Detecting FAKE Tongues in Charismatic

[robertaf]

tru_dvotion:

Roberta you wrote:

You made the following statement,
“This is a false movement and although it seemed to have taken root inside the Catholic Church, the Church will eventually expel it, as it expelled other great and false movements, some of which have persisted for several hundred years.”

You said I took your words out of context. Since that is exactly how you posted them, would you be kind enough to put them in context, then.

Please allow me to recap:

This is the comment in question:

**“This is a false movement and although it seemed to have taken root inside the Catholic Church, the Church will eventually expel it, as it expelled other great and false movements, some of which have persisted for several hundred years.” **

****And this was your reaponse:

---

****You speak as if you have an inside track on this. We would love to hear your source. In fact, I would really like to know where you get your inside information about the Holy Father having a “writer”, specifically about his comments on the Charismatic Renewal.

There is nothing in the above statement about having an inside information about the Holy Father or the Holy Father having a “writer” This is what I meant when I said you have taken me out of context. Roberta, I do not have the time for this type of conversation. God bless!

Since we do not seem to understand each others posts, I will then thank you for the time and effort you have spent.
God Bless you also.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Again, you’re forcing your presumed opinion on this matter here, this time with regards to the copyright law. It is not necessary to display the copyright sign, since copyright is secured as soon as it is created. I’m not particularly interested in debating this, since it is going off-topic, but I may as well demonstrate the point, that you do tend to make a lot of assumptions.

TTM, I am not going to argue with you on this, because you have made up YOUR mind. But can I ask you a question? If you are sincerely not interested debating it, and if you are not intending to go off topic, why are you pursuing this? What is your motive?

Great. Whatever happened to the love of neighbour, our second greatest commandment? Whatever happened to the greatest commandment of all, the love of God?

---

**Who loves his neighbor? The one who chatters amicably in agreement or the one who points out his neighbor is in harms way? How can you be so certain that it is not love that sent me to this forum? You cannot be certain TTM either way, and that is why it is so important to test everything, because you never REALLY know. Do not look for the external appearances TTM, look deeper. **

---

You know, I actually dreaded coming back to this thread, because I feared it would be the same prideful, hard-hearted non-discussion? (and, I’m afraid, I was right). I got the same feeling I got when I was debating with some anti-Catholics in another forum, who also insisted their convictions onto me without considering much of the arguments presented (and yes, I talked about Mary being the Arc of the Covenant, etc.).

**Why is that TTM? Are you so absolutely certain you are correct this time? Are you always correct? Just because you had a hard time debating there does not mean everybody who debates with you is your enemy. Only charity keeps me here and the hope, that maybe something may click and truth will rub off on somebody. I am here, because I care and not because I want to win an argument. Why would I care about that? You do not know me from Adam, why would I care how you or anyone perceives me? **

---

 

[tru_dvotion]

** ***In which case, St. Paul must have been lying about speaking in tongues, since the gifts come from the Holy Spirit.

Seriously though, if the Holy Spirit gives us the gift of tongues, I do not see why Angelic tongues would be inexpressible while human tongues are, especially when they are placed side by side, as in: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. I might suggest that you are making hastily conclusion about this.

I have heard many Charismatics say that the gift of tongues take over once everything has been said in the native tongue, and one knows not how to express praise and thanks in a greater way. By this time, the Holy Spirit is already interceding for us with his inexpssible groanings. The tongues are a means by which the Holy Spirit allows for us to express further the groanings that can never be fully expressed, but certainly more than when we pray in our native tongue. This is why they are for our personal edification, as 1 Cor 14:4 indicates ("…He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself…). In other words, the tongues are an outer manifestation of the inexpressible inner groaning. *

**Read my last two posts I believe, you will find the answers to your questions. Which were not really questions, only regurgitation of a false doctrine that is NOWHERE to be found in the Scriptures or in our Catholic Tradition? **

Quote:

Some of you heard the charismatic explanations out of context for so long, it is not surprising you find it hard to think for yourselves.
Actually, I have not. I’ve only been involved in the Charismatic Renewal for perhaps a year or so. But then I’ve only been a Christian and a Catholic since Easter 2003. I’m no longer surprised that you don’t think we are capable of objective thought, however. You certainly treat us that way! As for the explanations, I don’t claim to be an authority with regard to the CCR at all. I’m far more versed in Catholic apologetics (defending Mary, the Eucharist, etc.), than in defending the Charismatic Renewal. As I have said, I am open to any good arguments, as long as it is not forced down my throat with the conviction that you are the absolute authority, and God’s mouthpiece on the matter. So, again, I plead you, let us discuss with the objective of finding God’s will for us.
**Well then be open! Think over my last 3 posts about tongues, and think with your own God given discernment, and not what the Charismatic Renewal tells you to think. But I hold my observation of those who have been in the renewal for a long time. Sure they wave their Bibles around, they keep reading and quoting the same passages, but there is a veil over their eyes… they cannot really comprehend what they read anymore. You have joined the one and only Church TTM, but as the Pope’s theologian said, not everything is Catholic in the Catholic Church. The charismatic doctrine got in the Church through the back door by illicit means. The Holy Spirit does not compromise, He always attests to the Truth. Nothing holy can come from unholy sources. **

---

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

beng:

That is why that one does not need to speak!!!

If they persist to speak tongue when threre’re no interpreter than the other should stop him or her.

The true spirit WILL NOT act contrary to what Paul said.

The other possible cause is disobedience to what Paul said.

And no, the possibility of fake is a big one. As long as tongue are heard in a congregation of believers without interpretation it would be fake. Just some jubilation chanting that other “think” it’s tongue.

This 99% of Charismatic.

If you want to pray in tongue than DO NOT FLAUNT IT IN FRONT OF THE BELIEVERS!!!

If you can’t interpret it and you are amongst believers BE QUIET!

Was there an interpreter? Did he interpret it for other. If not, then it’s fake.

Then maybe this is true tongue. Which consist of the 1% while 99% out there are fake.

Was there an interpreter?

If there was no interpreter and he’s speaking in front of believer (there were only believers right) then it is fake.

He’s just doing jubilation. Emotion escalation might do that.

I think you may be confusing speaking in tonuges and praying in tongues. I can understand being skeptical. I was too, until I got the gift myself. I’ve never felt called to pray in tongues in front of anyone yet, so I haven’t.

Where are you getting your 99% fake statistic from?

You seem really angry about this issue. What happened?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Churchmouse:

One other thing that bothers me about tongues is that the majority of those I’ve heard “speaking” these tongues, don’t sound like they are speaking a language (known or unknown) at all. It is usually the same sounds over and over almost as if it were a chant.

Genuine prayer sometimes IS the same sounds over and over like a chant. Take a look at psalms 136 and 150. There must be something about repetition in prayer that is pleasing to God in order for these psalms to be God-breathed.

When I first received the gift of tongues I resisted it because it didn’t sound right to me, like I was some big authority on what tongues should sound like. We can’t dismiss tongues because it doesn’t sound like a language to US. Have you ever heard some of those African languages with all the tongue clicking? Now to me, THAT doesn’t sound like a language, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

Almost all of the experience I have with tongues is personal. I’ve only heard 3 other people speak in tonuges, very briefly, on different occasions. I know that some people are skeptical, which I was too, and that some are downright sure that the gift simply doesn’t exist anymore. I can’t speak for everyone, there probably are some fakes out there, but as a gift, it still exists and it’s very real.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[mark_a]

…doing the interpretation THERE SHOULDN’T BE ANY TONGUE SESSION TO BEGIN WITH! KEEP SILENCE!

Can we find another term for this session?

 

[mark_a]

I think hearing someone speaking in tongues would scare me to death.

I think I’d rather sit through a service w/ snake handlers and stricknine sippers!

Not that I’m condemning any of the above…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

mark a:

I think hearing someone speaking in tongues would scare me to death.

That’s EXACTLY how I felt Mark!!!

When I attended a Life in the Spirit seminar at my church I decided that if anyone spoke in tongues I was going to get up and leave. It irked me when anyone even mentioned it. No one did speak in tongues though.

One week we were in small groups and the leaders were talking about the Baptism in the holy Spirit that would be taking place the following week. They said that we could expect people to be praying in tongues. I spoke right up and said just what you did…that it would scare me to death and I really didn’t want to have anything to do with it. Afterwards one of the leaders took me aside and told me about it being a gift from the holy Spirit, among other things. She asked permission to pray with me in tongues, so I could hear what it sounded like, but said no pressure. If I was too uncomfortable she wouldn’t. My heart was pounding and I was really scared but I told her she could.

I think I was expecting it to sound scary and harsh, like a record playing backwards, all weird and creepy. Her langauge was about the most beautiful thing I had ever heard. It sounded middle eastern in a way…it was just lovely. At that moment my fear drained away, which was God’s plan all along, because he had the gift in store for me and certainly didn’t want me to be afraid of it. Only God could have caused my heart to do a complete 180 by the time I received a rekindling of the holy Spirit the following week.

Just wanted to let you know that I know exactly how you feel!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[tru_dvotion]

Paul wrote: “if there are tongues, they will cease” (1 Corinthians 13:8).

**These are some of the harm “tongues” caused in the Church: **

---

**The pagan practice of ecstatic utterances was brought into public and private prayer, **

**Caused a division in the Church, **

**Confused the true meaning of “tongues”, **

**Non participating members are considered without power of the Holy Spirit, **

**Catholic worship without charismatic tongues is considered lifeless, **

Hurt the prayer life of those, who are trying to relate to God with gibberish,

Promoted unhealthy mysticism within the Church (false apparitions, false seers)

The preoccupation with the charismatic movement diverted attention from real needs,

Unbelievers can rightfully think of the Church as Paul warned: "you are mad!"

 

[tru_dvotion]

robertaf:

Since we do not seem to understand each others posts, I will then thank you for the time and effort you have spent.
God Bless you also.

I think you understood well enough Roberta, but instead of recognizing your unfruitful attempt with regards to the beginning of the Charismatic Movement, you resorted to word games. God bless!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

tru_dvotion:

**Catholic worship without charismatic tongues is considered lifeless, **

Huh??

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[francisca]

tru_dvotion:

Paul wrote: “if there are tongues, they will cease” (1 Corinthians 13:8).

**These are some of the harm “tongues” caused in the Church: **

---

**The pagan practice of ecstatic utterances was brought into public and private prayer, **

**Caused a division in the Church, **

**Confused the true meaning of “tongues”, **

**Non participating members are considered without power of the Holy Spirit, **

**Catholic worship without charismatic tongues is considered lifeless, **

Hurt the prayer life of those, who are trying to relate to God with gibberish,

Promoted unhealthy mysticism within the Church (false apparitions, false seers)

The preoccupation with the charismatic movement diverted attention from real needs,

Unbelievers can rightfully think of the Church as Paul warned: "you are mad!"

If you are so certain about “fake” tounge, I suppose you know the “real” one.

Please explain to us the “real/ true” tongue as you know it supposed to be.

Or rather that you would prefer “no tounge” at all in The Church?

 

[tru_dvotion]

Catholic4aReasn:

Huh??

Nancy**, **

**Obviously you were not around during the sixties when Catholics, including many nuns, left the Church in large numbers for Pentecostal denominations. Even today, new converts to the CCM complain bitterly of “dead” Sunday liturgies. **

 

[tru_dvotion]

francisca:

If you are so certain about “fake” tounge, I suppose you know the “real” one.

Please explain to us the “real/ true” tongue as you know it supposed to be.

Or rather that you would prefer “no tounge” at all in The Church?

**I already answered your questions in some of my previous posts. **

Look up #214, #218, #219 and #220.

 

[tru_dvotion]

A HARVARD BOOK BY PHILO** **

“On The Confusion Of Tongues”

A Harvard linguistic study included over ten thousand incidents of modern tongues speaking. They listed several reasons why they came to the conclusion that modern tongues speaking is not an actual language:

1. 
   *]The high frequency of repetition of the same sounds and phrases.
   *]The similarly to the speaker’s own language background. If the utterance is truly a foreign language never learned then why is it so similar to the speaker’s native tongue?
   *]The excessive use of one or two vowels.
   *]The absence of any language structure.
   *]The interpretations were consistently of significantly greater length than the tongue utterance. This would not be the case for a direct translation.
   *]The inconsistency of interpretation regarding the same clause or phrase.
   *]The “King James” style of interpretation. The interpretations would commonly employ the phraseology of 17th century English as is found in the King James Version of the Bible.
   *]There is no known relationship between any example of tongues speaking and any known language of the world.

 

[TTM]

Hi,

Angels probably communicate differently than we do, but that is neither here, nor there. What does their communication has to do with us? Even if somebody could converse in the language of angels, could that be proven? It is not a known language!

This may well be the case, but can not be sure, can we? I’ll throw back to you your own question in a modified form. “If somebody could converse in the language of angels, how would you disprove it?”. We know that if he spoke in the tongues of Angels, it would be the equivalent of “resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” - in other words, an incomprehensible noise.

I do see your point though, regarding II Cor 12:4, which you quoted as, “caught up to Paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter”. I was intrigued, and looked up the passage in other translations, and here they are:

RSV:
“and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.”

ASV:
“how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

BBE:
“How he was taken up into Paradise, and words came to his ears which may not be said, and which man is not able to say.”

BWE:
“This man heard things which cannot be told. No person on earth can speak them.”

KJV:
“How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”

So, based on the above passages, it would seem that BBE and BWE are similar to your translation, but the RSV, ASV, and the KJV (which are the more literal translations, I think) clarifies the meaning of this passage, and that is that the words that came to his ears were not “one that must be beyond the capacity of human beings to reproduce or to communicate with”, as you say, but rather it would be “unlawful” to do so.

The Family Bible notes explains this passage as follows:

“12 4 Paradise; the place of celestial blessedness. From the Scriptures, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we may learn as much about heaven as it is best we should know while on earth. We should therefore be contented with, and grateful for our present means of information, and so use them as to become wise to salvation, and thus be prepared to grow in the knowledge, holiness, and bliss of heaven for ever. De 29:29, 1Co 2:9,”

(by the way, you can get these Bibles in many translations, plus commentaries, dictionaries, and lexicons, free from the Sword Project: crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp [and Mac version: http://www.macsword.com/])

So, it would seem that the passage you have referred us to is not talking about the ability to reproduce their speech, but rather the obligation placed on a human person not to pass on the information in this circumstance.

I may quote back to you what you have said to me at this point. “This is the problem with interpreting Bible passages in isolation. First of all, the translation may vary; second, the part you are referring to contains only part of the picture and not the whole picture.”

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

This is not an exhortation to speak in tongues in order to communicate to God. It is rather a rebuke for speaking publicly in a language that no one understands, for the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is public speaking.

Yes, it does become a rebuke afterwards, but at this point it is only descriptive.

The Bible does not command us to edify ourselves. Self-edification is a negative thing (Romans 15:2-3; 1 Corinthians 10:23-24; 10:33; 13:5).

Dictionary.com defines edification as follows:

edáiáfiácaátion
n.
Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.

given this, self-edification can not be a negative thing in itself. That is why Paul speaks in tongues (1 Cor 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all), and wants everyone to do the same. However, what Paul is saying is that if the gifts get in the way of the edification of others, or if the edification of the Church is neglected, it would a bad thing. Romans 15:2-3 which you point to, does not rebuke edification itself (because it is intrinsically a good thing), but pleasing himself at the expense of the edification of the Church. The same goes for 1 Corinthians 10:23-24.

As I have stated, the gifts have to be used in the right way. The gift of tongues are not intrinsically bad. Quite the opposite. But, we must use them wisely.

There are two separate issues here:

1. The validity of the Charismatic Renewal
2. The correct use of Charisms

Tru_dvotion, you seem to use the second point to invalidate the first. This does not work. As we have already stated, the abuses of any gifts do not invalidate the work of the Holy Spirit. Let me quote what MarkerTeacher has already stated on this (see post #101):

Again, the Pope has addressed and continues to address various abuses in ALL lay apostolate movements. Abuses within a movement do not invalidate the entire movement any more than a few perverted priests destroy the entire Catholic Church.

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

Regarding the “off-topic” copyright issue (which is no longer so off-topic),

You stated:

TTM, I am not going to argue with you on this, because you have made up YOUR mind.

Actually, no, I have not made up my mind. Allow me to clarify.

First, you made the following statements:
#206:

What you may notice though, I did not cut and paste anything copyrighted.

Regarding plagiarism, any copyrighted material will say so. Those who do not display the copyright are basically a free for all. Many of the sites I cut and pasted from are only too happy to have their message spread.

I refuted it, citing the U.S. Copyright office:

Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note .) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See " Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

To which you replied:

TTM, I am not going to argue with you on this, because you have made up YOUR mind.

I think it is clear that you are accusing the wrong party when it comes to “making up YOUR mind”.

And in reply to your question:

But can I ask you a question? If you are sincerely not interested debating it, and if you are not intending to go off topic, why are you pursuing this? What is your motive?

I had already stated my motive. I realise that you may not have much time, but please do your best to read my statements. Here’s what I had said:

Again, you’re forcing your presumed opinion on this matter here, this time with regards to the copyright law. It is not necessary to display the copyright sign, since copyright is secured as soon as it is created. I’m not particularly interested in debating this, since it is going off-topic, but I may as well demonstrate the point, that you do tend to make a lot of assumptions.

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

In other words, I was questioning your ability to argue fairly. That is, the willingness to try to find the truth behind any given issue without letting your preconceived notions cloud your judgements. This was simply an example showing that you are not interested in the truth. And I’m not exaggerating - it is a simple fact, that you have already admitted in post #175:

I am not sure how it is possible to carry on an objective dialog on a subjectice topic such as this? One of us is an obvious convert and the other is a survivor who by the grace of God managed to escape. I pray for the Holy Spirit to enlighten all those, who are caught up in it. God bless you all.

By implication, you are already absolutely convinced that you are a survivor of some Satanic deception, and allow for no possibility whatsoever when it comes to the validity of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (for it has already been admitted by the Charismatic advocates that not all Charismatic Renewals are valid - just as there are false Marian apparitions). In contrast, I have already presented my stance on this in post #205:

It is not unusual for us to make up our minds, but it would be unfruitful not to consider new possibilities when other arguments are being presented (in other words, being stubborn and hard-headed). Because it is impossible for us to have an absolute knowledge about all things (for that would make us God himself), we must be humble in acknowledging that we could possibly be wrong.

So, I, for one, am willing to say a big fat “yes!” to your question, “Is the charismatic open or willing to challenge his or her conviction?”. The most important thing here is not to try to satisfy my pride, but to discover the Will of God in all this. Afterall, if God is speaking through you to tell me that the movement is false, and comes from the Enemy, I would be extremely silly (to put it mildly) not to consider your perspective. The opposite is true also. If God is speaking through us to say that “Hey, this CCR thing is valid, and I have sent the Holy Spirit to strengthen you people. Listen to me.”, then, well, to put it bluntly, you’d better listen!

In other words, you display the same attitude you have regarding the copyright issue, toward the present topic - you are not really interested in finding the truth about the Charismatic Renewal. You are convinced you already know the truth, when it is in fact a subjective conviction.

This is why I proposed reconciliation in post #206:

…I’d first like to get this side of things cleared up, because no amount of debating would serve either of us any purpose, only to stress us all further and lead us to sin against God by spreading division and lack of charity.

So…

I’ll apologise now to tru_dvotion (and any others) for anything that I may have said that may have hurt you in any way. Please forgive me. I am a fallible and sinful human being, as God knows. If there is anything that has so far prevented you from to act in charity and to seek God’s Will through this dialogue due to any negativities coming from us, the advocates of the Charismatic Renewal (if you’ll excuse my presumptiousness to ask on behalf of the affirming party!), I ask you to forgive us now and begin again without any hard feelings or bias against us. Now, I make a humble request to you to extend the same act of repentence and humility to us, that we may be reconciled to each other, to pursue an objective dialogue, where the aim is not to force one’s views onto the other party, but to find the Will of God for us, his Church…****

[continued…]

 

[TTM]

I proposed reconciliation for two reasons.

1. I felt that your bias was perhaps due to some negativity coming from our part. The objective of reconcilliation, as I said, was to enable a dialogue where we could “…pursue an objective dialogue, where the aim is not to force one’s views onto the other party, but to find the Will of God for us, his Church”
2. To request humbly an apology for instances where some comments you have made, in content or in delivery, were rude and hurtful (such as: “How smug! How can anyone tell if they are praising God and not blaspheming? Because it feels right? PLEASE!” (#136), “Man! How limited an assertion that is!” (#165) “See how ludicrous this analogy is?” (#181), etc.)

You rejected this proposal in posts #210 and #214, saying:
#210:

TM, for all your good intent of apologizing for comments you Òmay haveÓ made does not hold up, when in the next post you make personal accusations. Too bad.

#214:

I am not going to waste my time with personalities or people lamenting and getting upset.

(the “personal accusations” referred to in #210 being the copyright issue, which so far has been proven to be valid)

This was despite the fact that I had specifically asked you to return my goodwill of extending reconciliation, because you had indeed treated us in belittling ways, and I (and also Robertaf) had been hurt somewhat:

Now, I make a humble request to you to extend the same act of repentence and humility to us, that we may be reconciled to each other

This, after you have accused us of lacking in humility:

Are charismatics really more authentic than most Catholics? I would really like to meet any charismatic who faithfully follows the Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis, or the True Devotion to Mary, according to St Louis de Monfort. The truth is, to follow any of these devotions requires far more humility and obedience than a charismatic would be willing to give.

So,

I hope you can see why some of us might get a little upset and frustrated.

[continued…]