Do you know people who pray in tongues?

[TheLittleLady]

Sorry, I think you lost me here. What verses? What was the question?

Look up the passage from Mark.

If the passage where St Paul speaks of “groanings” (which has been covered in commentaries, I linked the USCCB and Haydock above) does mean that the speech of non-sense language used by Pentecostal Protestants and imported into the Catholic Church a few decades ago is authentic, then, how can the passage from Mark that is used by other Pentecostal Protestants NOT authentic?

 

[Zaccheus]

guanophore:

if someone denies that there is such an authentic gift of the HS I say they are contradicting the Church.

So, in your eyes, can you be a Catholic in good standing and assert that “The gift of tongues discussed in the Bible is different from the gift of tongues as practiced in charismatic circles today.”

Because if not, then this is more evidence for the idea that people really do not believe this is a matter of private discernment.

…the gift of tongues as practiced in some charismatic circles today. There is some variation among believers.

My own position is that the gift of tongues spoken of in the Bible is the same as the gift of tongues given us by the holy Spirit today.

 

[TheLittleLady]

My own position is that the gift of tongues spoken of in the Bible is the same as the gift of tongues given us by the holy Spirit today.

Then you believe that it is a gift given to those who are sharing the Gospel to be able to share the Gospel in a language that is not known to the preacher but is known by the listeners. Good. I believe that too. I also believe it is very rare.

What I do not be believe is someone getting up after 30 minutes of emotional singing who says “Shamalal baldada shammala komi takada takade Shamla que” and then it someone else says "There is someone here with diabetes and this is a word from the Lord ‘I know your faith and I see you, you will now have the sweet infusion of the milk and honey that flows and you are healed’ "(usually followed by a few muttered “taka blandi Adoni taka que Thank You Jesus” while some begins to dance and the music amps back up.

 

[guanophore]

how can the passage from Mark that is used by other Pentecostal Protestants NOT authentic?

Sorry, I am still confused. I think you are saying that non-Catholic Pentecostals use the passage in Mark referring to handling snakes to support their practice of nonsense language as authentic 'tongues"?

I am sorry I don’t see the relationship between the two.

What I do not be believe

It sounds very much like something you have observed. I have observed this as well at Pentecostal gatherings. I think you are saying that this practice is not authentic or valid.

 

[Zaccheus]

My own position is that the gift of tongues spoken of in the Bible is the same as the gift of tongues given us by the holy Spirit today.

TheLittleLady
Then you believe that it is a gift given to those who are sharing the Gospel to be able to share the Gospel in a language that is not known to the preacher but is known by the listeners. Good. I believe that too. I also believe it is very rare.

That is only one form it takes.

TheLittleLady
What I do not be believe is someone getting up after 30 minutes of emotional singing who says “Shamalal baldada shammala komi takada takade Shamla que” and then it someone else says "There is someone here with diabetes and this is a word from the Lord ‘I know your faith and I see you, you will now have the sweet infusion of the milk and honey that flows and you are healed’ "(usually followed by a few muttered “taka blandi Adoni taka que Thank You Jesus” while some begins to dance and the music amps back up.

Neither do I.

I know there are people who behave like that but that is not the gift of the Holy Spirit. I have attended charismatic prayer meetings for years and I do not see people getting worked up with ‘emotional singing’ nor is prayer in the spirit especially associated with heightened emotion. I ask of you, please, in the name of the Lord; do not let the counterfeit deprive you of the ability to see the real.

 

[JulianN]

My experience was very similar – you have my sympathy.

 

[Medawlinno]

A general question with respect to interpretation –

Interpretation of tongues, indeed, tongues in general, seem to be relegated to something which is strictly spoken.

Obviously modern tongues are not a written phenomenon; even in the Bible, all accounts of people speaking tongues (i.e. languages) are spoken, not written. I suspect this is because, in general, most people could not read or write their own language, let alone a foreign one. BUT – it would stand to reason (I think) that if an utterance were faithfully repeated, even say, a week after the original were given, it should still be able to be “interpreted”, or is that not the case??

i.e, if one were to transcribe an utterance and repeat it using the same intonation and voicing, would it be able to be interpreted say if it were read two weeks down the road, or can interpretation only be done with the ‘original’ utterance??

I don’t know if this has ever been ‘tested’, as it were, but in theory anyway, one would think it wouldn’t matter.

Not sure if that makes sense the way I wrote it, but just curious.

 

[guanophore]

I ask of you, please, in the name of the Lord; do not let the counterfeit deprive you of the ability to see the real.

Or if you are not willing to see the real, at least to acknowledge that it does exist.

Interpretation of tongues, indeed, tongues in general, seem to be relegated to something which is strictly spoken.

Specifically spoken in the gathering, which expression is to be for the benefit of all. This is distinguished from that which is meant for the edification of the individual, and should not be used inappropriately in public (without an interpretation).

it would stand to reason (I think) that if an utterance were faithfully repeated, even say, a week after the original were given, it should still be able to be “interpreted”, or is that not the case??

This does sound reasonable, but the gift Paul describes seems to be clearly for use during a public assembly, and there is no indication that such things should be written.

if one were to transcribe an utterance and repeat it using the same intonation and voicing, would it be able to be interpreted say if it were read two weeks down the road, or can interpretation only be done with the ‘original’ utterance??

Shame there were not digital recordings! Speaking of which, I am looking for the MP3’s of the lectures at Tyrannus, if anyone has a clue where to find them!

I don’t know if this has ever been ‘tested’, as it were, but in theory anyway, one would think it wouldn’t matter.

I had the impression that you had investigated all this, and found it to be lacking in New Testament authenticity? Did you not make recordings, and find them to be “gibberish”?

 

[Medawlinno]

OK – I’ve sort of answered my own question; apparently Monday’s caffeine was on a delayed reaction

Yes, recordings have been done and played back at later times and yes, they were able to be ‘interpreted’; however, as mentioned further above, different interpretations were given for each person they were played to.

So, yes, ‘interpretation’ does not seem to require an original utterance.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think so. You cannot breakdown inspiration into bits and bytes. You do that to your own shortcoming. It’s things of the supernatural and of the mind and spirit. When we try to be learned we would become fools with the Spirit.