are posters here who are charismatic or who speak in tongues, this would be the place to stop lurking and make your own point because I’m now out of my comfort zone.

 

[Truthstalker]

I don’t think that is a reasonable readings of Corinthians. Over the years, I’ve also known some very Godly persons who are charismatic and, so, I don’t think that speaking in tongues is diabolical. Not necessarily edifying to the Body, yes, that is what Paul wrote, but perfectly fine under the right circumstances. If there are posters here who are charismatic or who speak in tongues, this would be the place to stop lurking and make your own point because I’m now out of my comfort zone.

Huh. I thought I made a point.

 

[MariaG]

I don’t think that is a reasonable readings of Corinthians. Over the years, I’ve also known some very Godly persons who are charismatic and, so, I don’t think that speaking in tongues is diabolical. Not necessarily edifying to the Body, yes, that is what Paul wrote, but perfectly fine under the right circumstances. If there are posters here who are charismatic or who speak in tongues, this would be the place to stop lurking and make your own point because I’m now out of my comfort zone.

Huh. I thought I made a point.

You did. And then it got reinforced so us charasmatic lurkers don’t have to show our heads for target practice

God Bless,
Maria