Is Praying in Tongues During Consecration an Abuse?

[Mysty101]

First of all there is a difference between speaking in tongues & praying in tongues

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ34.HTM

Obviously, St. Paul is a “charismatic.” Note that the gift of tongues is specifically defined as not a known language. What happened in Acts 2 at Pentecost (other known languages) may also be included in Paul’s “various kinds of tongues,”

Again, Paul defines tongues as an unknown language, not simply a language unknown to the particular hearer. Unfortunately, this passage and similar ones have been wrested from context to “prove” that somehow Paul is against

tongues (i.e., an unknown prayer language) altogether. That this is not the case is seen clearly from several verses above - especially 1 Cor 14:5, and also in 1 Cor 14:18 (see below).

He is not preaching against tongues here; rather, he is stressing and extolling the other gifts which edify the Church and not just the utterer (see, e.g., 1 Cor 14:2-3,12-19; many others). One might contend that Paul was rebuking excess and corruption with regard to the gifts (especially tongues) - just as the Catholic Church and people like myself (in my apologist role) have been doing. I was criticizing the “name-it-claim-it” charismatic heresy way back in 1982 (as a Protestant evangelical charismatic, attending the Assemblies of God myself). So we charismatics well understand that there are excesses in our movement, and police it ourselves.

Paul was speaking to the Corinthians. You cannot apply this specific statement to Charismatics today.

Romans is describing a prayer form–Corinthians is instructing a particular group
Footnotes from the NAB

[20-22] The Corinthians pride themselves on tongues as a sign of God’s favor, a means of direct communication with him (2.28). To challenge them to a more mature appraisal, Paul draws from scripture a less flattering explanation of what speaking in tongues may signify. Isaiah threatened the people that if they failed to listen to their prophets, the Lord would speak to them (in punishment) through the lips of Assyrian conquerors (Isaiah 28:11-12

). Paul compresses Isaiah’s text and makes God address his people directly. Equating tongues with foreign languages (cf 1 Cor 14:10-11), Paul concludes from Isaiah that tongues are a sign not for those who believe, i.e., not a mark of God’s pleasure for those who listen to him but a mark of his displeasure with those in the community who are faithless, who have not heeded the message that he has sent through the prophets.
8 [23-25] Paul projects the possible missionary effect of two hypothetical liturgical experiences, one consisting wholly of tongues, the other entirely of prophecy. Uninstructed (idiotai): the term may simply mean people who do not speak or understand tongues, as in 1 Cor 14:16, where it seems to designate Christians. But coupled with the term “unbelievers” it may be another way of designating those who have not been initiated into the community of faith; some believe it denotes a special class of non-Christians who are close to the community, such as catechumens. Unbelievers (apistoi): he has shifted from the inner-community perspective of 1 Cor 14:22; the term here designates non-Christians (cf 1 Cor 6:6; 7:15; 10:27).

 

[Mysty101]

Nan S:

:tsktsk: Last time I checked, there was no place in the Eucharistic prayer for spontaneous impulsive public interjections of any kind, in ANY language, and there is definitely no place for an interpreter of such spontaneous impulsive public interjections. Mass is not a CNN news story, with a commentator describing the action.

:tsktsk::tsktsk: Is there any place for praise?

This just shows something about you, and really contributes nothing to the discussion.

Somehow, I don’t think that “na-na-na-na-o-wa-o-wa” or anything like it qualifies as a language

Somehow I do not think the opinion of someone who uses such childish gestures is very credible, but in any event this was already answered.

Obviously, St. Paul is a “charismatic.” Note that the gift of tongues is specifically defined as not a known language

and

Again, Paul defines tongues as an unknown language, not simply a language unknown to the particular hearer

 

[Nan_S]

OK, you didn’t like the smilies, so I’ll leave them off.

Last time I checked, there was no place in the Eucharistic prayer for spontaneous impulsive public interjections of any kind, in ANY language, and there is definitely no place for an interpreter of such spontaneous impulsive public interjections. Mass is not a CNN news story, with a commentator describing the action.

Is there any place for praise?

Your question, also, has already been answered. Praise, at the moment of consecration, is to be offered silently.

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer **“there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, **except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.
[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.

I followed the link to and read the Dave Armstrong quotes below in context. Armstrong’s statements, while interesting and obviously with which you agree, are an expression of his own personal opinion and not the official position of the church. Please forgive me, therefore, for not accepting them as readily as you. I’m of the other camp - Paul does indeed object to tongue-speaking, unless there is an interpreter present.

Obviously, St. Paul is a “charismatic.” Note that the gift of tongues is specifically defined as not a known language.

Again, Paul defines tongues as an unknown language, not simply a language unknown to the particular hearer. Unfortunately, this passage and similar ones have been wrested from context to “prove” that somehow Paul is against

tongues (i.e., an unknown prayer language) altogether. That this is not the case is seen clearly from several verses above - especially 1 Cor 14:5, and also in 1 Cor 14:18 (see below).
For the record, I do not speak in tongues, at least not the repetitive mono-syllabic kind. I have had extensive training in human languages over the years as I traveled the world - at last count I was up to twelve languages that I have used to a greater or lesser degree. My language training has helped me with a different gift - interpretation - which I’ve been told is a much rarer gift than tongue-speech; rare enough that when I try to explain this to charismatics I am met with skepticism, until I demonstrate.

I’ve also spent time among both Catholic charismatics and Pentecostals. I’ve heard both common mono-syllabic tongue-speech and genuine unknown languages at these gatherings. There is a major difference. The common tongue-speech that so many charismatics embrace, and non-charismatics find a distracting annoyance, is more properly described in Romans 8:26, the Spirit’s inexpressible groanings.

My position is that Paul is speaking of actual languages in 1st Corinthians. An “unknown language” is still a language, however alien it may be. It has its own consistent grammar and syntax, and the meaning can be interpreted by one gifted and/or trained to understand. This is done by observing the context, the body language, the emotion, and the repetition and variations in sounds, as well as by receiving inspiration from the spirit. Even the languages of animals can be interpreted and understood.

But while I do not speak in tongues, I do sing (1 Cor 14:15). I’ve been doing it for years, often to be greeted with funny looks and irritated comments. Perhaps my inability to speak mono-syllabic tongue-speech is due to my language training - I met a choir director with a music degree who could rattle off tongue-speech easily, but could not sing one syllable in tongue.

In any event, as speaking aloud in tongues and/or other languages during worship services requires an interpretation (1 Cor 14:28), it does not belong in the consecration prayer.

 

[Mysty101]

Nan S:

OK, you didn’t like the smilies, so I’ll leave them off.

Smiles are fine—Raspberries are not smiles-

 

[Mysty101]

In any event, as speaking aloud in tongues and/or other languages during worship services requires an interpretation (1 Cor 14:28), it does not belong in the consecration prayer.

This is still your interpretation of scripture. Pope JP II supported the Charismatics, and approved the movement. He was very sharp, and knew all about praying in tongues. The preacher to his household (Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa) is very Charismatic,

As I said, I have seen a praise tongue at the elevation, never during the words of consecration. This is not what would be considered “prayer words” . Praying in tongues is not communication with the mind, (it is to speaking what humming is to singing), and does not require interpretation.

 

[Mysty101]

For the record, I do not speak in tongues

Nor do I, but I do often pray in tongues—it is very different. I do believe I did once pray in tongues during the elevation during a Mass at a Charismatic conference in Presentation BVM in Philly. Fr Tom Di Lorenzo from Boston and Msgr Vincent Walsh were present. I do not remember the celebrant (I think it was Fr Tom) suggesting it, or how it started, but it was beautiful (remember some churches use bells at this point–so obviously something is allowed) It was at this time, and I do not recall if there were also bells.

 

[Mysty101]

PS
Nan S:

In any event, as speaking aloud in tongues and/or other languages during worship services requires an interpretation (1 Cor 14:28), it does not belong in the consecration prayer.

you answered this one yourself

Somehow, I don’t think that “na-na-na-na-o-wa-o-wa” or anything like it qualifies as a language

 

[Nan_S]

Smiles are fine—Raspberries are not smiles-

The picture label says “stick out tongue.” I wasn’t looking at it as a raspberry, more as a little silly thing, since we are, after all, speaking of “tongues.” Didn’t mean to offend.

For the record, I do not speak in tongues

Nor do I, but I do often pray in tongues—it is very different.

In 1 Cor 14, Paul does not distinguish between “praying,” “singing,” or “speaking” in tongues. Yet you do distinguish. Please explain.

I simply mentioned the “sing” part of the chapter because I have had tongue-speakers berate me for not being able to “speak”, while totally ignoring the “sing” side.

 

[Mysty101]

bob:

At a mass celebrated by a “charismatic” priest, he invited those present to pray in tongues during the consecration - at the lifting of the host and again at the lifting of the chalice of wine.

Redemptionis Sacramentum emphasises that Eucharist Prayers are to be unaccompanied.

Is this an abuse?

To address the original question

Strictly speaking, I guess this is an abuse, but what are the qualifying circumstances?

It is not words, and possibly the guidelines for inculturation may be applied here. In any event, I do not believe it would be considered a grave abuse. Even though I know many bishops are aware of the practice, I have never heard it specifically forbidden (even in an off the record manner) (I belong to a CCR conference - siconference.com -and I do think I would have heard if someone got a directive)

 

[Mysty101]

Nan S:

In 1 Cor 14, Paul does not distinguish between “praying,” “singing,” or “speaking” in tongues. Yet you do distinguish. Please explain.

I simply mentioned the “sing” part of the chapter because I have had tongue-speakers berate me for not being able to “speak”, while totally ignoring the “sing” side.

You seem to have some connection with Charismatics–do you care to elaborate?

(I am not ducking your question—I am just so tired of repeating myself–I have posted a gazillion links and posts)
There are many articles here
sfspirit.com/

 

[selvaraj]

My self I am a president of a Catholic Charismatic fellowship, and fortunately nobody is praying in tangues in our fellowship. I have attended many Charismatic meetings and found few persons are only using these method. But what I noticed is they always using few words like Chakkalova, Santhala karabala, lololo, durabal and rereeeree. Which are not acceptable by me and many of my friends.

In Christ,
Mario Selvaraj

 

[Nan_S]

You seem to have some connection with Charismatics–do you care to elaborate?
(I am not ducking your question—I am just so tired of repeating myself–I have posted a gazillion links and posts)

Nothing official - The Catholic charismatics who do tongue-speaking and singing are about an hour from me, and I’ve gone on retreat with them. My best friend is Pentacostal and takes me to her “all Christians” Pentacostal retreats. They’re very big on tongue-speaking, both in mono-syllabic utterances and unknown languages, but tend to ignore the singing part.

I really do like the Pentacostal retreats - I am a very well studied Catholic and they give me an opportunity to do some evangalizing and awareness training on behalf of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Anyway, as Paul in 1 Cor 14 uses the terms “speak”, “sing”, and “pray” interchangably when referring to tongues, then goes on to require that tongues be interpreted when used in worship, I don’t understand why you consider “praying in tongues” to be an exception to the rule.

And, yes, I get the part about praying in tongues being with an unproductive mind, but Paul also describes such unproductive prayer with the words “speak” and “say/pronounce,” hence pray in tongues <=> speak in tongues. Besides, if the gift of unknown languages (with full syntax and grammar) was upon me, it would not require my brain to be engaged for the words to be pronounced.

 

[Mysty101]

I’m sorry, I was pressed for time today—I will get back to you.

 

[Mysty101]

Nan S:

Nothing official - The Catholic charismatics who do tongue-speaking and singing are about an hour from me, and I’ve gone on retreat with them. My best friend is Pentacostal and takes me to her “all Christians” Pentacostal retreats. They’re very big on tongue-speaking, both in mono-syllabic utterances and unknown languages, but tend to ignore the singing part.

I have really never seen “Speaking in Tongues” and I would be very skeptical, especially if there was not an authentic discerner present. I love the praise & prayer tongue, especially when prayed in a group. (The most awesome was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem—the Tongues just start spontaneously, and many pilgrims from all over the world join in–regardless of their native tongue)

I really do like the Pentacostal retreats - I am a very well studied Catholic and they give me an opportunity to do some evangalizing and awareness training on behalf of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I tend to stay away from Protestant services of any kind. I prefer to worship with Catholics. I have no problem with ecumenical prayer services, but I don’t go unless there is authentic Catholic leadership involved.

Anyway, as Paul in 1 Cor 14 uses the terms “speak”, “sing”, and “pray” interchangably when referring to tongues, then goes on to require that tongues be interpreted when used in worship, I don’t understand why you consider “praying in tongues” to be an exception to the rule.

Worship, not teaching? Do you have documentation of this interpretation? If by worship you do mean the liturgy, I would agree that Speaking in tongues (the teaching aspect with or without interpretation) must be avoided, but it would not be objectionable at a Prayer Group, and this is worship.

And, yes, I get the part about praying in tongues being with an unproductive mind, but Paul also describes such unproductive prayer with the words “speak” and “say/pronounce,” hence pray in tongues <=> speak in tongues. Besides, if the gift of unknown languages (with full syntax and grammar) was upon me, it would not require my brain to be engaged for the words to be pronounced

I do not have a teaching tongue, nor any experience of it. Again do you have documentation for this interpretation? Remember this was an instruction for the Church in Corinth, which was did have problems in this area. Praising & Healing Prayer groups do not present this problem today.

 

[Nan_S]

Mysty101:

I have really never seen “Speaking in Tongues” and I would be very skeptical, especially if there was not an authentic discerner present.

I actually have heard “speaking in tongues” when the speaker proclaims a message in a complete language, with syntax and grammar, that is unknown by both speaker and hearers. Sometimes the speaker also hears with the heart and can interpret, sometimes another interprets. I am one of those who can discern/interpret; that is my gift. My extensive training in many languages over the years enhances that gift of understanding what a speaker is saying, even when I am unfamiliar with the actual words used.

One of the most stunning incidences of unknown language tongue-speech I know of was when the speaker, who had no foreign language training at all, made a lengthy discourse in classical Latin! She had no idea what she was saying, but others in the room did, and were shocked to discover she had never studied the language. It only happened to her once, but that was enough to make believers out of a whole roomful of people.

I love the praise & prayer tongue, especially when prayed in a group. (The most awesome was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem—the Tongues just start spontaneously, and many pilgrims from all over the world join in–regardless of their native tongue)

I believe you are referring to Acts 2:1-12, the coming of the Holy Spirit. Please re-read the passage and take note that the only ones speaking in tongues were Peter and the other 11 apostles. But Peter and the 11 were not speaking a praise and prayer tongue; they were speaking whole languages that were immediately clearly understood by the listeners.

The listeners were the pilgrims who each heard Peter and the 11 in their own native languages. None of the pilgrims spoke in tongues; the Holy Spirit was not yet upon any of them. They were, however, all Jews or Jewish converts; they therefore were able to speak Aramaic/Hebrew at a minimum, and being international travelers many of them would also be able to speak the language of international trade in that era, which was Greek. So regardless of their country of origin, they were able to communicate with each other through normal human means.

What made this miracle of tongues really incredible was a feature I have never heard repeated, or even claimed by someone to be repeated. To wit, as each of the apostles spoke, the same words were heard differently by each of the listeners, depending on his country of origin. Peter and the 11 each spoke one set of words; and at the same time (this is important) the Egyptians heard those words in the Egyptian language, the Romans heard those words in Latin, the Arabs heard those words in Arabic, and so forth.

I tend to stay away from Protestant services of any kind. I prefer to worship with Catholics. I have no problem with ecumenical prayer services, but I don’t go unless there is authentic Catholic leadership involved.

As long as you are not comfortable going, you are right by staying away. Please don’t think I have been Protestant-ized by this, though. I always worship with Catholics - missing mass without good cause (being near-death, perhaps) is a serious sin that I take very seriously. I do go to certain select Protestant gatherings because I have been a serious student of Catholic apologetics for many years, and look for opportunities to reach out to our separated bretheren.

These last few weeks, as the world was focused on the death of John Paul :getholy: and the election of Benedict I was asked a lot of questions by Protestants who suddenly were very interested in everything Catholic. One lady saw the sprinkling of the body with holy water, and having heard that it had not been embalmed, concluded that the cardinals were sprinkling it to keep it fresh, like a grocer sprinkles supermarket vegetables!!!

–more–

 

[Nan_S]

Anyway, as Paul in 1 Cor 14 uses the terms “speak”, “sing”, and “pray” interchangably when referring to tongues, then goes on to require that tongues be interpreted when used in worship, I don’t understand why you consider “praying in tongues” to be an exception to the rule.

Worship, not teaching? Do you have documentation of this interpretation? If by worship you do mean the liturgy, I would agree that Speaking in tongues (the teaching aspect with or without interpretation) must be avoided, but it would not be objectionable at a Prayer Group, and this is worship.

“Worship” was a too-broad word choice; I meant organized, formal worship during Mass. Because the Roman liturgy forbids free-form insertions by priest or congregation, all tongue-speech of any sort during consecration, elevation, and every other time in the Mass must be silent. It matters not whether it is in tongues in a teaching aspect, in a private prayer language, or in the vernacular. The only time someone might legitimately get away with it is if the priest, during his homily, proclaims in a tongue and then interprets it… as the congregation flees…

If you were watching John Paul’s funeral mass, you probably saw that at the end of the mass the Greek-speaking Eastern-rite Catholics (they were Catholic, not Orthodox) gathered at the foot of the casket and intoned their own prayers for the dead in Greek. This was done after the Roman rite of the mass was completed, except for the solemn recessional, and was proper. And the crowds present had access to written copies of the mass, so the requirement for interpretation was met.

Outside of mass is another story. As I said in a previous post, my private prayer language is expressed by singing in repetitive, mono-syllabic tongues to the point of driving some to distraction. If the prayer group is comfortable with tongues, have at it.

And, yes, I get the part about praying in tongues being with an unproductive mind, but Paul also describes such unproductive prayer with the words “speak” and “say/pronounce,” hence pray in tongues <=> speak in tongues. Besides, if the gift of unknown languages (with full syntax and grammar) was upon me, it would not require my brain to be engaged for the words to be pronounced.

I do not have a teaching tongue, nor any experience of it. Again do you have documentation for this interpretation? Remember this was an instruction for the Church in Corinth, which was did have problems in this area. Praising & Healing Prayer groups do not present this problem today.

I was trying to interpret what you said earlier. It seemed you were distinguishing between “Praying” and “Speaking” in tongues, to wit, that the repetitive “na-na-na-na-o-wa-o-wa” type of tongue speech was “praying with my spirit but an unproductive mind”, therefore it was not really “speaking” and could be proclaimed aloud at the elevation of the Eucharist.

However, in explaining this kind of praying in tongues in 1 Cor 14:13-16, Paul describes it with the words “speak” and “say,” which therefore puts “praying in tongues” on the same level as every other kind of tongue-speech; to wit, it is still speech and if used in worship it must be interpreted, so according to the rules of the Roman liturgy it can not be used aloud during the Mass.

I am uncertain what you mean by a “teaching tongue.” I am guessing that is the same thing I describe as “speaking in unknown languages with full syntax and grammar.” I also do not have this gift, possibly because I have a mental block that comes from serious structured study of known languages. But that does not mean others are bereft of it. Which leads me back to the answer I gave at the top of these posts.

 

[Mysty101]

Nan S:

I love the praise & prayer tongue, especially when prayed in a group. (The most awesome was in the Upper Room in Jerusalem—the Tongues just start spontaneously, and many pilgrims from all over the world join in–regardless of their native tongue)

I believe you are referring to Acts 2:1-12, the coming of the Holy Spirit. Please re-read the passage and take note that the only ones speaking in tongues were Peter and the other 11 apostles. But Peter and the 11 were not speaking a praise and prayer tongue; they were speaking whole languages that were immediately clearly understood by the listeners.

Sorry I was not clear—actually I was referring to my own experience in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, when I was on a Pilgrimage.–

 

[Mysty101]

Nan S:

If you were watching John Paul’s funeral mass, you probably saw that at the end of the mass the Greek-speaking Eastern-rite Catholics (they were Catholic, not Orthodox) gathered at the foot of the casket and intoned their own prayers for the dead in Greek. This was done after the Roman rite of the mass was completed, except for the solemn recessional, and was proper. And the crowds present had access to written copies of the mass, so the requirement for interpretation was met.

This has nothing to do with the gift of tongues----tongues means the speaker does not know the language in which the listener hears.

I was trying to interpret what you said earlier. It seemed you were distinguishing between “Praying” and “Speaking” in tongues, to wit, that the repetitive “na-na-na-na-o-wa-o-wa” type of tongue speech was “praying with my spirit but an unproductive mind”, therefore it was not really “speaking” and could be proclaimed aloud at the elevation of the Eucharist.

You are oversimplifying what I said. A spontaneous outburst of praise might be considered wrong, but it is not the same as speaking in tongues.

However, in explaining this kind of praying in tongues in 1 Cor 14:13-16, Paul describes it with the words “speak” and “say,” which therefore puts “praying in tongues” on the same level as every other kind of tongue-speech; to wit, it is still speech and if used in worship it must be interpreted, so according to the rules of the Roman liturgy it can not be used aloud during the Mass.

Again—where is your documentation for this interpretation? Do you attend an authentic CCR group?

 

[Mysty101]

PS

The only time someone might legitimately get away with it is if the priest, during his homily, proclaims in a tongue and then interprets it… as the congregation flees…

Again—please stop using your own interpretation of scripture, as well as the GIRM A priest must carefully prepare his homily—The situation you describe would be far more abusive than a spontaneous outburst of a praise tongue.

 

[Mysty101]

PPS

I was trying to interpret what you said earlier.

Please don’t interpret my words—if something is not clear, ask and I will try to explain more fully.