R
Reuben_J
Guest
Praise the Lord. I know many of us from our parish were there.
And yes, Vive Jesús, el Señor.
Alleluia.
- Status
And yes, Vive Jesús, el Señor.
Alleluia.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I do not deny that the Protestants have their own version of tongue or whatever it is. It is just that we do not refer to them or we copy them or we inherit their spirituality or it is introduced by them to us.Reuben_J:
Modern day speaking in tongues was introduced by Protestants. This you cannot deny. Therefore, if you want to accept it as anything more than the ability to understand foreign languages, you must believe that protestants in some way were recieving more grace than Catholics at the time. I really don’t see how this can be true if the Catholic church is the one true church.
Thomas Aquinas spoke of the gift of tongues in great detail and he interpreted it to mean the ability to understand foreign languages.
The Holy Spirit works as He will and He empowers the Catholic Church so that those who are open to Him can receive Him in a special way. God has no favorite, He gives as He will.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Just a few short comments –
I think a few of the above posts speak directly to my point. It is a practice/concept that is relatively new to Catholicism (1967) that comes from the Pentecostal tradition. Over the past 50 years, it has gained acceptance in the RC church to the point where, for all intents and purposes, it has become completely absorbed into RC practice (if one chooses this practice). I think the fact that the Pope himself acknowledges and takes part in the practice clearly evidences this.
I have to wonder if “speaking in tongues” will eventually be incorporated into part of the mass as it is in Pentecostal services (probably not in our lifetimes, but perhaps within 100 years from now).
It’s not something that’s ‘always been there’ and just magically came out of the woodwork at the same time Pentecostalism is becoming one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I highly doubt coincidence has anything to do with it.
Again, I’m not knocking it, but it really is just a Catholicization of certain Pentecostal beliefs and practices.
Re. Romans 8:26 with respect to tongues…
“As for Rom 8:26. It is not conclusive depending on how you understand this verse.”
Yes, exactly - in a way…if you’re Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian there is only one way to interpret the verse; i.e. as an indirect reference to (modern) “tongues”. It’s one of many examples of reading something into a text that just isn’t there by these groups of Christians to try and evidence modern tongues in scripture.
The passage needs to be taken into context with the rest of the text, or at least from verse 18 on.
In the context of the text, the concept of “groanings” is metaphoric in nature; deeply rooted emotions that are difficult to put into words. Zero reference to “speaking in tongues”.
I think a few of the above posts speak directly to my point. It is a practice/concept that is relatively new to Catholicism (1967) that comes from the Pentecostal tradition. Over the past 50 years, it has gained acceptance in the RC church to the point where, for all intents and purposes, it has become completely absorbed into RC practice (if one chooses this practice). I think the fact that the Pope himself acknowledges and takes part in the practice clearly evidences this.
I have to wonder if “speaking in tongues” will eventually be incorporated into part of the mass as it is in Pentecostal services (probably not in our lifetimes, but perhaps within 100 years from now).
It’s not something that’s ‘always been there’ and just magically came out of the woodwork at the same time Pentecostalism is becoming one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I highly doubt coincidence has anything to do with it.
Again, I’m not knocking it, but it really is just a Catholicization of certain Pentecostal beliefs and practices.
Re. Romans 8:26 with respect to tongues…
“As for Rom 8:26. It is not conclusive depending on how you understand this verse.”
Yes, exactly - in a way…if you’re Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian there is only one way to interpret the verse; i.e. as an indirect reference to (modern) “tongues”. It’s one of many examples of reading something into a text that just isn’t there by these groups of Christians to try and evidence modern tongues in scripture.
The passage needs to be taken into context with the rest of the text, or at least from verse 18 on.
In the context of the text, the concept of “groanings” is metaphoric in nature; deeply rooted emotions that are difficult to put into words. Zero reference to “speaking in tongues”.
P
PLeeD
Guest
“Romans 8:26 - In the same way the Spirit also joins to help in our weakness, because we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us[l] with unspoken groanings.”
This is an exact description of what Catholic and protestant charismatics believe about praying in tongues (along with verse 27 as well).
For you to categorically deny this is a direct reference by Paul to praying in tongues is obtuse. Verses 18 through 25 is describing one thing, then in 26 and 27 Paul compares that thing “In the same way” to praying in tongues.
You are welcome to doubt it, but you saying it doesn’t make it true, and taking such a debatable position with the surety you employ comes across as lacking an open mind.
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
- The Church does not, and has never taught cessationism - the end of a particular charism. That is a distinctly Protestant teaching.
- Since tongues are inarguably in scripture, and since Saint Paul gave no timeline for things that would cease, it is prudent for Catholics to view it in light of the words of Gamaliel, at whose feet Saint Paul learned Judaism:
Thus, opposing a gift of the Holy Spirit, whether by misunderstanding, ignorance or envy, is very dangerous spiritual ground to dig one’s heels into.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Modern “tongues” are most definitely not referenced anywhere in Scripture. “Tongues” in the Bible refer to real language(s).
There are no references to “tongues” that cannot be explained in light of (real) language(s) since that’s what the word actually means.
People still speak today, so ‘tongues’ have obviously not ceased.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
This passage is not about spiritual ‘gifts’, and more specifically, not about speaking in tongues.
As one writer puts it (better than I can)…. “The burden of the text is that the Spirit counterbalances the handicap of believers in prayer by interceding for them in accordance with God’s will. The hope of believers is also strengthened by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.”
As to whether or not Paul sort of ‘encodes’ a statement about tongues….Since Biblical ‘tongues’ refers to real language, it’s rather unlikely. To equate this passage with modern tongues because “groaning” is akin to how some Charismatics and Pentecostals describe the modern tongues experience would require jumping through some interpretive loops.
I have never heard modern tongues presenting as anything but very audible glossic strings; never as any type of groaning.
Again, this is an example of the Pentecostal/Charismatic synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture; a reading into the text of something that’s just not there.
As one writer puts it (better than I can)…. “The burden of the text is that the Spirit counterbalances the handicap of believers in prayer by interceding for them in accordance with God’s will. The hope of believers is also strengthened by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.”
As to whether or not Paul sort of ‘encodes’ a statement about tongues….Since Biblical ‘tongues’ refers to real language, it’s rather unlikely. To equate this passage with modern tongues because “groaning” is akin to how some Charismatics and Pentecostals describe the modern tongues experience would require jumping through some interpretive loops.
I have never heard modern tongues presenting as anything but very audible glossic strings; never as any type of groaning.
Again, this is an example of the Pentecostal/Charismatic synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture; a reading into the text of something that’s just not there.
P
PLeeD
Guest
You are wrong…
1 Cor 14:18 "I thank God that I speak in other languages more than all of you; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, in order to teach others also, than 10,000 words in another language."
Paul clearly says here that he speaks in “other languages” that he doesn’t understand. How can he speak in a language he doesn’t understand unless he is speaking in tongues as charismatics understand it?
In the same chapter Paul says:
"14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful."
Again, how can he pray in a language that he doesn’t understand? Was he supernaturally speaking modern French, or Klingon, but couldn’t understand it? No.
He was, of course, praying in tongues, in the language of the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit speaking through him on his behalf. That is the only way that Paul’s writings on this topic make any sense whatsoever.
P
PLeeD
Guest
Interesting! How many charismatic events have you attended?
P
PLeeD
Guest
I’ll quote this again to make the point that there is a clanging cymbal in the room…
[ Love: The Superior Way ] If I speak human or angelic languages but do not have love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
Exactly what, pray tell, is an “angelic language”?
1 Corinthians 13
[ Love: The Superior Way ] If I speak human or angelic languages but do not have love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
Exactly what, pray tell, is an “angelic language”?
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Sure about that? I find no such reference in the Catholic Dictionary or Encyclopedia. I fail to see how the concept of humans ceasing to speak even applies. From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.(†)
Can we be bigoted, ignorant or envious?
Yes, we certainly can.
I will grant you that those speaking in an unintelligible language edify only themselves - unless someone present has the charism of interpretation - which is also 100% scriptural. Who are we to judge how God chooses to edify a soul?
Can we be bigoted, ignorant or envious?
Yes, we certainly can.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
It is a textbook example of a literary device called hyperbole which Paul employs in those few verses of his letter.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
There’s nowhere above that implies he doesn’t understand what he’s saying – it does imply however, that when it comes to the foreign languages he knows, he may be a bit unsure of his translation abilities.
You can speak a language, but not be very good at translating (as odd as that sounds). When it comes to certain topics, religion being one, translation work is not as simple as it may appear – nuances in the original are particularly hard to convey in the target language.
Paul is thankful that he speaks in foreign languages more than his audience. A few things to note and consider – he does not define how many these ‘other languages’ are; just that he employs them more than his audience. Paul, being a “world traveler” for his day was most likely conversant in several languages; however, for his travels, he only really needed two, arguably three: Greek, Aramaic, and possibly Latin.
How does this relate to “speaking other languages more than all of you” go? As one who was keen on spreading the message of Christianity to non-Jews, he would need to speak to them (likely at lengths) to teach them.
Paul is simply stating here that he uses his knowledge of foreign languages more than his audience (“occupational hazard”).
That said, he would prefer, however, as far as a church setting goes, to speak five words in a language he was intimately familiar with (i.e. his native language) so he could teach them exactly what he intended, rather than 10.000 words in a language he may speak, but not be all that confident in being able to translate the critical nuances he wishes to convey to his audience.
I just don’t see this as anything but describing a “real language” situation.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
No, actually he wasn’t praying in modern tongues and no, it’s not the only way Paul’s writings can make sense on this topic. I’m hoping to be able to answer in one post, but I may take more due to length.
“If I pray in a language, my spirit prays, but my understanding/mind produces no fruit”
I’m paraphrasing from a book, Tongues Revisited as the author puts it more concisely than I can……
What is the fruit that a person’s mind bears? I think the reasonable answer is ‘understanding’. An important question must also be asked. Where does a person’s mind bear fruit or produce understanding? The Charismatic response is, ‘In the person’s own mind.’ This hinges on the use of the word “akarpos” (unfruitful) in Greek. It can be used either with an active meaning or a passive meaning. Charismatic Christians (and many others actually) take the meaning as passive; i.e. producing no understanding in the speaker’s mind, i.e. he has no clue what he’s saying.
This view however, is incorrect. The text identifies the fruit of a person’s mind as being the understanding that occurs in the mind of others, not their own. This is an extremely important point as virtually the whole Pentecostal/Charismatic view of ‘tongues’ swings on the word ‘unfruitful’ referring to the speaker’s own mind.
How does what I just said make any sense and refer to real language?
Akarpos, may be also used actively – that part of Paul’s letter does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the speaker’s mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.
Why?
The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages.
Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as “My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others].” In other words, my mind, my understanding, i.e., the fact that I understand what I’m saying, produces no fruit in others (since they don’t understand my language).
The passage (as well as the other classic one used to evidence modern tongues, 1 Cor. 14:2) does not imply nor suggest that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying, but rather shows that it’s the audience who doesn’t understand (the foreigner’s language).
It is interesting to note that Luther’s Bible of 1545 renders the phrase as “my mind/understanding brings no one fruit.
One has to wonder if perhaps Luther understood the active meaning of the phrase.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
OK - guess it’s got to be in two posts - here’s the rest…
Lastly, it is critical to understand that Corinth was a multi-cultural, linguistically diverse city on not one, but two ports. As a major seaport city, one would expect to find a constant influx and varied mix of visitors, travelers, transients, freedman and slaves. Though Greek was the language of Corinth, as well as the ‘English of its day; i.e. almost everyone in the Mediterranean basin was familiar with it to some degree, communication in general between people from different lands and countries must have been difficult at best as it would have had to be conducted in Greek; a language, not everyone knew equally well.
A church, any organization really, tends to reflect its environment. Since Corinth was multilingual, one would also expect to see this diversity reflected in its church and other social/religious organizations.
Given the demographic make-up of Corinth, and the common everyday issues such cultural and linguistic diversity bring, to postulate anything here but real language being referenced just doesn’t stand up to the reality of the situation. Not everything in the Bible needs to be divine or miraculous; sometimes it just describes common everyday issues; in this case here, one of clarity and communication in a place where those two things were difficult to achieve at best.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
I have to say, I’ve never seen it defined that way (particularly the second half) by the Catholic church. The ‘gift of tongues’ is not glossolalia.
I have to totally disagree with his definition; it’s rather poor actually.
The language spoken was never unknown to the speaker; just (unintelligible) to those listening because they did not speak/understand his language.
The entry is essentially suggesting that “tongues” in Corinthians refer to what is going on in the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic churches to which it’s not remotely close.
I have to totally disagree with his definition; it’s rather poor actually.
The language spoken was never unknown to the speaker; just (unintelligible) to those listening because they did not speak/understand his language.
The entry is essentially suggesting that “tongues” in Corinthians refer to what is going on in the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic churches to which it’s not remotely close.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
“Some believe that Francis Xavier had a miraculous gift of languages, which enabled him to communicate fluently with everyone, but that was not the case. Francis struggled with foreign languages and was barely able to express the creed, commandments, and prayers in Tamil and other native languages. He had to rely on impromptu interpreters and translators, so he was never completely sure he had accurately communicated his message. The real miracle of tongues was that Xavier spread the gospel so far and to so many with such little grasp of their languages.”
Saint Francis Xavier, 1506-1552 | Loyola Press
Saint Francis Xavier was one of the first Jesuits and a great missionary to Asia. Learn about the missionary Saint Francis.
www.loyolapress.com
A
almost2
Guest
Well. Welcome. Back. I seem to have read your experience. On the old forum 
R
Reuben_J
Guest
… in groan that we cannot understand. ‘Groan’ is something audible …from our mouth but by the ‘assistance’ of the Holy Spriit.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
LOL. The gift of tongue does not necessarily mean that a person gave his homily in tongue and the whole congregation heard him in Tamil for one hour.
It can be just a word or a sentence or two - a prophecy to encourage the listener concerned.
… and in specific occasion.
It can be just a word or a sentence or two - a prophecy to encourage the listener concerned.
… and in specific occasion.
Last edited:
- Status