Is speaking in tongues, xenoglossia or glossolalia?

[grannymh]

What happened?

As I ministered to patients in the hospital, there was no doubt that I needed the help of the Holy Spirit. Thus, I prayed silently in tongues as I was about to enter the room. What happened? I used my gut instinct with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes, odd thoughts about how to minister to someone in the hospital would come to me. For example. During one of my visits, instead of the normal prayers for someone suffering, I asked the couple (she was seriously ill) to pray that God would give them the graces of the Sacrament of Matrimony. They recognized their love for each other and with that sustaining love they would understand and accept God’s will. Another time, a woman trusted me with her story. That I would consider a miracle because she asked to see a priest.

In other words, following my short silent tongues prayer as I was about to enter a hospital room, nothing happened that would be considered a major gift like a healing. Still, special graces touched a person’s soul. That would be a true healing by the Holy Spirit…

Someone needing special graces is why we pray in our native language for that person. Praying for God’s action is what Prayer Warriors do. Refer to this CAF Forum.
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=86

Prayer is prayer. We ordinary folk need God. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal presents the common Holy Spirit gift of prayer Tongues as one means of praying for someone. It never teaches that other means of prayer should be discarded.

For me, praying in Tongues settles my nerves. It is definitely better than road rage. With Tongues, I do not have to worry that I skipped a word in the Our Father when I am nervous about meeting a patient who is known for slapping anyone who is at the side of her bed. For me, the Our Father in my native tongue is precious.

When I am sharing the Catholic Charismatic Renewal with others, I often suggest that the word “renewal” needs to be taken seriously. Some of us get wrapped up in routines. The Renewal tells us that it is time to dig deep into all the meanings in the greatest prayer of all – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[grannymh]

The Lord gave us the Our Father in Aramaic (Abun d’bashmayo) not in a “fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning”. The entire prayer unites all people of Good Will and Faith. Individual expression of non-intercommunicative “fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning” do the opposite, does it not?
Even those who support it agree that its purpose is personal and not communal, nor for the building up of the holy Church.
Yes, but does ever person have the right to choose a non-language?

Yes. Every person has the right to choose a non-language.

Another question. Why are Catholics hung up on language being a criteria for the common Holy Spirit gift of praying to God in Tongues?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes. Every person has the right to choose a non-language.

Another question. Why are Catholics hung up on language being a criteria for the common Holy Spirit gift of praying to God in Tongues?

Because one can pass on the prayers of the Church using words to others, our children, future generations.

Passing on “syllabalistic utterances” - if such a thing is even possible, seem to degrade not build up. In addition, the practice, in my view, is anti-intellectual.

 

[Abba]

Because one can pass on the prayers of the Church using words to others, our children, future generations.

Passing on “syllabalistic utterances” - if such a thing is even possible, seem to degrade not build up. In addition, the practice, in my view, is anti-intellectual.

Allow me to jump in here.

Now, SyroMalankara, I do not nor have I ever had the gift of ‘praying’ or ‘speaking’ in tongues - but I do accept that others have been given that gift.

It is not meant to ‘pass on’ the prayer. The spiritual experiences of the faithful are not passed on, but they do serve to witness the faith. In that report regarding the ecumenical meetings of the Catholic Church with the Classical Pentecostals, the Church makes the point that the biblical experiences led to evangelization and the necessity for teaching etc… To say that one should not rely almost exclusive or to the extent the Pentecostals are doing on the experiences; rather let them serve as witnesses to catechize and evangelize.

Let me give you a little example, most of the time, when I receive the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, after I leave the church; tears of joy start rolling down my face like two little rivers. It is sometimes embarrassing and I try to control it but I really can’t so I try to at least be discrete, but, this happens. I know I am being touched by the Holy Spirit or Jesus. My children witness this. It’s not something I will pass down to them, but they get to witness someone being touched spiritually. Take any spiritual experience that you are familiar with; it is not that you necessarily have to pass it down but it is an integral part of our faith. It is not meant to replace anything.

It’s like I tell people who have a difficult time grasping that a god exists, try to meet Him half way and after that you will begin to understand that He is active in the relationship. At least to many this is the case. And, when Jesus is active in whatever way He is to an individual - are we to ignore this because it cannot be passed down?

The apostles spoke in tongues (and Mary) and Peter went boldly to evangelize - the experience serve to witness the workings of the Holy Spirit - that’s all. Well, that was not all in that particular example as it confirmed Jesus’ words etc…

Why would everything need to be intellectual to be valid?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Now, SyroMalankara, I do not nor have I ever had the gift of ‘praying’ or ‘speaking’ in tongues - but I do accept that others have been given that gift.

Speaking in tongues that are foreign I can accept as a miracle. Praying in multiple languages I can accept. Praying in an ‘utterance’ that is unknown to anyone, and so far not shown in any Scripture, Magisterial text, or Sacred Tradition is odd to me.

It is not meant to ‘pass on’ the prayer. The spiritual experiences of the faithful are not passed on, but they do serve to witness the faith.

How so? If the “praying in tongues” is distinct from “speaking in tongues” and it’s supposed to be personal, how does it witness the faith?

Let me give you a little example, most of the time, when I receive the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Reconciliation, after I leave the church; tears of joy start rolling down my face like two little rivers. It is sometimes embarrassing and I try to control it but I really can’t so I try to at least be discrete, but, this happens. I know I am being touched by the Holy Spirit or Jesus.

I’m the same way, even hearing some Liturgical songs or a priest who is really focused intentionally on what he is praying gives me anything from chills to outright tears.

My children witness this. It’s not something I will pass down to them, but they get to witness someone being touched spiritually.

The difference is that no one is claiming this is due to anything more than what God has given to us in his Mysteries (Sacraments). If I claim that this experience of tears is a “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” and needs a special laying on of hands or something outside what all have available to us - I’d expect you to be suspicious of me.

Take any spiritual experience that you are familiar with; it is not that you necessarily have to pass it down but it is an integral part of our faith. It is not meant to replace anything.

Absolutely right, but certain things are personal and one is not expected to make it into a point of ministry or enlarge what is a personal experience. I wouldn’t start a “Tears Experience” ministry - you know?

It’s like I tell people who have a difficult time grasping that a god exists, try to meet Him half way and after that you will begin to understand that He is active in the relationship. At least to many this is the case. And, when Jesus is active in whatever way He is to an individual - are we to ignore this because it cannot be passed down?

Not ignored, but personal experience is personal

The apostles spoke in tongues (and Mary) and Peter went boldly to evangelize - the experience serve to witness the workings of the Holy Spirit - that’s all. Well, that was not all in that particular example as it confirmed Jesus’ words etc…

I agree, did any of them “pray in tongues” or is that a modern distinction?

Why would everything need to be intellectual to be valid?

It doesn’t, however, one shouldn’t swing to the opposite extreme to make every experience valid.

 

[grannymh]

Speaking in tongues that are foreign I can accept as a miracle. Praying in multiple languages I can accept. Praying in an ‘utterance’ that is unknown to anyone, and so far not shown in any Scripture, Magisterial text, or Sacred Tradition is odd to me.

Acts 2: 1-4

 

[SyroMalankara]

Acts of the Holy Apostles, Chapter 1:
1 In the first book,[a] O Theoph′ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying** with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”**

Here’s what you asked me to check:

Chapter 2: When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

You left out the rest, which, since we are discussing what “tongues” are and the supposed distinction you made between “praying” and “speaking” (which I have yet to see anywhere in Scripture, Magisterial teaching, or within the Apostolic Church)

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and wondered, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Par′thians and Medes and E′lamites and residents of Mesopota′mia, Judea and Cappado′cia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phryg′ia and Pamphyl′ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre′ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

 

[grannymh]

Here’s what you asked me to check:

You left out the rest, which, since we are discussing what “tongues” are and the supposed distinction you made between “praying” and “speaking” (which I have yet to see anywhere in Scripture, Magisterial teaching, or within the Apostolic Church)

It should be obvious that Acts 2: 1-4 is about a group of long time friends who share the same language. Also notice that they are inside.

Acts 2: 5-13 is about a large group, not inside a building, who are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene …

Because of the obvious difference between the two sections, it is proper to treat them separately.

You may treat Holy Scripture any way you want. And I can politely bow out, that is, you may have the last word.

 

[Abba]

SyroMalanka and grannymh,

I will respond to some of the things you have commented on, but I just want to insert some information regarding our topic here.

Food for thought:

1. As I was searching info on this topic, I came upon some unjustified seriously angry claims from the SSPX. I mean, they go as far as to call the Catholic Charismatic Renewal - diabolical! They claim that the incomprehensible utterances are nowhere else but coming from Satan. Why should I care what they think? They claim the CCR is not ‘Catholic’ and illogically compare them to certain schismatic and heretical groups of the past, but, - look who’s talking. Their founder did not obey the Pope. They go on to criticize the Church and the Pope for accepting the ICCRS. One of the things they criticize is its humble beginning. Oh, dear --what of Peter? I mean - he was a fisherman and I don’t even know if knew how to read and write. What of the Grotto of Lourdes? One can claim that the Blessed Virgin Mary would not appear in some little cave used for the pigs etc…What’s the problem? Because it started in the United States and not Italy or France? So, some young students got together seeking God and the Holy Spirit responded. That’s is not so out of this world. archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_charismatic_renewal.htm
2. I have another thread going, where I wonder how Jesus suffered for me in particular. Now, for that thread I would welcome a serious theologian to theologically explain it to me. Not that I would not welcome a mystic, but, a theologian can do the job. However, in this situation I would really welcome a mystic, especially one who has experienced this manifestation of the Holy Spirit. We have the Doctor of the Church, Saint Theresa of Avila. Here is what she wrote:

"Amongst these favours, at once painful and pleasant, Our Lord sometimes causes in the soul a certain jubilation and a strange and mysterious kind of prayer. If He bestows this grace on you, praise Him fervently for it; I describe it so that you may know that it is something real. I believe that the faculties of the soul are closely united to God but that He leaves them at liberty to rejoice in their happiness together with the senses, although they do not know what they are enjoying nor how they do so. This may sound nonsense but it really happens.

May His Majesty often grant us this kind of prayer which is most safe and beneficial; we cannot acquire it for ourselves as it is quite supernatural. Sometimes it lasts for a whole day and the soul is like one inebriated, although not deprived of the senses; Compare with this what has been said in the fourth chapter of this Mansion, nor like a person afflicted with melancholia, Melancholia here as elsewhere means hysteria. in which, though the reason is not entirely lost, the imagination continually dwells on some subject which possesses it and from which it cannot be freed. These are coarse comparisons to make in connection with such a precious gift, yet nothing else occurs to my mind. In this state of prayer a person is rendered by this jubilee so forgetful of self and everything else that she can neither think nor speak of anything but praising God, to which her joy prompts her. Let us all of us join her, my daughters, for why should we wish to be wiser than she? What can make us happier? And may all creatures unite their praises with ours for ever and ever. Amen, amen, amen!" Interior Castle, chapter 6, sections 11 and 15.

1. Recognition by the Holy See of the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal - Decree
   Link not working - but you will find the link on their website.
2. The Statutes of ICCRS: Link not working - but you will find the link on their website.
3. Their website: iccrs.org/en/about-iccrs/#Recognition

Of course, it needs to be kept in check - just like the monasteries and convents. Does the ICCRS have a bishop assigned to them?

I am still trying to understanding what exactly is their approach and how it all fits in with the teachings of the Church. I don’t understand how people are given the gift at a prayer meeting. I thought people who had the gift came together thru the ICCRS - but, other things are happening there and so I am looking into exactly what is going on. I don’t understand this who thing about Baptism of the Spirit.

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course, it needs to be kept in check - just like the monasteries and convents. Does the ICCRS have a bishop assigned to them?

I am still trying to understanding what exactly is their approach and how it all fits in with the teachings of the Church. I don’t understand how people are given the gift at a prayer meeting. I thought people who had the gift came together thru the ICCRS - but, other things are happening there and so I am looking into exactly what is going on. I don’t understand this who thing about Baptism of the Spirit.

Again, hi Abba.

The ICCRS (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service) is a body serving the CCR (Catholic Charismatic Renewal). Together with the CF (The Catholic Fraternity of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowship) they are the two main bodies of the CCR.

The CCR has many different movements in various forms in the worlds.

ICCRS is more general while CF is specifically for Covenant Communities – those in the Renewal but decided to opt for a committed life in the Lord and form a closed Community of Catholics to create an authentic Christian environment.

The Gospel says you are recognized by its fruits. That speaks for itself where millions of lives are changed.

You can check their website here. catholicfraternity.org/

Both ICCRS and CF have their offices in the Vatican. They are both recognized as private body of the lay faithful by the Pontifical Right for the Laity, and yes, under a Bishop. Bishop Cordez looked after them before but now he is a Cardinal. The late Cardinal Suenen was one of the pioneers of the CCR who saw it was the work of the Holy Spirit.

I note in your earlier post regarding the gift of the Holy Spirit. The tongue is one of them and you are right. The Spirit gives as He will. Spiritual experience is not taught but caught. We can only be taught to learn to recognize it and make good and profitable use of it.

The CCR is a non-issue today. Many parishioners do not know that they are in the CCR but nevertheless embrace it spirituality. It is about renewal of their Christian faith, not so much about tongue.

But of course, there is that few individuals who cannot let go for some reason. Do not worry about them. Let them be.

If one is strong in the faith, what others say should not be an issue as long as the Church endorses it.

As for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The phrase is often a misnomer because it is not a Sacrament nor it is meant to replace it. You can also call it infilling of the Holy Spirit or activation of the Holy Spirit which is already in us by virtue of our Baptism.

It is usually done by the laying of hands after undergoing Life in the Spirit Seminar. Not all Baptism of the Holy Spirit experiences is the same though but most common is the experience of change at some point in time – repentance and love for God.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t understand this who thing about Baptism of the Spirit.

When you have the time and you seriously want to know about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, please read chapters two and three in this linked book. The other chapters are also filled with important information.

brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf

 

[Abba]

Again, hi Abba.

The ICCRS (International Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service) is a body serving the CCR (Catholic Charismatic Renewal). Together with the CF (The Catholic Fraternity of Charismatic Covenant Communities and Fellowship) they are the two main bodies of the CCR.

The CCR has many different movements in various forms in the worlds.

ICCRS is more general while CF is specifically for Covenant Communities – those in the Renewal but decided to opt for a committed life in the Lord and form a closed Community of Catholics to create an authentic Christian environment.

The Gospel says you are recognized by its fruits. That speaks for itself where millions of lives are changed.

You can check their website here. catholicfraternity.org/

Both ICCRS and CF have their offices in the Vatican. They are both recognized as private body of the lay faithful by the Pontifical Right for the Laity, and yes, under a Bishop. Bishop Cordez looked after them before but now he is a Cardinal. The late Cardinal Suenen was one of the pioneers of the CCR who saw it was the work of the Holy Spirit.

I note in your earlier post regarding the gift of the Holy Spirit. The tongue is one of them and you are right. The Spirit gives as He will. Spiritual experience is not taught but caught. We can only be taught to learn to recognize it and make good and profitable use of it.

The CCR is a non-issue today. Many parishioners do not know that they are in the CCR but nevertheless embrace it spirituality. It is about renewal of their Christian faith, not so much about tongue.

But of course, there is that few individuals who cannot let go for some reason. Do not worry about them. Let them be.

If one is strong in the faith, what others say should not be an issue as long as the Church endorses it.

As for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The phrase is often a misnomer because it is not a Sacrament nor it is meant to replace it. You can also call it infilling of the Holy Spirit or activation of the Holy Spirit which is already in us by virtue of our Baptism.

It is usually done by the laying of hands after undergoing Life in the Spirit Seminar. Not all Baptism of the Holy Spirit experiences is the same though but most common is the experience of change at some point in time – repentance and love for God.

Thank you Rueben J, this is helpful.

+++

 

[Abba]

When you have the time and you seriously want to know about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, please read chapters two and three in this linked book. The other chapters are also filled with important information.

brendancase.com/uploads/Key_to_the_Charismatic_Renewal.pdf

Nice link. I am enjoying it. Excellent. Very helpful.

+++

SyroMalankara, sorry I missed ‘ra’ here it is - your ‘ra’. Look in the bright side, at least I did not type the Greek word…Maxxxxx

 

[SyroMalankara]

It should be obvious that Acts 2: 1-4 is about a group of long time friends who share the same language. Also notice that they are inside.

Acts 2: 5-13 is about a large group, not inside a building, who are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene …

Because of the obvious difference between the two sections, it is proper to treat them separately.

You may treat Holy Scripture any way you want. And I can politely bow out, that is, you may have the last word.

It isnt separate. The “this sound” mentioned in verse 6 has to do with the sound mentioned in verse 2. Otherwise, the entire structure of the paragrapg makes no sense.

 

[grannymh]

It is my personal observation that practically speaking, Tongues per se is not a necessary problem. Instead, it is blindness of the Holy Spirit which presents the real danger.

If there is real Catholic interest in Tongues, we now have to start with Chapter 14, Gospel of John. The Last Supper Discourses are essential. It appears that some people are afraid of verse 26. Not only will the promised Advocate remind us of all that Jesus taught, He will teach us everything.

It should not be a surprise that Catholics who have trouble with Tongues rarely speak, in depth, about the coming of the Holy Spirit to build up the original Catholic Church in the time of Paul.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If there is real Catholic interest in Tongues, we now have to start with Chapter 14, Gospel of John. The Last Supper Discourses are essential. It appears that some people are afraid of verse 26. Not only will the promised Advocate remind us of all that Jesus taught, He will teach us everything.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things,[d] and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Please elaborate further. Im not certain what you mean or where you are going with this.

It should not be a surprise that Catholics who have trouble with Tongues rarely speak, in depth, about the coming of the Holy Spirit to build up the original Catholic Church in the time of Paul.

I “have trouble” with a distinction yet-unfounded in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterial teaching, or within the Apostolic Church - that claims “tongues” (languages) are separated into two categories - praying in & speaking in - with the former being personal and in no need of interpretation that the latter has specific rules on use (as stated in Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium and Apostolic teaching).
As i stated earlier, much of this momentum was to fill a vaccuum specifically in the Latin Church after V2. The East has always emphasized the actions of the Holy Spirit within the Church, liturgically, symbolically and Sacramentally and in all its prayers.

 

[Abba]

SyroMalankara,

I am seeking the same answers you are, just to be clear.

What do you think about the Decree recognizing the ICCRS? What value do you think it has?

What needs to be in Church documents for it to be acceptable?

How exactly must it be noted in Sacred Scripture for it to be acceptable?

I was considering the Immaculate Conception. It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that there was really nothing in Church docs, but the laity had faith that she was and it is not necessarily biblical. It was confirmed by Mother Mary herself at Lourdes. If I am correct with my little information, how would this differ from this whole thing about the Holy Spirit? I say ‘this whole thing’ without getting into specifics because I still need to understand what is going on and today will be reading the link of the explanations by a Monsignor Vincent M. Walsh provided by grannymh.

 

[SyroMalankara]

What do you think about the Decree recognizing the ICCRS? What value do you think it has?

I think charismatic movements and their service are certainly valuable. Here’s another person who seems to support my position - Dr. William Carroll, EWTN:
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=315116&language=en
Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 03-23-2002:
Thank you very much for the documentary citation, which shows that I was correct when I said the Pope had approved the charmismatic movement (though not, specifically, “praying in tongues” that no one understands). - Dr. Carroll

What needs to be in Church documents for it to be acceptable?

Not sure what you mean. If there are supporters using specific terms and actions to reference their behaviour, one would think the same words, phrases etc would be deemed acceptable in Church documents.

How exactly must it be noted in Sacred Scripture for it to be acceptable?

Since there are people making a clear distinction between “praying” and “speaking” - one would assume such a distinction exists somewhere. Since supporters of the action keep referring to Scriptural verses as support for their actions, one would expect that Scripture actually supports it, not something vague or completely different.

I was considering the Immaculate Conception. It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that there was really nothing in Church docs, but the laity had faith that she was and it is not necessarily biblical.

I don’t believe that. The Apostolic Church has always believed the Mother of God is sinless. The only speculation among the Saints and theologians was whether she was born without sin, became sinless at her Fiat, at the Conception of our Lord, or at the moment of the end of her earthly life. Many laity and a lot of Eastern and Western bishops asked the Holy Father to clarify if there was a correction answer here. The Holy Father answered from Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers, also citing some Scripture as reference (not explicit but implicit).

It was confirmed by Mother Mary herself at Lourdes. If I am correct with my little information, how would this differ from this whole thing about the Holy Spirit?

Lourdes is a popular but PRIVATE revelation. Nothing here is required belief, although one may hold it as a devotion, since nothing here contradicts the Revealed teaching of the Church. There are no new Sacraments or unique ‘gifts’ that are shown en masse from Lourdes.

 

[grannymh]

It is my personal observation that practically speaking, Tongues per se is not a necessary problem. Instead, it is blindness of the Holy Spirit which presents the real danger.

If there is real Catholic interest in Tongues, we now have to start with Chapter 14, Gospel of John. The Last Supper Discourses are essential. It appears that some people are afraid of verse 26. Not only will the promised Advocate remind us of all that Jesus taught, He will teach us everything.

It should not be a surprise that Catholics who have trouble with Tongues rarely speak, in depth, about the coming of the Holy Spirit to build up the original Catholic Church in the time of Paul.

It is interesting to me that no one questioned a typo/missing word in post 34. The corrected opening sentences are …

It is my personal observation that practically speaking, Tongues per se is not a necessary problem. Instead, it is our blindness of the Holy Spirit which presents the real danger.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I discerned that is what you meant by the context