G
grannymh
Guest
I do hope you will include information about the author and the details of his or her research including locations, time frame, citations, etc.
Thank you.
- Status
Thank you.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please see post 139 for the excerpts starting with
“Discernment of Charisms”
Do read about discernment since this is very important.
Here is the beginning of the link. Please note the
Ecclesiastical Acknowledgements
Charismatic Renewal - General
An often asked question in the Forums concerns the legitimacy of the Charismatic Renewal and the phenomena associated with it. In the interests of full disclosure let me start by saying that I have never been, nor am I now, a member of this movement. The Church has never lacked charisms to build it up, both ordinary and extraordinary. However, it is the widespread experience of the Holy Spirit’s presence within Catholics and the manifestation of extraordinary charisms such as prophecy, speaking in tongues and healing, outside of those of evident great sanctity, which has characterized the Charismatic Renewal. This needs to be explained to understand what it means when the Church says that the Charismatic Renewal is an authentic movement of the Spirit in our times. Ecclesiastical Acknowledgements
The Charismatic Renewal as a movement within the Catholic Church has been acknowledged by two Popes, Paul VI and John Paul II. Speaking to the International Conference on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal on May 19, 1975, Pope Paul VI encouraged the attendees in their renewal efforts and especially to remain anchored in the Church.
This authentic desire to situate yourselves in the Church is the authentic sign of the action of the Holy Spirit … How could this ‘spiritual renewal’ not be a chance for the Church and the world? And how, in this case could one not take all the means to ensure that it remains so…
Pope John Paul II, for his part, has been more explicit. Speaking to a group of international leaders of the Renewal on December 11, 1979, he said,
I am convinced that this movement is a very important component of the entire renewal of the Church.
Noting that since age 11 he had said a daily prayer to the Holy Spirit he added,
This was my own spiritual initiation, so I can understand all these charisms. They are all part of the richness of the Lord. I am convinced that this movement is a sign of his action.
For his part, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has added his voice to the Pope’s in acknowledging the good occurring in the Charismatic Renewal and providing some cautions. In a forward to a book by Cardinal Suenens, at that time the Pope’s delegate to the Charismatic Renewal, the Prefect comments on the Post-Conciliar period stating,
At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms - which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit - is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.
Speaking of the book’s subject, renewal and the powers of darkness, he says,
What is the relation between personal experience and the common faith of the Church? Both factors are important: a dogmatic faith unsupported by personal experience remains empty; mere personal experience unrelated to the faith of the Church remains blind.
Finally, he urges those who read the book to pay special attention to the author’s double plea,
… to those responsible for the ecclesiastical ministry - from parish priests to bishops - not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully; and on the other (hand) … to the members of the Renewal to cherish and maintain their link with the whole Church and with the charisms of their pastors. *Renewal and the Powers of Darkness, *Leo Cardinal Suenens (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1983)]
J
jjkp777
Guest
We might as well show the rest of the article in the link I provided earlier 
ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm
"Charismatic Graces
The Second Vatican Council affirmed the legitimacy of charisms, both ordinary and extraordinary. A charism is simply “a grace freely given by God to build up the Church,” as opposed to the graces given to sanctify the individual. St. Paul gives a list of charisms in 1 Cor. 12. They include ordinary charisms like teaching and administration and extraordinary ones like healing, miracles, and tongues. These things by themselves don’t make the person holier, rather they enable him or her to serve others. Finally, the authenticity of charisms must be discerned, since charisms are not necessarily from the spirit of God (1 John 4). The Council taught,
Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly desired nor is it from them that the fruits of apostolic labors are to be presumptuously expected. Those who have charge over the Church should judge the genuineness and proper use of these gifts, through their office, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit but to test all things and hold fast to what is good (cf. 1 Thes. 5:12, 19- 21). [Lumen Gentium 12]
The Church clearly wishes to follow a middle course, between a rationalistic skepticism and a blind credulity in alleged workings of the Holy Spirit. In the past the Church had condemned what it called Pentecostalism, understood as the total dependence, even theologically, on the presence and manifestation of charisms. Such a dependence is blind, for it fails to allow itself to be guided by the full content of the faith and the judgement of the Church’s teaching authority. It is total when such “gifts” displace the means of grace in the life of the Christian, such as the sacraments. On the other hand, the Church cannot condemn charisms, since they are part of the patrimony of our apostolic faith. What we have seen in our time is the appearance of the Charismatic Renewal, an apparent outpouring of the extraordinary charisms. This doesn’t mean that one has to be a charismatic, that charismatics are better Catholics, or that every alleged charism is authentic. Yet, as the Council noted, the Church must respect the workings of God, discerning the authentic from the inauthentic.
An authentic charism would not pull one away from the Church. If a Catholic leaves, seeking an emotional boost he no longer finds in the Church, he is seeking the gifts of the Giver and not the Giver of the gifts. Participation in the life of the Church should lead any Catholic (Charismatic, traditional, or ordinary) into a deeper relationship with the Eucharist, the Blessed Mother and the Pope.** If it does not, something is spiritually wrong with that particular individual or with the guidance he is receiving within his group. Since a charism does not give the person any special infallibility or sanctity, given the extraordinary character of such gifts it is especially necessary for individuals possessing them to guard the purity of their faith, lest pride, self-seeking or emotionalism lead them astray, and they others. The reality that some have left the Church for Pentecostalism, or sought to create it within, points to the dangers.** By contrast, the presence in the Church of a dynamic and faithful institution like the Franciscan University of Steubenville is evidence of the great good that can be done by those graced with authentic charismatic gifts exercised in union with the Church.
All such authentic charisms, therefore, are at the service of the Body of Christ, the Church (1 Cor 12, 14). As gifts of the Holy Spirit, they are supernatural graces beyond the power of human striving and human nature (e.g. miracle working), though some may build upon the natural talents of the recipient (e.g. teaching). St. Paul contrasts these charismata with “the greater gifts” of Faith, Hope and Charity (1 Cor. 13), which he says have lasting value. These “theological virtues” unite the person’s mind and will to God. As a consequence, the Church teaches that Faith, Hope and Charity are necessary for salvation but the charismata are not. St. Paul’s experience at Corinth demonstrated rather early in the Church how susceptible these charisms are to exaggeration. In another context, he would even warn the Corinthians that the devil can appear as an angel of light (1 Cor 11:14). Similarly, both St. Peter and St. John (1 Pet 5:8-9; 1 John 4:1) warn us of this danger.
St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae [ST II-II q172 a2] tells us that unless a charism requires the exercise of divine power the Holy Spirit accomplishes it through the mediation of the holy angels. When they are within the power of the angelic nature, they are also capable of demonic imitation. It is difficult to explain the “charismatic power of speech” of a Hitler, for instance, on purely natural grounds. It is for these reasons that most spiritual writers, especially the mystical doctor St. John of the Cross, warn us not to seek such extraordinary phenomenon. As noted earlier, Vatican II made this warning part of its teaching on the charismatic gifts.
Thus the Church on the one hand recognizes that the Holy Spirit moves where He will, and so she does not want to oppose His working, and on the other, that the Church must discern the authenticity of each charism, lest it be a deception of the evil one. For this reason to say that the Charismatic Renewal is approved by the Church is not a blanket approval of every alleged charismatic gift or every charismatic group or individual within the Church. The discernment of the Holy Spirit’s action is an ongoing necessity within the Church and within the Charismatic Renewal."
All items in bold lettering are mine for emphasis.
Thank you and God bless!
ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm
"Charismatic Graces
The Second Vatican Council affirmed the legitimacy of charisms, both ordinary and extraordinary. A charism is simply “a grace freely given by God to build up the Church,” as opposed to the graces given to sanctify the individual. St. Paul gives a list of charisms in 1 Cor. 12. They include ordinary charisms like teaching and administration and extraordinary ones like healing, miracles, and tongues. These things by themselves don’t make the person holier, rather they enable him or her to serve others. Finally, the authenticity of charisms must be discerned, since charisms are not necessarily from the spirit of God (1 John 4). The Council taught,
Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly desired nor is it from them that the fruits of apostolic labors are to be presumptuously expected. Those who have charge over the Church should judge the genuineness and proper use of these gifts, through their office, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit but to test all things and hold fast to what is good (cf. 1 Thes. 5:12, 19- 21). [Lumen Gentium 12]
The Church clearly wishes to follow a middle course, between a rationalistic skepticism and a blind credulity in alleged workings of the Holy Spirit. In the past the Church had condemned what it called Pentecostalism, understood as the total dependence, even theologically, on the presence and manifestation of charisms. Such a dependence is blind, for it fails to allow itself to be guided by the full content of the faith and the judgement of the Church’s teaching authority. It is total when such “gifts” displace the means of grace in the life of the Christian, such as the sacraments. On the other hand, the Church cannot condemn charisms, since they are part of the patrimony of our apostolic faith. What we have seen in our time is the appearance of the Charismatic Renewal, an apparent outpouring of the extraordinary charisms. This doesn’t mean that one has to be a charismatic, that charismatics are better Catholics, or that every alleged charism is authentic. Yet, as the Council noted, the Church must respect the workings of God, discerning the authentic from the inauthentic.
An authentic charism would not pull one away from the Church. If a Catholic leaves, seeking an emotional boost he no longer finds in the Church, he is seeking the gifts of the Giver and not the Giver of the gifts. Participation in the life of the Church should lead any Catholic (Charismatic, traditional, or ordinary) into a deeper relationship with the Eucharist, the Blessed Mother and the Pope.** If it does not, something is spiritually wrong with that particular individual or with the guidance he is receiving within his group. Since a charism does not give the person any special infallibility or sanctity, given the extraordinary character of such gifts it is especially necessary for individuals possessing them to guard the purity of their faith, lest pride, self-seeking or emotionalism lead them astray, and they others. The reality that some have left the Church for Pentecostalism, or sought to create it within, points to the dangers.** By contrast, the presence in the Church of a dynamic and faithful institution like the Franciscan University of Steubenville is evidence of the great good that can be done by those graced with authentic charismatic gifts exercised in union with the Church.
All such authentic charisms, therefore, are at the service of the Body of Christ, the Church (1 Cor 12, 14). As gifts of the Holy Spirit, they are supernatural graces beyond the power of human striving and human nature (e.g. miracle working), though some may build upon the natural talents of the recipient (e.g. teaching). St. Paul contrasts these charismata with “the greater gifts” of Faith, Hope and Charity (1 Cor. 13), which he says have lasting value. These “theological virtues” unite the person’s mind and will to God. As a consequence, the Church teaches that Faith, Hope and Charity are necessary for salvation but the charismata are not. St. Paul’s experience at Corinth demonstrated rather early in the Church how susceptible these charisms are to exaggeration. In another context, he would even warn the Corinthians that the devil can appear as an angel of light (1 Cor 11:14). Similarly, both St. Peter and St. John (1 Pet 5:8-9; 1 John 4:1) warn us of this danger.
St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae [ST II-II q172 a2] tells us that unless a charism requires the exercise of divine power the Holy Spirit accomplishes it through the mediation of the holy angels. When they are within the power of the angelic nature, they are also capable of demonic imitation. It is difficult to explain the “charismatic power of speech” of a Hitler, for instance, on purely natural grounds. It is for these reasons that most spiritual writers, especially the mystical doctor St. John of the Cross, warn us not to seek such extraordinary phenomenon. As noted earlier, Vatican II made this warning part of its teaching on the charismatic gifts.
Thus the Church on the one hand recognizes that the Holy Spirit moves where He will, and so she does not want to oppose His working, and on the other, that the Church must discern the authenticity of each charism, lest it be a deception of the evil one. For this reason to say that the Charismatic Renewal is approved by the Church is not a blanket approval of every alleged charismatic gift or every charismatic group or individual within the Church. The discernment of the Holy Spirit’s action is an ongoing necessity within the Church and within the Charismatic Renewal."
All items in bold lettering are mine for emphasis.
Thank you and God bless!
J
jjkp777
Guest
Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, this Renewal has a proclivity (natural tendency) for abuse. The article is gracious but in my opinion, this is its’ essential message - Play with fire and you might very well receive the type of fire you do not want.
To those Catholics who have been invited again and again to these Christian Life Seminars held by Covenant Communities (particularly Filipino Covenant Communities) and have not yet attended, please show them these articles and confidently say “No thank you”. Hopefully they will get the point and leave you be!
Had I known then what I know now, my wife and I would have politely declined and never attended the Christian Life Seminar held by CFC-FFL. We know better now and want to share this information with those who have are having a difficult time saying “no” to a fellow Catholic who is repeatedly inviting them to attend this seminar. In the Filipino culture, saying “no” is very difficult…
But remember, your soul is at stake and you should be cautious with this “Renewal” Those not well instructed in the Catechism are those most likely to get lost. Learn about your faith first… If you learn about your faith first, you will likely determine you have no need for this “Renewal” seminar and will likely know more about the Catechism than those giving the seminar. I’m completely serious here speaking as a catechist for the past 2 years…
To those Catholics who have been invited again and again to these Christian Life Seminars held by Covenant Communities (particularly Filipino Covenant Communities) and have not yet attended, please show them these articles and confidently say “No thank you”. Hopefully they will get the point and leave you be!
Had I known then what I know now, my wife and I would have politely declined and never attended the Christian Life Seminar held by CFC-FFL. We know better now and want to share this information with those who have are having a difficult time saying “no” to a fellow Catholic who is repeatedly inviting them to attend this seminar. In the Filipino culture, saying “no” is very difficult…
But remember, your soul is at stake and you should be cautious with this “Renewal” Those not well instructed in the Catechism are those most likely to get lost. Learn about your faith first… If you learn about your faith first, you will likely determine you have no need for this “Renewal” seminar and will likely know more about the Catechism than those giving the seminar. I’m completely serious here speaking as a catechist for the past 2 years…
G
grannymh
Guest
Is the CFC-FFL in America?
If yes, in some of the Midwest dioceses, there is a special diocesan office for ministry to the Filipino Community. I would guess that something similar is in the rest of the United States.
Abuses of any kind should be reported to the appropriate person in the diocesan office, including the liaison for the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
If the CFC-FFL is in America, and you have a good local Filipino priest, start with him.
But also go to the appropriate diocesan office. Usually a diocese has a directory which will be helpful. If you wish, you may send a “Private Message” to me for further information.
Another suggestion is to learn about the proper Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
This is the OFFICIAL website for its National Service Committee.
nsc-chariscenter.org/AboutCCR/
S
Salvatore123
Guest
I was surprised to see this thread “rise again” after being dormant so long . . .
After re-reading all of the posts in the past as well as those made within the last week or so, my original opinion has not changed. This does not mean I do not change my opinions . . . I simply have not seen things written here that warrant a change in my original opinion - big difference.
A couple of points:
THIS is the type of PRIDE that several of us have talked about in being so leery about the validity of “speaking in tongues” where the sounds made are unintelligible by EVERY HUMAN BEING LISTENING. Just listen closely to what the above-poster says and how it is said:
“the only way to understand it . . . is experience it”
“until one does it . . . it will always be a mystery”, and
“until one knows something about this gift . . . [essentially, shut up] and not quench [synonyms: stifle, cool, prevent, stop, etc.] the Holy Spirit”
In sum, THAT post sums up what I have experienced when I have been around “charismatic catholics” and I am not waiving my arms and shouting “amens” and speaking gibberish: if I am not doing it, then I must NOT be “right” with the Holy Spirit.
BTW: unless I missed reading it, even among those who seem to ADVOCATE the validity of “speaking in tongues” when the sounds are unintelligible, I do not recall seeing ANY posters saying that they (those identifying themselves as “charismatic catholics”), themselves, spoke “in tongues” where no one understood what they were saying, but they could later explain everything they had said while speaking that “tongue” . . . I found that odd.
P.S. - does anyone else find it “illuminating” that God’s punishment for those with pride building the Tower of Babel was to cause them to disperse and begin speaking in a manner so that NO ONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE SAYING???
After re-reading all of the posts in the past as well as those made within the last week or so, my original opinion has not changed. This does not mean I do not change my opinions . . . I simply have not seen things written here that warrant a change in my original opinion - big difference.
A couple of points:
- Using logic (as I was trained in at undergraduate and graduate university), it is a logical fallacy to use personal anecdotes and derive a broad consensus based on those individual experiences. I don’t think that any one doubts that the Holy Spirit can do whatever It wants to do, whenever It wants to - if I ever implied that, I apologize because I certainly never intended that conclusion.
- The danger of “quoting popes” from certain times in their papacy when they were making general statements that held no doctrinal or dogmatic weight has been with us since the founding of our Church. Even with the Bible, it is long enough so that I can string together sentences to support just about anything I might want to argue. But to do so is inherently Protestant - WE don’t get to “self interpret”, and that applies to Popes and Bishops just as much as to laymen. This may sound like a surprising statement, but those grounded in orthodox Catholicism will readily acknowledge this as entirely accurate. One must remember that the “charism” of “papal infallibility” does NOT mean that Pope WILL officially teach on any particular subject - it means that the Holy Spirit PREVENTS a Pope from officially uttering anything that is “un-Catholic”, that is, not-dogmatic or against the Deposit of Faith.
- I would be interested to hear the opinions of those “Charismatic Catholics” regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. What seemed and appeared like a Holy Father speaking a dogma in an official capacity so that the statement against women in the priesthood was forever closed and considered part of the Deposit of Faith (there are many references by some of the most respected theologicans on the planet who have gone step by step to show that the Apostolic Letter written by JPII was, in fact, an “ex cathedra” statement), is STILL “debated” today by “Catholics” who are Hell-bent on insisting that the matter of “women barred from the priesthood” is NOT closed. I raise this issue here because I believe it presents an example of what I mentioned above: “cherry picking” certain statements by Popes NOT made in an official capacity as officially teaching a dogma, and using that as some sort of support for a “cause”. JPII was personally against the death penalty in ALL cases - but even HE knew his “limitations” as a Pope. One must always distinguish between a Holy Father’s personal “prudential” judgment vs. an official statement taken as an affirmation or restatement of a dogma of the Church. I am not obliged to agree with the former - I MUST “force” my conscience to become subservient to the latter.
- One Protestant poster who I “grappled” with many times a year ago when this thread began, repeatedly told me to “ask the Holy Spirit” when I questioned the logic of causing someone to speak gibberish (as defined by any modern dictionary). I don’t think I need to “ask” the Holy Spirit anything. I think the burden is on the person claiming that when someone utters gutteral sounds and speaks gibberish THAT IS NOT A LANGUAGE OF ANY KIND AND CANNOT BE INTERPRETED BY ANYONE LISTENING TO IT AS MEANING ANYTHING, “that person may be inspired by the Holy Spirit and is speaking in tongues”. I go back to my original point made when I first posted in this thread, and I have YET to hear ONE answer to the question I posed: What is the value to anyone listening in causing someone to utter sounds that NO ONE understands? People cite St. Paul as support for the EXISTENCE of “speaking in tongues”, but when they have done so in this thread in alleged support of the “charism”, they always seem to leave out the part where St. Paul clearly admonishes people to steer clear of people who make what can only be described as “noise” and utter nothing that anyone can understand. A logical follow up question: If the purpose of speaking in tongues is to enhance our relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, why would God choose a mechanism to try to accomplish that when no one understands what the person purportedly said?
- I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt to those giving a broad interpretation to the instance in the Bible where the charism of “speaking in tongues” occurred, but I have yet to see ANY evidence that when this biblical incident occurred, it was something other than (1) the speaker speaking in SOME “language” that everyone listening understood, despite not having any previous faculty for understanding what had just been spoken, OR (2) the speaker did not have a previous faculty for speaking another language, but managed to do so at that moment.
- Finally, in re-reading all of the posts, I found the following post in another thread about “speaking in tongues”:
THIS is the type of PRIDE that several of us have talked about in being so leery about the validity of “speaking in tongues” where the sounds made are unintelligible by EVERY HUMAN BEING LISTENING. Just listen closely to what the above-poster says and how it is said:
“the only way to understand it . . . is experience it”
“until one does it . . . it will always be a mystery”, and
“until one knows something about this gift . . . [essentially, shut up] and not quench [synonyms: stifle, cool, prevent, stop, etc.] the Holy Spirit”
In sum, THAT post sums up what I have experienced when I have been around “charismatic catholics” and I am not waiving my arms and shouting “amens” and speaking gibberish: if I am not doing it, then I must NOT be “right” with the Holy Spirit.
BTW: unless I missed reading it, even among those who seem to ADVOCATE the validity of “speaking in tongues” when the sounds are unintelligible, I do not recall seeing ANY posters saying that they (those identifying themselves as “charismatic catholics”), themselves, spoke “in tongues” where no one understood what they were saying, but they could later explain everything they had said while speaking that “tongue” . . . I found that odd.
P.S. - does anyone else find it “illuminating” that God’s punishment for those with pride building the Tower of Babel was to cause them to disperse and begin speaking in a manner so that NO ONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE SAYING???
G
grannymh
Guest
Obviously, I respect your position.I was surprised to see this thread “rise again” after being dormant so long . . .
After re-reading all of the posts in the past as well as those made within the last week or so, my original opinion has not changed. This does not mean I do not change my opinions . . . I simply have not seen things written here that warrant a change in my original opinion - big difference.
A couple of points:
“The only way to really understand anything about speaking in tongues is through the experience of speaking in tongues. Until one does that, this gift of the Holy Spirit will always be a mystery to mere human reasoning. And until one knows something about this gift of the Holy Spirit, it is best to keep silent and to not quench the Holy Spirit through obstinate doubt and mockery.”
- Using logic (as I was trained in at undergraduate and graduate university), it is a logical fallacy to use personal anecdotes and derive a broad consensus based on those individual experiences. I don’t think that any one doubts that the Holy Spirit can do whatever It wants to do, whenever It wants to - if I ever implied that, I apologize because I certainly never intended that conclusion.
- The danger of “quoting popes” from certain times in their papacy when they were making general statements that held no doctrinal or dogmatic weight has been with us since the founding of our Church. Even with the Bible, it is long enough so that I can string together sentences to support just about anything I might want to argue. But to do so is inherently Protestant - WE don’t get to “self interpret”, and that applies to Popes and Bishops just as much as to laymen. This may sound like a surprising statement, but those grounded in orthodox Catholicism will readily acknowledge this as entirely accurate. One must remember that the “charism” of “papal infallibility” does NOT mean that Pope WILL officially teach on any particular subject - it means that the Holy Spirit PREVENTS a Pope from officially uttering anything that is “un-Catholic”, that is, not-dogmatic or against the Deposit of Faith.
- I would be interested to hear the opinions of those “Charismatic Catholics” regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. What seemed and appeared like a Holy Father speaking a dogma in an official capacity so that the statement against women in the priesthood was forever closed and considered part of the Deposit of Faith (there are many references by some of the most respected theologicans on the planet who have gone step by step to show that the Apostolic Letter written by JPII was, in fact, an “ex cathedra” statement), is STILL “debated” today by “Catholics” who are Hell-bent on insisting that the matter of “women barred from the priesthood” is NOT closed. I raise this issue here because I believe it presents an example of what I mentioned above: “cherry picking” certain statements by Popes NOT made in an official capacity as officially teaching a dogma, and using that as some sort of support for a “cause”. JPII was personally against the death penalty in ALL cases - but even HE knew his “limitations” as a Pope. One must always distinguish between a Holy Father’s personal “prudential” judgment vs. an official statement taken as an affirmation or restatement of a dogma of the Church. I am not obliged to agree with the former - I MUST “force” my conscience to become subservient to the latter.
- One Protestant poster who I “grappled” with many times a year ago when this thread began, repeatedly told me to “ask the Holy Spirit” when I questioned the logic of causing someone to speak gibberish (as defined by any modern dictionary). I don’t think I need to “ask” the Holy Spirit anything. I think the burden is on the person claiming that when someone utters gutteral sounds and speaks gibberish THAT IS NOT A LANGUAGE OF ANY KIND AND CANNOT BE INTERPRETED BY ANYONE LISTENING TO IT AS MEANING ANYTHING, “that person may be inspired by the Holy Spirit and is speaking in tongues”. I go back to my original point made when I first posted in this thread, and I have YET to hear ONE answer to the question I posed: What is the value to anyone listening in causing someone to utter sounds that NO ONE understands? People cite St. Paul as support for the EXISTENCE of “speaking in tongues”, but when they have done so in this thread in alleged support of the “charism”, they always seem to leave out the part where St. Paul clearly admonishes people to steer clear of people who make what can only be described as “noise” and utter nothing that anyone can understand. A logical follow up question: If the purpose of speaking in tongues is to enhance our relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, why would God choose a mechanism to try to accomplish that when no one understands what the person purportedly said?
- I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt to those giving a broad interpretation to the instance in the Bible where the charism of “speaking in tongues” occurred, but I have yet to see ANY evidence that when this biblical incident occurred, it was something other than (1) the speaker speaking in SOME “language” that everyone listening understood, despite not having any previous faculty for understanding what had just been spoken, OR (2) the speaker did not have a previous faculty for speaking another language, but managed to do so at that moment.
- Finally, in re-reading all of the posts, I found the following post in another thread about “speaking in tongues”:
THIS is the type of PRIDE that several of us have talked about in being so leery about the validity of “speaking in tongues” where the sounds made are unintelligible by EVERY HUMAN BEING LISTENING. Just listen closely to what the above-poster says and how it is said:
“the only way to understand it . . . is experience it”
“until one does it . . . it will always be a mystery”, and
“until one knows something about this gift . . . [essentially, shut up] and not quench [synonyms: stifle, cool, prevent, stop, etc.] the Holy Spirit”
In sum, THAT post sums up what I have experienced when I have been around “charismatic catholics” and I am not waiving my arms and shouting “amens” and speaking gibberish: if I am not doing it, then I must NOT be “right” with the Holy Spirit.
BTW: unless I missed reading it, even among those who seem to ADVOCATE the validity of “speaking in tongues” when the sounds are unintelligible, I do not recall seeing ANY posters saying that they (those identifying themselves as “charismatic catholics”), themselves, spoke “in tongues” where no one understood what they were saying, but they could later explain everything they had said while speaking that “tongue” . . . I found that odd.
P.S. - does anyone else find it “illuminating” that God’s punishment for those with pride building the Tower of Babel was to cause them to disperse and begin speaking in a manner so that NO ONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE SAYING???
However, may I respectfully point out that you are posting the most popular misunderstandings of the two separate gifts which involve tongues.
Also, I find a new (to me) misunderstanding of the gift of prayer tongues which is called a common gift because anyone can receive it. This simple gift is not a mystery, once one understands what is involved. One can understand this particular gift without ever personally experiencing it. Pride becomes a common abuse of this particularly simple gift so I am wondering if the “mystery” is part of one’s pride in thinking that this gift makes a person more special than other people.
J
jjkp777
Guest
Hi Salvatore123, yes, that is correct! They were trying to make a “name for themselves” and God punished them accordingly. More from this forum below.P.S. - does anyone else find it “illuminating” that God’s punishment for those with pride building the Tower of Babel was to cause them to disperse and begin speaking in a manner so that NO ONE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE SAYING???
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-was-the-sin-of-the-tower-of-babel
And yes Granny, CFC-FFL America… which by the way, did NOT inform us about this letter from the Archbishop at any time… I discovered this on my own which added to the extreme disappointment. Link from the original CFC below:
cfc-nj.com/nfc/agape.php
G
grannymh
Guest
The “Tower of Babel” is in the book of Genesis, Old Testament.
The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is based on the teachings of St. Paul in the New Testament.
I am checking the other link provided.
J
jjkp777
Guest
Thank you. Yes, I’m aware of that. The New Testament was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In order to understand the New, you must also know the Old. Pentecost was the opposite of what happened in the Tower of Babel. Those who pray in tongues should seriously take that into consideration.
J
jjkp777
Guest
From Chapter 10 “Charismatic Chaos” written by John MacArthur, Jr.:
"What Kind of Tongues Are Being Spoken Today?
How are we to explain the charismatic experience? Countless charismatics testify that speaking in tongues has enriched their lives. For example:
“What’s the use of speaking in tongues?” The only way I can answer that is to say, “What’s the use of a bluebird? What is the use of a sunset” Just sheer, unmitigated uplift, just joy unspeakable and with it health and peace and rest and release from burdens and tensions.32
And this:
When I started praying in tongues I felt, and people told me I looked, twenty years younger… I am built up, am given joy, courage, peace, the sense of God’s presence; and I happen to be a weak personality who needs this.33
Those testimonies make a powerful sales pitch for speaking in tongues. If tongues can give health and happiness and make you look younger, the potential market is unlimited.
On the other hand, the evidence to support such claims is dubious. Would anyone seriously argue that today’s tongues speakers live holier, more consistent lives from Christ than believers who do not speak in tongues? What about all the charismatic leaders in recent years whose lives have proved to be morally and spiritually bankrupt? And does the evidence show that charismatic churces are, on the whole, spiritually stronger and more solid than Bible-believing churches that do not advocate the gifts? The truth is, one must look long and diligently to find a charismatic fellowship where spiritual growth and biblical understanding are genuinely the focus. If the movement does not produce more spiritual Christians or believers who are better informed theologically, what fruit is it producing after all? And what of the many former tongues-speakers who testify that they did not experience genuine peace, satisfaction, power, and joy until they came out of the tongues movement? Why does the charismatic experience so often culminate in disillusionment as the emotional high from initiatory ecstatic experiences becomes harder and harder to duplicate?
Without question, many people who speak in tongues say they find the practice beneficial to one degree or another. But normally - as in the testimonies cited above - they are speaking of how it makes them * feel* or look not how it helps them be better Christians. Yet improved looks and feelings were never results of the New Testament gift.
It is significant to note that Pentecostals and charismatics cannot substatiate their claim that what they are doing is the biblical gift of tongues. We know of no authentic, proven cases where any Pentecostal or charismatic has actually spoken in an identifiable, translatable language.34 The linguist William Samarin wrote, "It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia [real languages] among charismatics are real. Any time one attempts to verify them he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the ‘witnesses’ turn out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view."35 “Charismatic proponents have given no evidence, other than their assumption, that these are the same phenomena” as the New Testament gift.36
So how can the phenomenon by explained?
A number of possibilities arise. First, tongues may be satanic or demonic. Some critics of the movement want to write of all supposed tongues as the work of the devil. While I am not ready to do that, I am convinced that Satan is often the force behind the phenomena that pass as gifts of the Spirit. After all, he is behind every false religion (1 Cor. 10:20), and he specializes in counterfeiting truth (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Many in the church these days are susceptible to his lies: “The Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall way from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Former tongues-speaker Ben Byrd believes some of his extraordinary abilities were “psychic and possibly satanic powers”:"
Much more in the book… You can find it below on Amazon:
amzn.com/0310575729
"What Kind of Tongues Are Being Spoken Today?
How are we to explain the charismatic experience? Countless charismatics testify that speaking in tongues has enriched their lives. For example:
“What’s the use of speaking in tongues?” The only way I can answer that is to say, “What’s the use of a bluebird? What is the use of a sunset” Just sheer, unmitigated uplift, just joy unspeakable and with it health and peace and rest and release from burdens and tensions.32
And this:
When I started praying in tongues I felt, and people told me I looked, twenty years younger… I am built up, am given joy, courage, peace, the sense of God’s presence; and I happen to be a weak personality who needs this.33
Those testimonies make a powerful sales pitch for speaking in tongues. If tongues can give health and happiness and make you look younger, the potential market is unlimited.
On the other hand, the evidence to support such claims is dubious. Would anyone seriously argue that today’s tongues speakers live holier, more consistent lives from Christ than believers who do not speak in tongues? What about all the charismatic leaders in recent years whose lives have proved to be morally and spiritually bankrupt? And does the evidence show that charismatic churces are, on the whole, spiritually stronger and more solid than Bible-believing churches that do not advocate the gifts? The truth is, one must look long and diligently to find a charismatic fellowship where spiritual growth and biblical understanding are genuinely the focus. If the movement does not produce more spiritual Christians or believers who are better informed theologically, what fruit is it producing after all? And what of the many former tongues-speakers who testify that they did not experience genuine peace, satisfaction, power, and joy until they came out of the tongues movement? Why does the charismatic experience so often culminate in disillusionment as the emotional high from initiatory ecstatic experiences becomes harder and harder to duplicate?
Without question, many people who speak in tongues say they find the practice beneficial to one degree or another. But normally - as in the testimonies cited above - they are speaking of how it makes them * feel* or look not how it helps them be better Christians. Yet improved looks and feelings were never results of the New Testament gift.
It is significant to note that Pentecostals and charismatics cannot substatiate their claim that what they are doing is the biblical gift of tongues. We know of no authentic, proven cases where any Pentecostal or charismatic has actually spoken in an identifiable, translatable language.34 The linguist William Samarin wrote, "It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia [real languages] among charismatics are real. Any time one attempts to verify them he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the ‘witnesses’ turn out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view."35 “Charismatic proponents have given no evidence, other than their assumption, that these are the same phenomena” as the New Testament gift.36
So how can the phenomenon by explained?
A number of possibilities arise. First, tongues may be satanic or demonic. Some critics of the movement want to write of all supposed tongues as the work of the devil. While I am not ready to do that, I am convinced that Satan is often the force behind the phenomena that pass as gifts of the Spirit. After all, he is behind every false religion (1 Cor. 10:20), and he specializes in counterfeiting truth (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Many in the church these days are susceptible to his lies: “The Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall way from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Former tongues-speaker Ben Byrd believes some of his extraordinary abilities were “psychic and possibly satanic powers”:"
Much more in the book… You can find it below on Amazon:
amzn.com/0310575729
G
grannymh
Guest
While it is good to understand the teachings in the Old Testament, etc., etc.,…
The Tower of Babel is not the same as the Church of Corinth which was the recipient of St. Paul teachings.
The Church of Corinth had the fullness of Jesus Christ just as we do today. Both the Church of Corinth and our current universal Catholic Church are recipients of the Promise of Christ, Chapter 14, Gospel of John. The Event of Pentecost took place after the Tower of Babel and was concerned with the future of Christ’s Catholic Church.
Now if you are talking about sins, then sins occur in the future as well as in the past. However, St. Paul did not consider the workings of the Holy Spirit as sins per se.
The abuse of any gift of the Holy Spirit (and there are hundreds of them, including the Isaiah Gifts in the Old Testament) is the sin of the person. This personal sin is separate from the actions of the Holy Spirit.
G
grannymh
Guest
While checking your link, I found a page (link below) which gave information about the Newark Diocesan Office for Evangelization. My guess is that CFC-FFL would come under the supervision of this Diocesan Office. However you should check this out directly with the Diocesan Office.
rcan.org/evangelization/families.htm
You should report the abuses to this Office for Evangelization or to whomever this Office suggests.
Contact link. rcan.org/evangelization/contact.htm
Office for Evangelization
171 Clifton Avenue
Newark, NJ 07104
TEL | 973 497-4353
FAX | 973 497-4555
sotolili@rcan.org
J
jjkp777
Guest
The general point that I’m trying to make is that Charismatics are encouraged to abuse the gifts. They’re encouraged to pray in tongues… they are asked during the Christian Life Seminar to participate in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is wrong and dangerous. Based on Church teachings for 1800 or more years, there was never any need for this pseudo-sacrament Renewal. The 7 Sacraments were enough and are enough…
Pentecostal practices + Catholic practices does not equal Catholic.
To see how far Pentecostals take this… the following video is very informative:
youtu.be/SUkXvWn1m7Q
Pentecostal practices + Catholic practices does not equal Catholic.
To see how far Pentecostals take this… the following video is very informative:
youtu.be/SUkXvWn1m7Q
G
grannymh
Guest
I googled John F. MacArthur, but did not follow all the provided links. I skimmed one link down to his views on “other Christian movements and other religions.” Personally, I prefer to read his views for myself instead of someone’s analysis. I also seek out the context for quotes. Context is very important in order to properly understand a brief quotation.
I will reply to MacAuthor’s excerpt in another post.
J
jjkp777
Guest
I encourage all to read the entire book Charismatic Chaos for complete context. As I said before, John MacArthur, Jr. is not Catholic but the book provides insight into the Charismatic Movement or Renewal. The excerpt above should encourage those who are seeking the Truth to read more…
G
grannymh
Guest
I do not have sound on my computer. Nonetheless, I found this statement on the link.
“The systematic, religious indoctrination of children at the hands of fundamentalist Christians.”
I think it would be better, if a person separated St. Paul’s teachings from the way different faiths follow them or not follow them. The warnings about the Christian Life Seminar are well taken. But, in my humble opinion, it seems that the real concern is more about attacking “tongues” themselves. In that case, one can examine Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, and mainline Protestant religions as to how they follow St. Paul’s teachings. But Catholicism is separate from Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, and mainline Protestant religions and should be examined separately.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
i know the current charismatic renewal started somewhere between 1888-1895 and was picked up by catholics in churches by 1913 and 1957
and here is some scripture quotations about speaking in toungues
Mark 16:17 – right before Jesus ascended into heaven, He prophesied “they will speak in new tongues.”
There are only four instances in the New Testament where people speak in tongues:
1 - Acts 2:3 – when the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve apostles on Pentecost Sunday, they began to speak in tongues. Acts 2:6 says that men from fifteen different nations each heard the apostles speaking in their own language.
2 – Acts 10:44-46 – after Peter preached the gospel, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and they (including the Gentiles) began to speak in tongues.
3 – Acts 19:5-6 – after Paul baptized and confirmed about twelve Ephesians, they spoke with tongues.
4 – 1 Cor. 12-14 – Paul teaches that members of the Corinthian church had the gift of speaking in tongues.
In each instance in the book of Acts, tongue speaking is heard as if it is a foreign language. This gift of the Holy Spirit was for the purpose of spreading the gospel to all peoples of the world. Peter supports this view when he equates the Gentile tongue-speaking with the tongue-speaking at Pentecost (which was heard as foreign languages) when he says “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).
Foreign languages
1 Cor. 14:21 – when Paul instructs the Corinthians about speaking in tongues, he quotes from Isaiah 28:11 which is about the “alien tongue” of foreign invaders, which means a foreign language. For Paul to quote Isaiah without any other explanation suggests that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of foreign languages.
In fact, no where in 1 Cor. 12-14 does Paul make any distinction between the tongue-speaking in Acts and the tongue-speaking at Corinth (and this is important because the Ephesians’ tongue-speaking in Acts 19:5-6 chronologically occurred around the same time as the Corinthian tongue-speaking). If there would have been a significant difference between the two (foreign languages versus ecstatic utterances), Paul would have likely acknowledged this distinction as he gave the Corinthians instructions about speaking in tongues.
1 Cor. 14:5 – when Paul says “unless someone interprets,” the word for interprets (in Greek, diermhneuvh) always refers to the interpretation of a foreign language (see John 1:42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2).
Ecstatic utterances
The following Scriptures, however, suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of unintelligible ecstatic utterances, and not foreign languages. For example:
1 Cor. 14:2 – Paul says “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” Describing these utterances as “mysteries” may indicate that such speech was unintelligible. This type of tongue was also spoken to God, and not to men, which means that the tongue did not have to be in any particular language (God would understand the utterances in the Spirit). This may be similar to the divine “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1).
1 Cor. 14:4 – Paul says “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” If the person is speaking a foreign language he cannot understand, then he would not be edifying himself, unless the language would be interpreted for him. But this may be why Paul required someone to interpret the tongues at Corinth (see 1 Cor. 14:13,27-28). This, however, does not absolutely mean the tongues were foreign languages. The gift of interpretation could have been for interpreting unintelligible divine utterances as well.
1 Cor. 14:10-11 – Paul describes the tongues at Corinth as “sound” (in Greek, phonon). While foreign languages are heard as sounds, this seems different from the tongues which were described in the book of Acts as “language” (in Greek, dialektos). However, Luke also describes the tongue-speaking of Acts 2:6 as “sound,” even though it was heard as “language.”
1 Cor. 14:16-17 – Paul says that the tongues at Corinth were spoken to give thanks to God. While speaking the gospel in a foreign language does indeed give thanks to God, this type of speech may be private communication between God and the speaker, which would not require the use of a foreign language.
1 Cor. 14:23 – Paul says that unbelievers who hear the Corinthians speaking in tongues will conclude that they “are mad.” This suggests that the Corinthians were speaking in unintelligible utterances, although outsiders would also be tempted to call those “mad” who were speaking foreign languages they did not know (perhaps implying that they were possessed by demons).
Ecstatic utterances that were heard as foreign languages
It is also possible that the Corinthians were making unintelligible ecstatic utterances that were then understood by gifted hearers as intelligible foreign languages (which would be both inspired and interpreted by the power of the Holy Spirit). For example:
Acts 2:6 – the Pentecost tongue-speaking is described as a “sound,” and yet it was heard as the specific foreign “language” by men of fifteen different nations. This type of tongue-speaking appears to be a translation of sound into language. Moreover, Acts 2:4 suggests that the apostles began to speak at one time, and yet their many voices are described as one “sound” in Acts 2:6. This suggests that the tongue-speaking was in the form of one sound, but was heard as many languages (in fact, you have only twelve apostles speaking, but fifteen different languages being heard).
1 Cor. 14:5 – the fact that the Corinthians’ utterances were actually being translated into language by the Holy Spirit for certain people may be the reason why Paul required the Corinthians to have gifted interpreters when they spoke in tongues. Again, the word “interprets” refers to the interpretation of foreign languages.
1 Cor. 14:10-11 – Paul’s use of “sound” to describe the tongues of the Corinthian church is the same word “sound” (from the Greek, phonee) that Luke uses to describe the tongues in Acts 2:6, which were heard as foreign languages.
SHALOM
GOD Bless
hope you find the other answers to your questions
G
grannymh
Guest
The above quotations, comments/suggestions about St. Paul’s instructions, and the report about the miracle(s) of hearing are interesting.
However, in my very humble opinion, the above stops before reaching the heart and depth of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. For example, Acts 10:47-48 (not posted) is key to the difference between the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and the various forms of Pentecostalism.
In addition, I get the impression that the above is avoiding St. Paul’s clear distinction between the gift of tongues which anybody can use and the gift of tongues mentioned in the classical list of St. Paul. Personally, I think this problem is due to the fact that the English words speak, speaking are used to describe the two, very different Holy Spirit gifts which involve the use of tongues as opposed to using an actual foreign language.
Pardon me, but the above seems hung up on the concepts of foreign language and unintelligible ecstatic utterances. As long as this hang-up is the prevalant way of looking at St. Paul, it is nearly impossible for anyone to understand the two different Holy Spirit gifts which involve the use of tongues and which are practiced in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
Clarification:
The Catholic Charismatic Renewal as it exists today is the outgrowth from a retreat held in February 1967 of several faculty members and students from Duquesne University.
nsc-chariscenter.org/AboutCCR/
J
jjkp777
Guest
Thank you for the previous post. I’ve visited that same website many times before. There is a great treasure of information there. Let me include the following details to complete the message from the link:
scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html
"Paul’s Teachings on Speaking in Tongues
Paul teaches that tongue-speaking is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4,10-11). Paul therefore does not prohibit tongue-speaking (1 Cor. 14:39) and even encourages it (1 Cor. 14:5) when received according to his parameters.
However, Paul warns us that tongue-speaking is not always a gift of the Spirit, but may originate out of spiritual pride and immaturity. This is why Paul called the Corinthians immature (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 14:20), and said they were seeking the wisdom of men and not God (1 Cor. 2:5,13; 3:18). Many people in the Corinthian church claimed to have the gift of tongues, but were actually mimicking the divine gift in order to gain ascendancy in the church. This caused arrogance, dissensions and jealousies among them (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3; 4:6-7,18; 5:2; 11:17-22).
**Tongue-speaking can also have demonic origins. When people are unfaithful and motivated by pride and not love for God, God can allow demons to enter the church to punish the unfaithful. These demons can appear holy and good, and inspire tongue-speaking and other speech, but they are really deceivers who wish to confuse the faithful and lead them away from the truth (cf. Ezek. 14:6-11; 1 Kings 22:22-23). Paul warns that some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). This is why John tells us to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). **
Therefore, tongue-speaking can be a gift of the Holy Spirit, or may be of human or demonic origin. Paul makes several important points regarding the gift of tongues:
**1 – The gift of tongues is a lesser gift from God. While speaking in tongues is a gift of the Spirit, Paul teaches that it is a lesser gift on the continuum of divine gifts from God (1 Cor. 12:10,28,30). For example, Paul says that tongues is a much lesser gift than the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1-5,19,22). In fact, the gift of tongues is not even mentioned among the gifts of the Spirit in the latter books of the New Testament (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:11-12; Gal. 5:22; 1 Peter 4:7-11; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). **
2 – The gift of tongues will cease. Paul says “as for tongues, they will cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). The Greek word for “cease” (pauomai) means that the gift of tongues will end abruptly, on its own, and will not be replaced by another gift. The gift of tongues is the only gift of the Holy Spirit that is said to “cease” in this way. When Paul says that prophecies and knowledge will “pass away” (1 Cor. 13:8), the phrase “pass away” (in Greek, katargeo) indicates that these gifts will be replaced by a superior power. This appears to take place when we begin our life in eternity (1 Cor. 13:10-12). Not so with tongues.
Paul does not say when the gift of tongues would cease, and whether the gift would return intermittently after its cessation. **However, Augustine wrote that the gift of tongues had ceased by the time of his day. Augustine explained that this was because the Catholic Church now spoke the language of the nations, and tongue-speaking was only for purposes of evangelization (Aquinas agreed). The fact that the gift of tongues is not recorded in later books of the New Testament suggest that the gift may have even been ceasing during the biblical period. **
Nevertheless, there are a few recorded instances of saints speaking in tongues over the centuries (Sts. Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Francis Xavier, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola). This demonstrates that the gift of tongues is very rare, and given to the holiest of people.
3 – Tongue-speaking has strict parameters. Finally, Paul prescribed strict parameters for those who would receive the gift of tongues:
(a) The person who speaks in tongues should pray for the power to interpret his own tongue (1 Cor. 14:13), or have someone who has the gift of interpretation present to interpret the tongue (1 Cor. 14:27). If the tongue cannot be interpreted, the person is to remain silent (1 Cor. 14:28). Therefore, tongues should not be unintelligible utterances, but should be understood (1 Cor. 14:6-12).
Therefore, Paul is warning the Corinthians that their abuse of tongue-speaking is a sign of God’s judgment against them. These abuses included many people speaking in tongues, out of turn, without an interpreter, and for pride and not the edification of the church. This is why Paul says that “tongues are a sign…for unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:22). This is the same “sign” that God gave the unbelieving Jews before they were punished.
This is also why Paul says that unbelievers look at the whole Corinthian church speaking in tongues and conclude that they “are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). Paul is telling the Corinthians that their abuse of tongues makes them look insane, and this is a sign of their unbelief (that is why tongues are a “sign for unbelievers”; the “unbelievers” were the Corinthians themselves). This is the same reason why Jesus spoke in parables, to further harden the hearts of those who did not believe in Him, as a punishment for their lack of faith (Matt. 13:13-15)."
God bless you all as we all seek the Truths of our Faith!
scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html
"Paul’s Teachings on Speaking in Tongues
Paul teaches that tongue-speaking is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4,10-11). Paul therefore does not prohibit tongue-speaking (1 Cor. 14:39) and even encourages it (1 Cor. 14:5) when received according to his parameters.
However, Paul warns us that tongue-speaking is not always a gift of the Spirit, but may originate out of spiritual pride and immaturity. This is why Paul called the Corinthians immature (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 14:20), and said they were seeking the wisdom of men and not God (1 Cor. 2:5,13; 3:18). Many people in the Corinthian church claimed to have the gift of tongues, but were actually mimicking the divine gift in order to gain ascendancy in the church. This caused arrogance, dissensions and jealousies among them (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3; 4:6-7,18; 5:2; 11:17-22).
**Tongue-speaking can also have demonic origins. When people are unfaithful and motivated by pride and not love for God, God can allow demons to enter the church to punish the unfaithful. These demons can appear holy and good, and inspire tongue-speaking and other speech, but they are really deceivers who wish to confuse the faithful and lead them away from the truth (cf. Ezek. 14:6-11; 1 Kings 22:22-23). Paul warns that some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). This is why John tells us to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). **
Therefore, tongue-speaking can be a gift of the Holy Spirit, or may be of human or demonic origin. Paul makes several important points regarding the gift of tongues:
**1 – The gift of tongues is a lesser gift from God. While speaking in tongues is a gift of the Spirit, Paul teaches that it is a lesser gift on the continuum of divine gifts from God (1 Cor. 12:10,28,30). For example, Paul says that tongues is a much lesser gift than the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1-5,19,22). In fact, the gift of tongues is not even mentioned among the gifts of the Spirit in the latter books of the New Testament (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:11-12; Gal. 5:22; 1 Peter 4:7-11; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). **
2 – The gift of tongues will cease. Paul says “as for tongues, they will cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). The Greek word for “cease” (pauomai) means that the gift of tongues will end abruptly, on its own, and will not be replaced by another gift. The gift of tongues is the only gift of the Holy Spirit that is said to “cease” in this way. When Paul says that prophecies and knowledge will “pass away” (1 Cor. 13:8), the phrase “pass away” (in Greek, katargeo) indicates that these gifts will be replaced by a superior power. This appears to take place when we begin our life in eternity (1 Cor. 13:10-12). Not so with tongues.
Paul does not say when the gift of tongues would cease, and whether the gift would return intermittently after its cessation. **However, Augustine wrote that the gift of tongues had ceased by the time of his day. Augustine explained that this was because the Catholic Church now spoke the language of the nations, and tongue-speaking was only for purposes of evangelization (Aquinas agreed). The fact that the gift of tongues is not recorded in later books of the New Testament suggest that the gift may have even been ceasing during the biblical period. **
Nevertheless, there are a few recorded instances of saints speaking in tongues over the centuries (Sts. Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Francis Xavier, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola). This demonstrates that the gift of tongues is very rare, and given to the holiest of people.
3 – Tongue-speaking has strict parameters. Finally, Paul prescribed strict parameters for those who would receive the gift of tongues:
(a) The person who speaks in tongues should pray for the power to interpret his own tongue (1 Cor. 14:13), or have someone who has the gift of interpretation present to interpret the tongue (1 Cor. 14:27). If the tongue cannot be interpreted, the person is to remain silent (1 Cor. 14:28). Therefore, tongues should not be unintelligible utterances, but should be understood (1 Cor. 14:6-12).
Code:
**(b) In a congregation, only two or three people at most should speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:27), and each must speak in turn. This is the case even though there may be hundreds or even thousands of people in a church. The many Protestant churches that call upon many people, even hundreds during a service, to speak in tongues contravenes Paul’s divine mandate, and raises doubts about its authenticity.**
**(c) The tongue-speaking must be done for the edification of the Church (1 Cor. 14:5,26). Paul says that a person who speaks in tongues edifies himself (1 Cor. 14:4) which is good, but Paul also says tongues must edify the Church. This is why Paul requires one to interpret the tongue, and why Paul says only two or three at the most should speak in tongues during an assembly. A mass proliferation of tongue-speaking in an assembly would lead to confusion. This would not be of divine origin because Paul says, in connection with tongue-speaking, that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).**
**(d) After setting the parameters of tongue-speaking and warning against avoiding confusion, Paul says that “women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, even as the law says” (1 Cor. 14:34). This means that women are not allowed to speak in tongues in church. Paul is underscoring that this is a divine command from God when he ends his statement with “even as the law says.” Again, many Protestant churches contravene this divine command by allowing women to speak “in tongues” in their assemblies. **
**(e) Paul teaches that a proliferation of tongue-speaking in a church may actually be a sign of unbelief and God’s ensuing judgment upon them. When Paul teaches the Corinthians about the proper use of tongues (1 Cor. 14:21), he quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12: “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” Paul’s use of Isaiah is significant because he is referring to the apostate Jews of the 8th century right before they were destroyed by the Assyrians. To punish the Jews, God first allowed the Assyrians to speak in foreign tongues to them to confuse them before they were ultimately destroyed. God’s judgment being revealed in the form of foreign tongues was first prophesied to Israel in the 15th century, B.C. (see Deut. 28:49-50). Remember also how God sent unintelligible tongues to punish His people for their lack of faith at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11).**This is also why Paul says that unbelievers look at the whole Corinthian church speaking in tongues and conclude that they “are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). Paul is telling the Corinthians that their abuse of tongues makes them look insane, and this is a sign of their unbelief (that is why tongues are a “sign for unbelievers”; the “unbelievers” were the Corinthians themselves). This is the same reason why Jesus spoke in parables, to further harden the hearts of those who did not believe in Him, as a punishment for their lack of faith (Matt. 13:13-15)."
God bless you all as we all seek the Truths of our Faith!
- Status