Confused about speaking in tongues

[vardaquinn]

I will defend to the death Harry Potter, but that is another matter. Now, this may not be at all true for you, I know nothing of your life. But I see so many orthodox Catholics today living in a state of fear, so intent merely on preserving their own faith from what they deem to be a depraved world. They look at things like Harry Potter, and popular culture, as evil - when they are not, and are powerful forces of good because the Holy Spirit uses artists as his instruments, and culture is the binding force of all civilization. Many Catholics are despairing of the modern world. This is a grave mistake. The tendency of Catholics today mirrors the pre-Pentecost behavior of the Apostles: locked up behind closed doors, concerned only for themselves. But this is not the Christian life!!! We are called to go out and be witnesses to truth, to hope, to the salvation of Christ! God does work signs and wonders!!! I have heard so many miracle stories that have happened just in the last week! Many Catholics today have lost the focus on what this is all about. They are not letting the Holy Spirit work through them. They are not going out and being fearless witnesses, walking in the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit. They put God in a box, and in a sense “circle the wagons” until the end comes. Of course God works miracles!! That’s what He does! Expect them, pray for them, be ready for Him to use you for them! This isn’t about us, and what we can do on our own. It’s about us letting God work through us, and getting out of His way.

This is not the case with many involved in new renewal movements, especially the charismatic movement. They have left the Upper Room, and in many places in the world, the faith is growing only where there is a presence of these new renewal movements.

No, the pious Christian is one who has encountered Christ, who is turning away from sin and allowing the grace of God to redeem Him. He is then going out and telling others the Truth. This is what it means to be a Christian: to be anointed by the Holy Spirit, and go and tell others about Christ.

God is a God of signs and wonders. How on earth can you expect to evangelize without the gifts and the presence and power of God the Holy Spirit?! That’s the whole point!

What you are saying, unfortunately, utterly contradicts Scripture, Church teaching, and the tradition of the Church. It utterly contradicts what the Second Vatican Council said, and what the popes since then have proclaimed. Read what the Popes are saying: iccrs.org/en/index.php/ccr/

 

[vardaquinn]

We are supposed to be living Scriptural, New Testament Christianity. That’s the main reason why the Church has recalled our focus to the Holy Bible. We read the Book, we read what’s possible when God is on our side, and we live that! God is not a stingy giver - He’s generous! He gives us waaaay more than the bare minimum of what we need. We need to feed the hungry souls of this world starving for Jesus Christ. And He looks at us and says: there are five thousand hungry mouths here. How much have you got? A loaf? Two fishes? Fine, good, give me that and I’ll give you more than enough to feed all the people here. He fills our baskets with more, so we can give more. The Apostles filled 12 wicker baskets with the food left over. This is what is at heart of living a life of true service to others. God is alive! The gifts He gives are not just ancient history - they’re meant for now, for us, to serve His people! He is the primary mover here, not us, and He is really on the move. Don’t get in His way!

 

[DianaCC]

We are supposed to be living Scriptural, New Testament Christianity.

No, Vardaq, first-century Christianity died out around AD 100.

 

[ltwin]

No, Vardaq, first-century Christianity died out around AD 100.

??? Are you admitting that Catholicism is not 1st century Christianity . . .

 

[vardaquinn]

No, Vardaq, first-century Christianity died out around AD 100.

Yeah… be careful what you’re saying there. If our Church is not the Christianity of the first century, then it is not the true Church. But our Church IS the Church of the first century. It is One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

What I am saying is the same as what is being said by the Magisterium, especially through the Second Vatican Council.

This is a good article on the subject. catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/06/charismatic-movement-and-catholic.html

 

[DianaCC]

??? Are you admitting that Catholicism is not 1st century Christianity . . .

Saying we should be just like New Testament Christianity is a popular excuse among Protestants for a whole lot of heresy. Crucifixes, vestments, celibacy, Latin, praying to saints … none of that is in the Bible, so we should get rid of it all, because we all need to lock ourselves into the first century, because the first century was perfect, and we should never grow out of it. Funny how people today want to go back to the first century as if it’s better, but the second century Christians didn’t think that way.

For me personally I want to live in 21st century Christianity, when the signs and wonders that came along with the starting of the Church are past their expiration date.

 

[vardaquinn]

Saying we should be just like New Testament Christianity is a popular excuse among Protestants for a whole lot of heresy. Crucifixes, vestments, celibacy, Latin, praying to saints … none of that is in the Bible, so we should get rid of it all, because we all need to lock ourselves into the first century, because the first century was perfect, and we should never grow out of it. Funny how people today want to go back to the first century as if it’s better, but the second century Christians didn’t think that way.

For me personally I want to live in 21st century Christianity, when the signs and wonders that came along with the starting of the Church are past their expiration date.

That’s not what we’re saying. Maybe you should read the New Testament. I mean, because if we’re not living based on the Word of God, and what God directs us to do in Scripture, then what is the whole darned point? Or maybe read Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. And maybe read your Catechism.

I’m sorry, but that is just heretical and absolutely unfounded. If that’s 21st century Christianity, I want out. Thankfully, it’s not. God works signs and wonders on a constant basis. You obviously have never experienced that. I’m sorry. If you’re uncomfortable with the fact that He’s doing miracles today still, and He’s still around, take it up with Him - not the charismatic movement.

 

[DianaCC]

Maybe you should read the New Testament. … read Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium … read your Catechism.

I have. I missed the parts about trancelike gibberish being a gift.

 

[vardaquinn]

I have. I missed the parts about trancelike gibberish being a gift.

Well, that’s because there’s nothing on that there. But if you were referring to the gift of tongues, at the very least check out Acts of the Apostles and 1 Corinthians.

 

[ltwin]

I have. I missed the parts about trancelike gibberish being a gift.

I missed that too . I find it common that people assume that speaking in tongues occurs in a “trancelike” state. I suppose there are reasons why someone might think that, but this perception is unfounded. There is no “trance” involved in speaking in tongues. I can speak in tongues on command, and I often pray in tongues while driving.

 

[mariacamille]

From the Catechism:

798 The Holy Spirit is "the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body."247 He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity:248 by God’s Word “which is able to build you up”;249 by Baptism, through which he forms Christ’s Body;250 by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ’s members; by “the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts”;251 by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called “charisms”), by which he makes the faithful "fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church."252

Charisms

799 Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world.

800 Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.253

801 It is in this sense that discernment of charisms is always necessary. No charism is exempt from being referred and submitted to the Church’s shepherds. "Their office [is] not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good,"254 so that all the diverse and complementary charisms work together "for the common good."255

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia under Charismata:

The Greek term charisma denotes any good gift that flows from God’s benevolent love (charis) unto man; any Divine grace or favour, ranging from redemption and life eternal to comfort in communing with brethren in the Faith (Romans 5:15, 16; 6:23; 11:29). The term has, however, a narrower meaning: the spiritual graces and qualifications granted to every Christian to perform his task in the Church: “Every one hath his proper gift [charisma] from God; one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Corinthians 7:7 etc.). Lastly, in its narrowest sense, charisma is the theological term for denoting extraordinary graces given to individual Christians for the good of others. These, or most of these, are enumerated by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31), and form the subject-matter of the present article. They are: “The word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits, diverse kinds of tongues, interpretation of speeches” (1 Corinthians 12:8-10). To these are added the charismata of apostles, prophets, doctors, helps, governments (ibid., 28).
…]
Theologians distinguish the charismata from other graces which operate personal sanctification: they call the former gratiae gratis datae in opposition to the gratiae gratum facientes. The “gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost”, being given for personal sanctification, are not to be numbered among the charismata. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., I-II, Q. cxi, a. 4) argues that the Apostle (1 Corinthians 12:8-10) “rightly divides charismata; for some belong to the perfection of knowledge, as faith, the word of wisdom, and the word of science; some belong to the confirmation of doctrine, or the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits; some belong to the faculty of expression, as kinds of tongues and interpretation of speeches.” It must, however, be conceded that St. Paul did not intend to give in these two verses a complete enumeration of charismata, for at the end of the chapter he mentions several more; besides he makes no attempt at a scientific division. Englmann (Die Charismen, Ratisbon, 1848) distinguishes two categories of charismata:

* charismata tending to further the inner growth of the Church;
* charismata tending to promote her outer development.

To the former belong the gifts which help the dignitaries of the Church in performing their offices; to the latter the gift of performing miracles. This division seems indicated in 1 Peter 4:10-11: “As every man hath received grace [charisma], ministering the same to one another. . . If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth.” Seven of the charismata enumerated by St. Paul fall into the first category:

1. the Apostolate;
2. the cognate office of prophecy;
3. the discerning of spirits;
4. the office of teacher;
5. the word of wisdom and science;
6. helps;
7. the gift of governing.

Five belong to the second category:

1. increased faith;
2. the power of miracles;
3. in specie the healing of the sick;
4. the gift of tongues;
5. the interpretation of tongues.

Edited to Add:

We’re not called to Judge. Jesus himself tells us to NOT Judge! We’re disobeying him when we judge other people’s faith for ourselves. Jesus will do that himself at the end. My mother had this saying of “Keep your eyes on your own plate.”

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t speak in tongues but I do occasionally pray in tongues. It is a very uplifting experience. I only do it privately though or in a charismatic Catholic prayer group.

 

[DianaCC]

Well, that’s because there’s nothing on that there. But if you were referring to the gift of tongues, at the very least check out Acts of the Apostles and 1 Corinthians.

At the risk of curling this thread back into a circle, on first glance these look like intelligible languages. Are there any passages that address streams of nonsense syllables?

 

[DianaCC]

I missed that too . I find it common that people assume that speaking in tongues occurs in a “trancelike” state. I suppose there are reasons why someone might think that, but this perception is unfounded. There is no “trance” involved in speaking in tongues. I can speak in tongues on command, and I often pray in tongues while driving.

If you look at the person’s face when he’s streaming gibberish, you can tell his mind isn’t engaged. I’m not exactly sure what a trance is, so it was a sloppy but accurate enough choice of words on my part.

 

[DianaCC]

We’re not called to Judge. Jesus himself tells us to NOT Judge!

Refusal to exercise discernment in spiritual matters is the most dangerous kind of negligence. If men can entertain angels unawares, so much more can we entertain demons.

 

[Portrait]

Well, that’s because there’s nothing on that there. But if you were referring to the gift of tongues, at the very least check out Acts of the Apostles and 1 Corinthians.

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your responses to my posts, dear friend, which I will reply to in due course.

The authentic ‘tongues’ of the N.T. were never gibberish or ecstatic utterances. Exactly the same word (glossa) is used used in the Greek text of I Corinthians 14 as in the account of the initial Pentecostal outpouring in the Book of Acts, where the hearers from diverse regions indisputably heard a variety of genuine languages spoken.

In verses 10 and 11 of I Cor. 14 St. Paul refers to the multitude of different languages, each of which has a clear and distinct meaning. Most conclusively of all, his citation from the O.T. Book of Isaiah in verse 21 takes us to the period in Israel’s history when the people of God heard what seemed to them the gibberish of the Assyrian language, but wich was nevertheless authentic speech. This is seen as a parallel with the uncomprehending listener who hears a man speaking in ‘tongues’. It may sound like gibberish, but is in fact genuine speech, an earthly language of some sort.

A leading Anglican charismatic actual corroborates this historical and traditional interpretation when he writes, "The New Testament calls it “language” - never “gibberish”’ (Life in the Holy Spirit, Michael Harper, Fountain Trust 1973, p. 9). Again, another leading light in Protestant Charismatic circles, Larry Christenson, “His (St. Paul’s) implication is not that they were speaking gibberish or ecstatic speech, but in languages not known to any of their fellow woshippers” (Speaking in Tongues a Gift for the Body of Christ, Fountain Trust 1970, p 12). Clearly, in the opinion of this notable Charismatic, the manifestation at Corinth was essentially synonymous with what occured on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is undeniably the case that the tongues of the N.T. are neither gibberish nor “ecstatic utterances”. They are straightforward regular languages.

Notwithstanding, the almost universal Charismatic/Petecostal assumption is that the speaker himself did not understand what he was saying and from this I must vigorously dissent because it cannot be sustained by biblical exegesis. On the contrary, it is a view that is *read *into the Corinthian’s passage to support the subjective experiences of men, rather than an interpretation that is *read out *of the passage.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

You can’t judge that for yourself. Undoubtedly, that may be the case with some individuals. But none of us have the right or ability to judge someone’s faith. Outward appearances are often deceiving. How often have I been astonished to find people, who I had by my own prideful judgments thought to have a very weak faith, to be in fact incredibly holy people - far holier than myself.

Dear vardaquinn,

Hello again my dear friend.

To say that it is wrong and uncharitable, under any circumstances, to pass an unfavourable judgment on the conduct and claims of others, is incorrect. St. Paul exhorts us to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (I Thess. 5: 21) and St. John advises us to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (I John 4: 1). Incidently, a footnote in the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, says on this text in First John, “test the spirits: i.e. examine those who claim to have special gifts from the Holy Spirit, cf. I Cor. 14: 32” - very applicable and very necessary in the light of neo-Pentecostal claims, both the Catholic and Protestant variety.

Clearly, if we are to avoid gullibility we must needs apply tests to all that claims to be from God - including those who contend that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, the ‘signs of a true apostle’, are the property of the contemporary Church. We do have biblical warrant for using our powers of spiritual discernment and indeed should use them, otherwise we are at risk of becoming duped and ensnared by all manner of false teaching and counterfeit experiences.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[ltwin]

If you look at the person’s face when he’s streaming gibberish, you can tell his mind isn’t engaged. I’m not exactly sure what a trance is, so it was a sloppy but accurate enough choice of words on my part.

Not sure what you mean by that. People can speak and pray in tongues in many different situations and contexts. If I am speaking in tongues in the context of a heightened and intense spiritual experience my demeanor will be different than if I am praying in tongues while driving or taking a shower or washing the dishes.

You are correct that we do not use our mind to direct the vocalizations that proceed from our mouths. But our minds do not shut down. Paul says we are to pray with our spirits and with our understanding. Having grown up in a Pentecostal church and watched many people pray in tongues, it is obvious that they are indeed very focused and engaged. Their thoughts are engaged in adoration and worship of God.

 

[ltwin]

Dear vardaquinn,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your responses to my posts, dear friend, which I will reply to in due course.

The authentic ‘tongues’ of the N.T. were never gibberish or ecstatic utterances. Exactly the same word (glossa) is used used in the Greek text of I Corinthians 14 as in the account of the initial Pentecostal outpouring in the Book of Acts, where the hearers from diverse regions indisputably heard a variety of genuine languages spoken.

In verses 10 and 11 of I Cor. 14 St. Paul refers to the multitude of different languages, each of which has a clear and distinct meaning. Most conclusively of all, his citation from the O.T. Book of Isaiah in verse 21 takes us to the period in Israel’s history when the people of God heard what seemed to them the gibberish of the Assyrian language, but wich was nevertheless authentic speech. This is seen as a parallel with the uncomprehending listener who hears a man speaking in ‘tongues’. It may sound like gibberish, but is in fact genuine speech, an earthly language of some sort.

A leading Anglican charismatic actual corroborates this historical and traditional interpretation when he writes, "The New Testament calls it “language” - never “gibberish”’ (Life in the Holy Spirit, Michael Harper, Fountain Trust 1973, p. 9). Again, another leading light in Protestant Charismatic circles, Larry Christenson, “His (St. Paul’s) implication is not that they were speaking gibberish or ecstatic speech, but in languages not known to any of their fellow woshippers” (Speaking in Tongues a Gift for the Body of Christ, Fountain Trust 1970, p 12). Clearly, in the opinion of this notable Charismatic, the manifestation at Corinth was essentially synonymous with what occured on the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, it is undeniably the case that the tongues of the N.T. are neither gibberish nor “ecstatic utterances”. They are straightforward regular languages.

Notwithstanding, the almost universal Charismatic/Petecostal assumption is that the speaker himself did not understand what he was saying and from this I must vigorously dissent because it cannot be sustained by biblical exegesis. On the contrary, it is a view that is *read *into the Corinthian’s passage to support the subjective experiences of men, rather than an interpretation that is *read out *of the passage.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I don’t understand what you are arguing here??? No charismatic believes that the gift of tongues is gibberish or ecstatic speech. Duh they are languages. The word “tongue” simply means “language.” No charismatic will argue with this. The question is not whether it is a language or not. Everyone agrees that they are languages. The problem comes from the disagreements over whether the gift of tongues is always an unknown human language (such as Latin or Spanish or Mandarin) or whether it can also be a heavenly, angelic, or supernatural language. That is the question the important theological question.

 

[ltwin]

Notwithstanding, the almost universal Charismatic/Petecostal assumption is that the speaker himself did not understand what he was saying and from this I must vigorously dissent because it cannot be sustained by biblical exegesis. On the contrary, it is a view that is *read *into the Corinthian’s passage to support the subjective experiences of men, rather than an interpretation that is *read out *of the passage.

The Corinthian passage says the exact opposite of what you say it does.

2For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

13Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

27If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

If the speaker knew what he was saying, there would have been no need for them or anyone else in the church to exercise the gift of interpretation. In fact, Paul said that believers were to pray for the power to interpret, which infers that there were those who did not know what they were saying and could not explain the content of the message when asked.