Do you know people who pray in tongues?

  • Thread starter Thread starter almost2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roseeurekacross said:
its not speaking gibberish. thats a popular misconception. does it come from non catholic experiences of pentacostal organisations?
Click to expand...
Yes. just as there has been a false queen of heaven in pagan practice, this does not eliminate the True Queen of Heaven. There are false practices of jibberish. I have witnessed this myself also. There is so much pressure in certain communities to “prove” you are baptized in the HS that people will copy what their neighbor does in order to be found acceptable It is a human practice with many actions people do to fit in with their community .

Apparently some Catholics have fallen into this as well? Or there are Catholics who use this “jibberish” to deny that there is a real gift.
godisgood77 said:
The biblical understanding of speaking in tongues at the Pentecost is that the apostles began speaking coherently in foreign languages.
Click to expand...
This is certainly one form of tongues, but it can also be that the speaker is using his own language, which the hearers understand in their own.
godisgood77 said:
The question I’d really like answered is this: What food comes from speaking incoherently? Or is it simply passing the time in a way that is pleasing to the speaker?
Click to expand...
The answers to this are further up the thread.

“The one speaking in a tongue edifies himself” I cor. 14;4

It functions to strengthen the believer and connect the believer more purely with the Holy Spirit.
Medawlinno said:
Romans 8:26 is not in reference to any spiritual gift, ‘tongues’ included.
Click to expand...
It is amazing to me that you would consider the HS helping a believer through prayer not a spiritual gift. How else could such a thing be categorized?
 
Maybe, maybe not. The only way to know for sure would be to do a study where we administer personality tests to those who identify as charismatic.

Most of my experience with charismatic Catholics is in a university setting. So I never noticed them being overly emotional and/or not prone to critical thinking.
 
Admittedly there are much confusion about the Charismatic gift of tongue.

To summarize:

(1) Tongue as in Pentecost - a non-speaking listener can understand what you say.

(2) Tongue as in 1 Cor 12 - speaking in tongue which must be interpreted (by another person).

(3) Tongue in Rom 8:26 - praying in groan which we cannot understand.
 
Can anyone discuss the word groaning, as used in this Romans 2 26?
Do people who speak in tongues “groan”?
 
Reuben_J said:
The disciples at Pentecost spoke in their languages but understood by the listeners who did not speak the languages. Edit (sentence structure). This happened in a state of prayer and gathering. They did not speak in tongue at will any time.
Click to expand...
What you’re describing is called “akolalia” - people speak language ‘X’ and others hear it as language ‘Y’ - This was not the case at Pentecost; it was not, as some assume, a miracle of ‘hearing’ .
 
I have an aunt who did the tongued thing and explained in terms of that passage in Romans2. I don’t think she meant that is what Paul meant to convey, but rather that this sort of expression is commensurate with Paul’s incite, which is rather clearly not about tongues in context.
 
Last edited:
I think the majority of practicing Catholics think that the sort of tongues practiced in churches today is very probably not real, but no one can really forbid it.

So long as it isn’t becoming the center of your faith, and you don’t try to mandate it, we will have a truce on it.
 
I think you mean Romans 8:26

Haydock:

Ver. 24, &c. For we are saved by hope, as it is the will of God we should be, waiting and hoping with patience for the things which we have not seen, which neither the eye hath seen, nor the ear hath heard, &c. (1 Corinthians ii. 9.) — And the spirit also helpeth our infirmity…asketh for us with unspeakable groanings.[4] If we understand this according to the common exposition, of the divine spirit of the Holy Ghost, the sense is, says St. Augustine, that the Holy Ghost maketh us ask: but we may understand the spirit of God and his grace, diffused in our souls, and in particular that gift of the Holy Ghost, called the spirit of prayer, given to the new Christians, which taught them what to ask, and how to pray. See St. Chrysostom. (Witham)

[4] Ver. 26. Postulat pro nobis, i.e. says St. Augustine, interpellare nos facit…nobisque interpellandi et gemendi inspirat affectum.

My own not to scholarly interpretation “It inspires us and makes us interrupt the feeling of sighing.”_**

The Chrysostom quote plainly refers to earthly languages:

A.D. 390 - Chrysostom of Constantinople:

"Whoever was baptised in apostolic days, he straightway spoke with tongues, for since on their coming over from idols, without any clear knowledge or training in the Scriptures, they at once received the Spirit, not that they saw the Spirit, for He is invisible, but God’s grace bestowed some sensible proof of His energy, and one straightway spoke in the Persian language, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other tongues, and this made manifest to them that were without that it was the Spirit in the very person speaking. Wherefore the apostle calls it the manifestation of the Spirit which is given to every man to profit withal."
 
Last edited:
From an Orthodox perspective, glossolalia is generally considered demonic (no offense to those who do here), but I think it’s telling that all the “historical” apostolic churches of the EO and OO and until recently the CC did not practice it.
 
Kmon23 said:
From an Orthodox perspective, glossolalia is generally considered demonic (no offense to those who do here), but I think it’s telling that all the “historical” apostolic churches of the EO and OO and until recently the CC did not practice it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s how I understand the EO and OO perspective. I’m not sure how the EO and OO regard “tongues” in Corinthians - I believe it’s understood that Paul is referring to real language here; not modern glossolalia/tongues.
 
Just curious - anyone know if a PDF document can be uploaded to a comment/post??
 
You call it gibberish. By what authority?

And, what if you are opposing the Holy Spirit?

Does not matter of you believe that you are not.

What if you are opposing the work of the Holy Spirit?

Since you so far have nothing positive to contribute, are your thoughts better directed to other threads?

NOTE: these are questions, not accusations.
 
Last edited:
As well, profound spiritual experiences and exercises are in an entirely different realm from pure human reason. Mind as opposed to spirit.
 
guanophore said:
It appears that you have made a judgment, based on your own experience, that one of the true gifts of the HS does not exist - that Scripture is wrong, the Catechism is wrong, and the Magesterium is wrong. I think that means you have covered all the bases with regard to rejecting Holy Mother Church, based upon your own experiences.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said at all… I don’t recall an instance where in the bible the HS provoked people speak unintelligibly or speak jibberish… that is all… I’m not commenting on scripture, the catechism or the magisterium at all. Again, relative to Speaking in Tongues, the HS came to the disciples and provoked them to speak in multiple real languages and understand each other…

Help me understand how I’m contradicting the Church with this?
 
You call it gibberish. By what authority? - My own observations and those of others. And contrasted those incoherent speaking in tongues with what happened at Pentecost.

And, what if you are opposing the Holy Spirit? - Broad question … what if you are?

Does not matter of you believe that you are not. ???

What if you are opposing the work of the Holy Spirit? - Pretty broad… I’m am a sinner… What if you are?

Since you so far have nothing positive to contribute, are your thoughts better directed to other threads? Sorry you feel that way… I’m making honest observations and asking reasonable questions…This is a discussion board after all… 😉

NOTE: these are questions, not accusations.
 
There is no authority needed – this is a matter of private revelation, at best. While the person engaging in the practice is free to believe it is the work of the Holy Spirit, others are free to believe that it is not.
 
With respect to “tongues” at Pentecost – I can’t upload a file which would contain a somewhat detailed account, nor do I want to glut the posts as I think it would amount to about 10-12 posts given the post constraints, so….I’m going to do an extremely condensed version which leaves out quite a bit of detail. I’m happy to discuss any of those details if anyone is interested.

In a nutshell – there were Jews (and converts to Judaism) gathered for Shavu’ot from all over the place (or to put it in the idiomatic expression of the day – from “every nation under heaven”).

They came from three places – Judea, the Western Diaspora and the eastern Diaspora.

Judeans as well as Eastern Diasporan Jews spoke Aramaic, Western Diasporan Jews spoke Greek.

A few things to consider with regard to the narrative –

First, if you read the entire narrative, not one language is ever referenced by name – not one.

Secondly, though there were Jews from ‘every nation under heaven’, nowhere in the entire narrative is it even remotely suggested that communication was ever an issue.

Lastly, at one point, Peter addresses the crowd – what language do you supposed he addressed them in given the demographic make-up of the attendees?

A lot of people, many lands, but only two languages – Aramaic and Greek – the apostles spoke both.

They spoke with “other languages”, i.e. Greek and Aramaic – “other languages”? Other than what?? Other than the expected culturally and religiously correct language to use in this situation: Hebrew. Religious teaching of any kind was done in Hebrew. The teacher spoke/read in Hebrew and he typically had someone by his side translating it into the vernacular.

The astonishment and bewilderment of the crowd was because they were immediately addressed in the vernacular instead to the sacerdotal language of Hebrew. Something that just wasn’t done.

When the crowds heard the apostles boldly proclaiming in the “other languages” of Greek and Aramaic; the languages they were “born in”, the result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better! Another often overlooked reason for the crowd’s amazement was that Galileans were looked at as sort of uneducated ‘yokels”. Because of this anti-Galilean prejudice, some of the crowd may have been surprised to hear the disciples “proclaiming the mighty works of God” with such incredible authority.

Pentecost - no modern concept of ‘tongues’, no xenoglossy, no akolalia, no language miracle needed here folks; simply Greek and Aramaic instead of the culturally correct and expected Hebrew. The miracle – breaking through established cultural barriers and making “God”, directly accessible to anyone, in any language. A concept which, as silly as it sounds today, was virtually unheard of at that time.

The list of nations (Acts 2:9-11) is exactly that; a list of nations, not languages. Its inclusion in the narrative was for political purposes; not to represent linguistic diversity – there was none.
 
Last edited:
Most Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians look at three different examples of ‘tongues’ from three different sources:

Pentecost – xenoglossy – they spoke in languages they did not know.
Corinthians – glossolalia (modern tongues) - ‘prayer language’
Romans – ‘groanings’ equated to an apparent variant of ‘tongues’

As I have previously stated – there are no references to “tongues” in the Bible that cannot be explained in light of real language. The “tongues” of modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are simply not evidenced in the Bible; they are as I have described them in one of my initial posts. Reading into the texts something that just isn’t there does not make it so.

Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances – play the recording back over and over and write them down and look at them, if you can. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures, the constant use of particular vowels over others – then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard before – are his ‘tongues’ really any less divine than yours?

So what is the “gift of tongues”, or any spiritual ‘gift’ for that matter?

In Corinthians, Paul speaks of “spiritual things/matters” – we call them ‘spiritual gifts’ today. They are not gifts per se, but manifestations that the Holy Spirit is at work.

It’s akin to giving you a gift of a light bulb – there are two manifestations of the light bulb; heat and light. Both heat and light are not the gifts; in fact you could never turn the light bulb on and thus never experience its manifestations, but you still have the gift of the light bulb. The light bulb is the H/S, the heat and light, what we call ‘spiritual gifts’.

Considering the fact Paul wrote three letters to three different groups of believers describing spiritual ‘gifts’ and did not routinely repeat the same list of gifts, it’s probably safe to assume there are additional spiritual gifts unlisted in his writings.

I would argue that any natural God-given talent may be said to be a “spiritual gift” if used in the ministry of God. Paul describes nine specific ones in his letter to the church in Corinth that he felt were the most important to further the message of Christianity in that church at that time and perhaps also in that area of the world.

The spiritual “gift of tongues” (read “manifestation of languages”) therefore in addition to being a knack/ability for learning languages easily than others, is (as far as Paul was concerned), using that ability in spreading the message of Christianity and to the further glory of God. This may be said for any of the ‘gifts’, not just that of languages.
 
That’s not the biblical understanding. That’s human interpretation. Yes those around understand the Apostles in their own language. However Paul discusses speaking and praying in tongues later in the New Testament.

And we are not Protestants, we do not take the Bible as stand alone, we also have the Holy See.

It’s inane to me, that people claim it’s false and gibberish when
  1. they haven’t had the personal experience themselves
    2). Not been involved in a Charismatic Catholic group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top