Confused about speaking in tongues

[DianaCC]

Cordial greetings to you as well!

Well, inherent in what we believe about tongues, is that not everybody is speaking the same tongue. I am not unduly surprised that it turns out some Pentecostals really were probably just speaking gibberish. But one test cannot totally disprove the reality of tongues being a real language. You would have to test every single individual that claims to speak in tongues. And other competent linguists (or people who knew the language) have discovered them speaking real, genuine languages.

Though I’m no linguist, I do have a love for languages and accents. My own language, as far as I can tell, bears close resemblance to a Middle-eastern sort of language. There are distinct syllables. Often times I catch the word “Maryam”. It is not “ecstatic”. I am praying in tongues right now as I speak. I am not experiencing any great emotions, whatsoever. In fact, I am rather fatigued and bored.

By the same token, Vardaquinn, you cannot establish the authenticity of a given alleged case of speaking in tongues, because to do that, you would have to prove that the alleged language is entirely unknown to the speaker, not only in its grammar and vocabulary, but also (and especially) in its phonology, its typical sound-patterns. And that is, in practice, impossible to do.

For example, even you admit, that you know what middle-eastern languages sound like, and so you gave yourself away. And admitting you recognize the word “Maryam” is the clincher.

But the fact that not one case of intelligible speech, in a language entirely unknown to the speaker, has ever emerged, is a very strong indicator that it’s fake.

 

[mariacamille]

By the same token, Vardaquinn, you cannot establish the authenticity of a given alleged case of speaking in tongues, because to do that, you would have to prove that the alleged language is entirely unknown to the speaker, not only in its grammar and vocabulary, but also (and especially) in its phonology, its typical sound-patterns. And that is, in practice, impossible to do.

And by THAT same token, it’s just as impossible to claim an unknown language is gibberish. We can only claim that if we go to every single country/province and learn every single dialect known to man. And only then can we claim whether or not a language spoken in tongues is ‘gibberish.’ And then there’s still the debate whether it’s a mortal language or angelic.

I’m not saying some people really are speaking ‘gibberish,’ especially for show and attention. I’m not saying it’s uncommon, either. But as we do not have the authority to say whether or not they’re real or not, I dare not ASSUME anything on the matter. There we get into the dangers of coming to our own conclusions about things such as Church teachings and what’s in the bible. And that’s how breakaways happen.

 

[DianaCC]

And by THAT same token, it’s just as impossible to claim an unknown language is gibberish. We can only claim that if we go to every single country/province and learn every single dialect known to man. And only then can we claim whether or not a language spoken in tongues is ‘gibberish.’ And then there’s still the debate whether it’s a mortal language or angelic.

I’m not saying some people really are speaking ‘gibberish,’ especially for show and attention. I’m not saying it’s uncommon, either. But as we do not have the authority to say whether or not they’re real or not, I dare not ASSUME anything on the matter. There we get into the dangers of coming to our own conclusions about things such as Church teachings and what’s in the bible. And that’s how breakaways happen.

All that argument is saying is, in order to know anything we need to know everything. Which is not so. All I’m saying is, what people are calling tongues has all the qualities of gibberish, and gibberish has all the qualities of what people are calling tongues. Since April 14, 1906 there has not been a single exception to this rule anywhere in the world.

 

[vardaquinn]

By the same token, Vardaquinn, you cannot establish the authenticity of a given alleged case of speaking in tongues, because to do that, you would have to prove that the alleged language is entirely unknown to the speaker, not only in its grammar and vocabulary, but also (and especially) in its phonology, its typical sound-patterns. And that is, in practice, impossible to do.

For example, even you admit, that you know what middle-eastern languages sound like, and so you gave yourself away. And admitting you recognize the word “Maryam” is the clincher.

But the fact that not one case of intelligible speech, in a language entirely unknown to the speaker, has ever emerged, is a very strong indicator that it’s fake.

Yes you can. If someone is praying in a language they don’t know, and you can determine and understand what is being said, then they are obviously speaking in tongues.

It is one thing to imitate the sounds of middle-eastern languages. It is another thing to speak in that language. All that takes is someone who knows the language.

Plus, you can judge the spiritual fruits. You can easily determine there if it’s simply from the person, or from God (and very easily if it is demonic). If it’s from the person, it’s really just a guy speaking in random sounds that mean nothing. And that’s not going to produce any spiritual fruits. If it’s from God, then it’s going to produce a lot of spiritual fruits in that person’s life. It has produced incredible immense fruits in my life.

 

[vardaquinn]

By the same token, Vardaquinn, you cannot establish the authenticity of a given alleged case of speaking in tongues, because to do that, you would have to prove that the alleged language is entirely unknown to the speaker, not only in its grammar and vocabulary, but also (and especially) in its phonology, its typical sound-patterns. And that is, in practice, impossible to do.

For example, even you admit, that you know what middle-eastern languages sound like, and so you gave yourself away. And admitting you recognize the word “Maryam” is the clincher.

But the fact that not one case of intelligible speech, in a language entirely unknown to the speaker, has ever emerged, is a very strong indicator that it’s fake.

Yes you can. If someone is praying in a language they don’t know, and you can determine and understand what is being said, then they are obviously speaking in tongues.

It is one thing to imitate the sounds of middle-eastern languages. It is another thing to speak in that language. All that takes is someone who knows the language.

Plus, you can judge the spiritual fruits. You can easily determine there if it’s simply from the person, or from God (and very easily if it is demonic). If it’s from the person, it’s really just a guy speaking in random sounds that mean nothing. And that’s not going to produce any spiritual fruits. If it’s from God, then it’s going to produce a lot of spiritual fruits in that person’s life. It has produced incredible immense fruits in my life.

That is not true. I can provide examples. I believe I have already.

 

[vardaquinn]

All that argument is saying is, in order to know anything we need to know everything. Which is not so. All I’m saying is, what people are calling tongues has all the qualities of gibberish, and gibberish has all the qualities of what people are calling tongues. Since April 14, 1906 there has not been a single exception to this rule anywhere in the world.

Hanging around people who speak a different language than mine, since I cannot understand what they are saying, I am forced to conclude that it has all the qualities of gibberish. Uh yeah…

Well, you discount Scriptural and historical references that we’ve provided completely, because surely that has nothing to do with modern tongues.

 

[DianaCC]

Yes you can. If someone is praying in a language they don’t know, and you can determine and understand what is being said, then they are obviously speaking in tongues.

It is one thing to imitate the sounds of middle-eastern languages. It is another thing to speak in that language. All that takes is someone who knows the language.

Plus, you can judge the spiritual fruits. You can easily determine there if it’s simply from the person, or from God (and very easily if it is demonic). If it’s from the person, it’s really just a guy speaking in random sounds that mean nothing. And that’s not going to produce any spiritual fruits. If it’s from God, then it’s going to produce a lot of spiritual fruits in that person’s life. It has produced incredible immense fruits in my life.

Wow, completely missed my point. My point was that you have to prove first that the person has no knowledge of the language at all, including how it sounds.

For example, I heard a story about a woman who spoke in tongues in Basque. Short version, she lived in Spain. That would be like me living in America and speaking in tongues with “Lishana tova”, which is Hebrew for Happy New Year, or “Porrrrrrkenyos algoon dellacroochay”, which is fake Spanish-sounding gibberish anyone can pick up from TV, complete with the overemphasized r you typically hear from Americans.

It’s pretty much the same thing as when the comedian/performance artist Sacha Baron Cohen, in character as Borat, fakes the Kazakh language by repeating memorized phrases from other languages such as Polish. Call it an unknown heavenly language, but, according to my senses, it’s identical with faked gibberish.

 

[vardaquinn]

Wow, completely missed my point. My point was that you have to prove first that the person has no knowledge of the language at all, including how it sounds.

For example, I heard a story about a woman who spoke in tongues in Basque. Short version, she lived in Spain. That would be like me living in America and speaking in tongues with “Lishana tova”, which is Hebrew for Happy New Year, or “Porrrrrrkenyos algoon dellacroochay”, which is fake Spanish-sounding gibberish anyone can pick up from TV, complete with the overemphasized r you typically hear from Americans.

It’s pretty much the same thing as when the comedian/performance artist Sacha Baron Cohen, in character as Borat, fakes the Kazakh language by repeating memorized phrases from other languages such as Polish. Call it an unknown heavenly language, but, according to my senses, it’s identical with faked gibberish.

Why? Why do you have to prove the person has no knowledge of the language, including how it sounds? If it can be established that they are speaking a language they have never studied, of which I have seen many examples, then it doesn’t matter whether they know how it sounds or not. Fact is, they’re speaking a language they’ve never studied. It’d be nice if you could pick up a language just through having a vague idea of how it sounds. But, that’s not how it works.

 

[DianaCC]

…they are speaking a language they have never studied, of which I have seen many examples,…

Send one my way. As far as I know, no such person exists.

 

[vardaquinn]

Send one my way. As far as I know, no such person exists.

I can only provide anecdotal examples, but…

A priest from Africa was visiting a charismatic parish and saying the Sunday Mass. At this parish, they have permission to speak in tongues after the Gloria. He was skeptical of the charismatics, and tongues. Behind him one of the acolytes began to speak perfectly in the dialect of his native village - a dialect known to very few people.

 

[Portrait]

I can only provide anecdotal examples, but…

A priest from Africa was visiting a charismatic parish and saying the Sunday Mass. At this parish, they have permission to speak in tongues after the Gloria. He was skeptical of the charismatics, and tongues. Behind him one of the acolytes began to speak perfectly in the dialect of his native village - a dialect known to very few people.

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and hope all is well, dear friend. Apologies for not responding to your earlier posts but I have been otherwise engaged. God willing I will reply to them in due course.

Whilst I would freely admit that many who claim to have the gift of tongues are ardent servants of Christ who yearn for a deeper spiritual experience, it is almost next to certain that their glossalia is the result of intense emotional or psychic phenomenom, even though unrecognized as such by the subject of the experience. Moreover, there are others who have consciously induced similar speech experience apart from being under the control and influence of any spirit. Again, many are undeniably under the influence of some sort of Satanic power, for lying wonders of the wicked one continue to this day. If the Devil can sweep men away with mindless emotion and get them to focus on conterfeit signs and wonders, then he will do so, if that is what it takes to distract them from pursuing the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Since the extraordinary gifts are not the property of the Church today, it follows that the ‘tongues’ found in neo-Pentecostalism are burlesque imitations of the genuine apostolic gift.

When authentic renewal comes to Holy Mother Church, the Spirit will turn people’s attention chiefly to the issue of sanctity and separation from the world, not to sensational mircaulous phenomena which are no sure and certain index of vibrant spiritual life. It is a mark of sin for men to be more pre-occupied with their happiness than with their holiness and it is a true mark of grace to pursue personal righteousness above sensational and emotional experiences. True, there are some Pentecostals, Catholic and Protestant, who are concerned about practical godliness, yet large segments of the charismatic movement show little or no interest in living a pious and world-denying life. This is hardly surprising given their hand in hand with the world type of religious practice.

Increasingly the number of charismatic groupings which are dominated by talk of personal satisfaction, joy, thrilling spiritual encounters and carnal excitement are legion. Alas, in this sort of atmosphere a serious concern for sanctity and separation from the godless world soon evaporates, that is if it was ever really present in the first place. The plain fact is that many groups where the charismata are supposedly quite in abundance bear little or no resemblance whatever to the sobriety evident in devout Spirit-filled men pursuing holiness. There is so much more to life in the Spirit than religious experiences which bring instantaneous rejoicing and uninterrupted cheerfulness; there is more to the life of faith than a lifting of the spirits and an entering into fleshly exuberance. Pentecostal and charismatic types convey the impression that they believe that every man who has a smile upon his face also has a smile upon his heart, which is superficial in the extreme.

My plea is that charismatically inclined Christians face up to the fact that what passes for the gift of tongues today is gibberish resulting from a highly charged emotional state or from a deliberate attempt by the use of gibberish to demonstrate the gift.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[DianaCC]

I can only provide anecdotal examples, but…

A priest from Africa was visiting a charismatic parish and saying the Sunday Mass. At this parish, they have permission to speak in tongues after the Gloria. He was skeptical of the charismatics, and tongues. Behind him one of the acolytes began to speak perfectly in the dialect of his native village - a dialect known to very few people.

Yes, unfortunately all instances I have known have been anecdotal, all out of reach, all missing the key pieces of information that would make a difference, and all of them supplying precisely the kind of information that bespeaks credulity on the part of the originators or conveyors of the story.

Something I left out of my Basque tongues anecdote was that the conveyor went into great detail about the characteristics of the Basque language, such as that it has no known affiliation with any other language, as if these were notes of authenticity but of course they are patently irrelevant yet he couldn’t see that.

It’s the equivalent of having a real live police officer in uniform with 30 years on the job and all sorts of honors and decorations etc. etc. etc. verify that a magician’s handcuffs are in fact locked before the trick starts.

Also, I know of no instances of anyone speaking in tongues in English. I wonder why not.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. vardaquinn

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. May I just say that whilst we differ strongly on this issue, I appreciate the charitable manner in which you discuss this highly contentious topic. You put your case well and without rancour, which is so very necessary in public Forums such as these.

We cannot abdicate our responsibility to evaluate the manifestations of modern day tongue-speaking, unless and only if it directly affects us personally, for that is a dereliction of our duty to exercise general discernment. If we are convinced that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit have been long since been withdrawn, as both SS. Augustine and Chrysostom inform us, then we most certainly can and should appraise en masse any interdenominational movement that claims to be in possession of said gifts.

If I were at a Charismatic meeting and men were supposedly ‘moving in the gifts’, I would be entitled, as would any other concerned man, to evaluate the individuals present in negative terms, for what would be occuring *collectively *would not be the authentic gift of tongues or prophecy etc, which is not the property of the Church in the 21st. century. The extraordonary endowments of the Spirit are the “signs of a true apostle” (II Cor. 12: 12) and as such served a didactic purpose in the early days of Christianity before the Church was firmly planted in the world. That this was recognised by our Lord when he performed His miracles is quite clear from such a passage as S. Mk. 2: 10,11: “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he said to the paralytic - “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home”. Subsequent to the Resurrection, miracles were performed by the apostles to corroborate the truth of their holy doctrine (see Acts 5: 12, 14: 3; Heb. 2: 4). The apostolic sign gifts, including speaking with “new tongues”, were the visible authentication of an *apostolic *commision. We no longer have the unique band of apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communiication of which was an essential part of the “signs of a true apostle”) are necessarily absent. It really is as basic and simple as that, old chap.

If reasonable and well-balanced men are going to be convinced regarding the claims of the Catholic Church, then this will be achieved by rational and cogent reasoning, based on sound apologetics. The objections to our most holy religion will be faced openly and honestly and will be dealt with persuasively by the force of logical argumentation. That is the method that has, and always will be, employed by the Catholic apologist. To say, by way of reply, that this alone will not suffice any longer given the prevalent unbelief and aggressive secularisation that now preponderates in the Western world, is to meet the counter-argument that men will never be persuaded by spurious tongue-speaking or prophecies etc. Indeed, it was this sort of erroneous thinking that lay at the heart of the Rich Man’s request in our Lord’s parable to visit his brethren from the dead, "But Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent”. he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead” (S. Lk. 16: 29-31). The principle laid down in this passage is most instructive in the light of the widespread Charismatic confusion of our times. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as correctly interpreted by Holy Mother Church, is sufficient for us men and our salvation. Miracles are no longer required to authenticate the Gospel and the missionary effort of the Church. It is not more miraculous evidence that is wanted today in order to encourage men to embrace the faith of Christ, but rather more heart and will to make use of what is already at their disposal.

Interestingly, a Lazarus was indeed to go to the unbelieving Jews from the dead: - not the Lazarus from the parable, but the Lazarus from Bethany; yet his resurrection only served to rouse the Pharisees to more active measures against our dear Lord. Moreover, One far greater than Lazarus was to rise from the dead, yet neither were they persuaded. The truth is, the faith and penitence which the five brothers needed, did not require any stronger testimony on which to rest; they had all the proof that they possibly needed in the O.T. Scriptures. It was the heart and the will that were wrong and these are changed not by startling phenomena, such as tongue-speaking (even cults have this), but by God’s redeeming grace working through the Church and its apologetics apostlates.

Emotionalism is at the heart of the Charismatic renewal because, contrary to what you say, it does undeniably make its appeal to the emotions, rather than the intellect. Indeed, this is why great credence is given to subjective experience and anecdotal testimonies - the entire movement thrives of this very sort of thing, both in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations and this is why it is so unsound and uncatholic.

The problem with ‘happiness’ is that it has a tendency to to depend upon happenings; it must be sharply distinguished from the ‘joy’ spoken of in the N.T., which is something totally different altogether. This joy will get a man through his darkest hours when he is undergoing much adversity and misery, because this is the ‘joy of the Lord’ which is truly his strength and thus he is able to rise above his present distresses with fortitude.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[DianaCC]

1. 
   *]If we are convinced that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit have been long since been withdrawn, as both SS. Augustine and Chrysostom inform us, then we most certainly can and should appraise en masse any interdenominational movement that claims to be in possession of said gifts. …
   *]We no longer have the unique band of apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communiication of which was an essential part of the “signs of a true apostle”) are necessarily absent. …
   *]men will never be persuaded by spurious tongue-speaking or prophecies etc. …
   *]Miracles are no longer required to authenticate the Gospel and the missionary effort of the Church. …
   *]It was the heart and the will that were wrong and these are changed not by startling phenomena, such as tongue-speaking (even cults have this), …
   *]Emotionalism is at the heart of the Charismatic renewal because, contrary to what you say, it does undeniably make its appeal to the emotions, rather than the intellect. Indeed, this is why great credence is given to subjective experience and anecdotal testimonies - the entire movement thrives of this very sort of thing, both in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations and this is why it is so unsound and uncatholic.

1. 
   I think you’re right, Portrait.
   
   1. 
      *]If what people are now calling tongues had been extant from the beginning then it would have shown up in our records of Catholic life. All the references I’ve been able to find treat of tongues as a past phenomenon or as a topic in theory, not as part of contemporary experience. Hence its modern revival is suspicious.
      *]The stereotypical signs (including drinking poison and handling snakes) make sense in context, but once they were recently reintroduced on man’s own initiative, they immediately took on the character of stunts. For example, Paul on a mission trip was approached by a snake and was bitten; he did not have the congregation at Troas bring out bags of rattlesnakes so he could wrap them around his neck.
      *]The general attitude of glossolalists seems to be that tongues (or rather the phenomenon commonly so-called among them) is that this is a sign from heaven for unbelievers. So it is written. But I get the impression that unbelievers see right through it. How then is it a sign for unbelievers? There’s nothing miraculous or wonderful about people jabbering away mindlessly.
      *]Vardaquinn is going to jump all over your contention that miracles are no longer required. He will counter that miracles still happen among us, thereby missing your point. But you’re right, of course, we no longer need miracles for authentication of our mission, because the supernatural confirmation has already been settled by the miracles of the first generation, and thereafter it suffices that claimants demonstrate episcopal endorsement.
      *]And besides, miracles have never ever in the history of Judaism or Christianity been understood as proof of supernatural mission, and a mistaken notion of their role leads to errors in judgment when it comes to judging something by its “fruits”, for every remarkable or edifying phenomenon, whether it be a religious conversion or miraculous healing, or even a stamped rose petal or well-rubbed rosary, is automatically labelled a positive fruit regardless of its connection with the phenomenon whose authenticity is strenuously being defended. And to my dismay, phenomena which prima facie seem inauthentic are supported by reams of testimony that are consistently, even persistently, worthless. Time and time again, a little investigation into an alleged “fruit” reveals it to have been mere hype. Authentic phenomena rarely if ever use the tools of the marketplace.
      *]The fact that brain scans of people speaking in tongues suggest that the language centers of the brain are not in use is an elegant metaphor. But the emphasis on subjective experience is for me one of the most convincing arguments against its authenticity. Sure, one can say “But I know a guy who is a scientist and very smart and logical and he speaks in tongues”, but we all know the value of such examples.

 

[Portrait]

I think you’re right, Portrait.

1. 
   *]If what people are now calling tongues had been extant from the beginning then it would have shown up in our records of Catholic life. All the references I’ve been able to find treat of tongues as a past phenomenon or as a topic in theory, not as part of contemporary experience. Hence its modern revival is suspicious.
   *]The stereotypical signs (including drinking poison and handling snakes) make sense in context, but once they were recently reintroduced on man’s own initiative, they immediately took on the character of stunts. For example, Paul on a mission trip was approached by a snake and was bitten; he did not have the congregation at Troas bring out bags of rattlesnakes so he could wrap them around his neck.
   *]The general attitude of glossolalists seems to be that tongues (or rather the phenomenon commonly so-called among them) is that this is a sign from heaven for unbelievers. So it is written. But I get the impression that unbelievers see right through it. How then is it a sign for unbelievers? There’s nothing miraculous or wonderful about people jabbering away mindlessly.
   *]Vardaquinn is going to jump all over your contention that miracles are no longer required. He will counter that miracles still happen among us, thereby missing your point. But you’re right, of course, we no longer need miracles for authentication of our mission, because the supernatural confirmation has already been settled by the miracles of the first generation, and thereafter it suffices that claimants demonstrate episcopal endorsement.
   *]And besides, miracles have never ever in the history of Judaism or Christianity been understood as proof of supernatural mission, and a mistaken notion of their role leads to errors in judgment when it comes to judging something by its “fruits”, for every remarkable or edifying phenomenon, whether it be a religious conversion or miraculous healing, or even a stamped rose petal or well-rubbed rosary, is automatically labelled a positive fruit regardless of its connection with the phenomenon whose authenticity is strenuously being defended. And to my dismay, phenomena which prima facie seem inauthentic are supported by reams of testimony that are consistently, even persistently, worthless. Time and time again, a little investigation into an alleged “fruit” reveals it to have been mere hype. Authentic phenomena rarely if ever use the tools of the marketplace.
   *]The fact that brain scans of people speaking in tongues suggest that the language centers of the brain are not in use is an elegant metaphor. But the emphasis on subjective experience is for me one of the most convincing arguments against its authenticity. Sure, one can say “But I know a guy who is a scientist and very smart and logical and he speaks in tongues”, but we all know the value of such examples.

1. 
   Dear Diana,
   
   Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response to my post. It is good to know that we are singing from the same hymn sheet with respect to this issue and I ditto all of your remarks both in this post and the others that you have contributed to the present discussion. You have made some very good points, dear sister.
   
   God bless and keep posting.
   
   Warmest good wishes,
   
   Portrait:tiphat:
   
   Pax

 

[vardaquinn]

Greetings and blessings to Portrait and DianaCC:

When authentic renewal comes to Holy Mother Church, the Spirit will turn people’s attention chiefly to the issue of sanctity and separation from the world, not to sensational mircaulous phenomena which are no sure and certain index of vibrant spiritual life.

To sanctity, yes. I’m interested as to what you are referring to by seperation from the world, you could mean it in a few different lights. Seperation might not be a good word. When the Holy spirit comes, we are certainly not supposed to be seperated from the world hanging out in the Upper Room still. From your previous posts, I think you are too much influenced by this mentality. The world is evil (yes it is), so let’s just hide ourselves away and keep ourselves safe! No! That is not the Christian outlook. The world is evil - let us bring Christ, the light of nations, to the world! There but for the grace of God go I! This is our faith. We are sent.

I think the Holy Spirit, to authentically renew Holy Mother Church, will fill her with those gifts that are primarily orientated towards the upbuilding of the Church: that is, the charismatic gifts. These are not sensational extraordinary phenomena.

True, there are some Pentecostals, Catholic and Protestant, who are concerned about practical godliness, yet large segments of the charismatic movement show little or no interest in living a pious and world-denying life

Perhaps the ones you’ve seen. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people I could point out to you who are living a pious and world-denying life would be charismatics.

Increasingly the number of charismatic groupings which are dominated by talk of personal satisfaction, joy, thrilling spiritual encounters and carnal excitement are legion.

You can’t make a broad generalization like that. The only charismatic groupings I’ve been to have highlighted the importance of spiritual dryness, and how God doesn’t always give sensational experiences, and wants to move us to a deeper level of prayer. Don’t make sweeping generalizations. That’s not totally particular to charismatic groupings.

The plain fact is that many groups where the charismata are supposedly quite in abundance bear little or no resemblance whatever to the sobriety evident in devout Spirit-filled men pursuing holiness.

Remember the Apostles were accused of being drunk. And they are the model of devout Spirit-filled men pursuing holiness. St. Ambrose coined the phrase “sober intoxication of the Spirit”, which the charismatic preacher to the papal household wrote a book on. amazon.com/Sober-Intoxication-Spirit-Filled-Fullness/dp/0867167130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316046652&sr=8-1

Pentecostal and charismatic types convey the impression that they believe that every man who has a smile upon his face also has a smile upon his heart, which is superficial in the extreme.

Smile! Our religion is a religion of joy! If you aren’t happy and filled with joy, you aren’t living a Christian life! Our command is to rejoice! Of course, this isn’t constantly being filled with emotional good feelings. Feelings change (thank God). Joy is something deeper than feelings! But, come now. Do you really want to put down people for being too happy, even if it is more emotional? That’s silly.

My plea is that charismatically inclined Christians face up to the fact that what passes for the gift of tongues today is gibberish resulting from a highly charged emotional state or from a deliberate attempt by the use of gibberish to demonstrate the gift.

No I refuse. That is a lie. That is not the case. In my experience, tongues is almost never an emotional experience. It was certainly not a deliberate attempt of the use of gibberish. To suggest this is, if you will pardon me, very arrogant! Was St. Paul simply in a highly charged emotional state, or deliberately attempting gibberish? No.

Yes, unfortunately all instances I have known have been anecdotal, all out of reach, all missing the key pieces of information that would make a difference, and all of them supplying precisely the kind of information that bespeaks credulity on the part of the originators or conveyors of the story.

Well, I could give you the name of the parish, and the priest…

Also, I know of no instances of anyone speaking in tongues in English. I wonder why not.

I have!

 

[vardaquinn]

If we are convinced that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit have been long since been withdrawn, as both SS. Augustine and Chrysostom inform us, then we most certainly can and should appraise en masse any interdenominational movement that claims to be in possession of said gifts.

St. Augustine retracted his position, after seeing so many of the extraordinary gifts manifested himself! And, as for St. John Chrysostom, someone with that opinion doesn’t make homilies like these… newadvent.org/fathers/220135.htm In which he encourages people to ask for tongues! But yes: we should praise movements that seek to bring back our understanding of these gifts, and open our hearts to them!

The apostolic sign gifts, including speaking with “new tongues”, were the visible authentication of an apostolic commision. We no longer have the unique band of apostles with us and therefore the supernatural gifts (the communiication of which was an essential part of the “signs of a true apostle”) are necessarily absent. It really is as basic and simple as that, old chap.

But we still have the Apostolic commission! If we do not, then this is not the true Church. We are still called to go out to all nations and preach the Gospel. We are called to evangelize. The Apostles didn’t have this extra special grace, that none of us get! Not at all! “For God has no favorites” (Col 3:25)! We have access to just as much grace as they do. And our mission remains the same. To suggest otherwise calls into question the universal call to sanctity, the universality of the Church, and therefore the Church as being “catholic”. The grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit, and our shared vocation as Christians, is for all! We do have the band of Apostles with us! They are called bishops! We can trace them right back to the Apostles! They are led by the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff!

You are saying something contrary to Church teaching! The Church (in the Catechism and other places) teaches that the charisms, of which they highlight both extraordinary gifts (including tongues) and more simple and widely diffused gifts, are still given by the Spirit today! You are also openly contradicting Scripture. St. Paul says: the manifestation of the Spirit is given to all for the common good. Not to “just this group”, not to “just us, and not the fellows in later centuries” but to ALL (meaning, those charisms listed in the last sentences).

If reasonable and well-balanced men are going to be convinced regarding the claims of the Catholic Church, then this will be achieved by rational and cogent reasoning, based on sound apologetics.

Haha, yeah well good luck with that. I think you should read Fides et Ratio by John Paul II. A faith that is purely rational, well, isn’t a very real faith. Belief is not some intellectual assent to things we rationally see as true. No. It is an act of total entrusting to God. Rational argument can help, but honestly I’ve argued with so many reasonable and well balanced men who remain utterly unconvinced. It’s not a purely rational issue! Reasoning can help, but it ain’t the whole deal. The Faith is not a theory, or philosophy! It is a love affair. In any case, this is also contrary to Church teaching (See JP 2’s “Mission of the Redeemer” at the very least). And to what Scripture says about evangelizing. If Jesus had intended us to primarily use logical reasoning, he would have provided us with many rational arguments. This is not what evangelization is. Faith stems from an encounter with the living God. Reasoning is limited.

Too often I see people making the mistake of looking at things in a light of “either/or”. Either this, or that. It is both/and. You need both.

I’m a cradle Catholic. I believed in God and loved Him before I was ever convinced rationally that He existed.

 

[vardaquinn]

Miracles are no longer required to authenticate the Gospel and the missionary effort of the Church

Uh huh, I see clear signs of a lack of experience in evangelizing! I can tell you too many stories of individuals who would absolutely NOT believe until they saw a miracle. St. Thomas would be a good example.

It is the Holy Spirit who is the primary evangelist. Not us.

I guarantee you will not get anywhere with that mentality. In any case, it’s contrary to Scripture. People today aren’t any better or worse than they were in the time of the Apostles. And there are some folks who just will not believe unless they see a miracle. And the Holy Spirit is willing to work them! He does! To deny that they don’t happen is just, pardon me, very stupid! I have heard waaaaay too many miracle stories, that are just so obviously miracles, to think otherwise.

Now yes, there are some who will be even more stubborn. Like the Pharisees. But I’m not going to go about evangelizing saying “well, no miracles”. I’m going to do whatever the Holy Spirit leads me to do. If He wants me to work a miracle, so be it.

Your mentality is very contrary to Scripture. Remember when Jesus says “Go out, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons!” We should all be able to become sea-splitting, mountain moving, sick healing, water walkers at a moment’s notice. Read the Gospels! Read what Our Lord says about how to preach the Gospel!

Emotionalism is at the heart of the Charismatic renewal because, contrary to what you say, it does undeniably make its appeal to the emotions, rather than the intellect. Indeed, this is why great credence is given to subjective experience and anecdotal testimonies - the entire movement thrives of this very sort of thing, both in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations and this is why it is so unsound and uncatholic.

Not true. I know plenty charismatics who rarely have emotional experiences. It makes it appeal to the soul, and the emotions, and the intellect, and the human person. You’re making broad generalizations again. Our faith is not a purely intellectual one: it involves the whole person, including our bodies with our human emotions. Your standpoint is quite gnostic. We’re body and soul.

It’s pretty lame when most fellows get far more pumped up about the sports game than they ever do about God.

Please pardon me saying this, I mean no offense only charity, but you strike me as a very sad person if you think miracles don’t happen anymore. If you think the faith rests on purely rational grounds. If you think emotional happiness is bad. I’m very sorry for you.

 

[vardaquinn]

If what people are now calling tongues had been extant from the beginning then it would have shown up in our records of Catholic life. All the references I’ve been able to find treat of tongues as a past phenomenon or as a topic in theory, not as part of contemporary experience. Hence its modern revival is suspicious.

I see a contradiction here. On the one hand, you ask for records of contemporary experience. On the other, you condemn modern revivals of it. There are contemporary records of it!

“If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy.” - Justin Martyr

Just as also we hear many brethren in the church who have gifts of
prophecy, and who speak through the Spirit with all manner of tongues,
and who bring the hidden things of men into the clearness for the
common good and expound the mysteries of God.

• St. Ireneus

The stereotypical signs (including drinking poison and handling snakes) make sense in context, but once they were recently reintroduced on man’s own initiative, they immediately took on the character of stunts. For example, Paul on a mission trip was approached by a snake and was bitten; he did not have the congregation at Troas bring out bags of rattlesnakes so he could wrap them around his neck.

Well, I think Pentecostals who do this are probably VERY stupid.

The general attitude of glossolalists seems to be that tongues (or rather the phenomenon commonly so-called among them) is that this is a sign from heaven for unbelievers. So it is written. But I get the impression that unbelievers see right through it. How then is it a sign for unbelievers? There’s nothing miraculous or wonderful about people jabbering away mindlessly.

No, there are varieties of tongues, as it is written. There is the form that is for prayer, see Acts 2, Acts 19, and 1 Cor 14 for examples. There is also the form that is for instruction. For this, either it is in the language of the people receiving the instruction (thus a sign for unbelievers), or an interpretation is given.

Don’t condemn what is a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit.

Vardaquinn is going to jump all over your contention that miracles are no longer required. He will counter that miracles still happen among us, thereby missing your point. But you’re right, of course, we no longer need miracles for authentication of our mission, because the supernatural confirmation has already been settled by the miracles of the first generation, and thereafter it suffices that claimants demonstrate episcopal endorsement.

Yes, I do jump on this. I find this to be an absolutely absurd position. And I think it shows that neither of you have great experience in evangelization (and neither do I, but at least enough to say that they certainly are needed in some cases). Miracles happens all the time! I can name so many contemporary stories of miracles, from people I personally no, miracles in my own life, in my friends life, my family’s, and so on.

As in the case of St. Thomas, some people simply will not believe until they see.

And besides, miracles have never ever in the history of Judaism or Christianity been understood as proof of supernatural mission

You clearly have not read, or at least not paid attention to, the Bible. Why do you think Jesus worked miracles? Because He was a magician who liked to do cool things? Or because they were a sign of His mission?

1. The fact that brain scans of people speaking in tongues suggest that the language centers of the brain are not in use is an elegant metaphor. But the emphasis on subjective experience is for me one of the most convincing arguments against its authenticity. Sure, one can say “But I know a guy who is a scientist and very smart and logical and he speaks in tongues”, but we all know the value of such examples.

If you have not experienced the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit, in whatever way, if you have never personally encountered Christ: then you are not living as a real Christian. We experience the objective reality of the Truth. It is “both/and”. It requires some subjective experience - however sensational or not.

I find your deep doubt of a legitimate gift of God the Holy Spirit, as defined by both the Catechism and the Scripture, to be very troubling. I also find it troubling that many are fiercely against this gift, which is senseless.

Don’t take it up with the charismatics. Take it up with God. He invented it. It was His idea.

 

[vardaquinn]

Here’s my question: what is the motive behind advocating, so to speak, “no miracles”? What is the point of that? What can anyone stand to gain from that mentality?