Questions for charismatics

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

You are missing the whole point of a prayer tongue. You and so many others keep babbling on about interpretation.

Regarding 1 Cor 14, which seems to be the favorite refute of tongues.
from the introduction to 1 Cor on the USCCB site
Footnotes

Paul is speaking to the Chuch in Corinth almost 2000 years ago. How on earth could you use that instruction literally to the US church today?

Also you are combining Speaking in tongues and a prayer tongue which are totally different.
For the same reason that Christ is OLDER than SAINT Paul and we still listen to HIS words. Your points are valid: BUT ONLY IN THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CIRCLES, oh teah, baptist ones too.

 

[misericordie]

Mysty101:

You are missing the whole point of a prayer tongue. You and so many others keep babbling on about interpretation.

Regarding 1 Cor 14, which seems to be the favorite refute of tongues.
from the introduction to 1 Cor on the USCCB site
Footnotes

Paul is speaking to the Chuch in Corinth almost 2000 years ago. How on earth could you use that instruction literally to the US church today?

Also you are combining Speaking in tongues and a prayer tongue which are totally different.
IT IS NOT CATHOLIC to be free to interpret the Bible according to what we want it to say, or what we think a phrase in it means: THE OFFICIAL MAGISTERIUM of the Church is the SOLE interpreter of the Bible: see vatican II’s document: “Dei Verbum.” To do otherwise is good, but only for NON catholics.

 

[Les_Richardson]

kragar:

… These are highly educated Catholics-not kooks-they all pray in tongues …

… - in the past 5-6 yrs i can hear the translation in my head as I pray in tongues.I pray in tongues when i have no words of my own, i pray in tongues when i want to pray for someone and don’t know exactly what they need. It is freeing and I can pray without having to concentrate and I trust the Holy Spirit to guide my prayer since it is His prayer. Discernment is important; God’s gifts do not cause anxiety.I have never been anxious about praying in tongues since I was 14.Please,read the literature written by Charismatics before you get all concerned.
Renewal Ministries in Ann Arbor,MI is a resource as well as the diocesan Renewal office in your Diocese.
Catholic Charismatic Renewal of New Orleans or Detroit can help,too.
Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to someone who can talk to you about your concerns about the Renewal.

thanks for your time and **HAPPY,BLESSED THANKSGIVING **

Thank you for your post, and happy thanksgiving as well. I have read articles and listened to virtually all the persons you mention, including Fr Cantalamessa, who makes very interesting statements that I think few charismatics have read. Some of the leaders have, no doubt, probably some on that list above.

If the charismatic renewal is the vehicle by which you have come to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, I will repeat what I have said before. Praise God. There is much that is good fruit that has come of and through the renewal. As to endorsement by Popes, I read those too, and they were not very specific.

As to praying in tongues, there is no theological basis, in Scripture or Tradition, for or against it, insofar as you create a distinction between that and “speaking in tongues”. The admonitions of St. Paul, I constantly read on these boards, is over the “speaking in tongues” and has nothing to do with praying in tongues, ie. one at a time, no more than two or three, requisite of an interpretation, etc.

But then I listen to what many say about what takes place at a prayer meeting. Praying in tongues is done vocally at varying levels of volume. One poster here said “It is usually so loud in the room that you can’t really hear one particular person praying. I do have faith that these men are praying with good intentions.”

So you now have a distinction without a difference. If St. Paul were to walk into such a prayer meeting, would he know the distinction right away or would presume “speaking in tongues”?

I have no idea what language I pray to God in, when I am in silent prayer. It is irrelevant, as you point out, because it is communication to God and language is meaningless since God knows our mind. In that context, if you tell me that you pray in tongues, I say that is between you and God and I don’t even need to know about it. It is none of my business.

But if you are praying out loud in that setting, in tongues, so that others can hear, explain to me the difference between that and speaking in tongues which requires an interpreter? Is it not really an attempt at a short-cut to get around St. Paul?

 

[David_E.Mahony]

“When the church needed a spark of life”. This is quite telling for it could imply that a sacramental practice of the faith is somehow not enough. Why? Had it become a mere shell of practise, empty form? In contrast, a powerful, moving and personal, emotional commitment is experienced in glossolalia, falling and bodily convulsions – no mediation is necessary, no necessity for an ordained hierarchy in moral and ritual authority to mediate between the worshipper and the divine. The worshipper is touched (no other intervention required) directly, strongly, personally and demonstrably by the divine – demonstrable for all to see.

Look at the traditional Tridentine mass. Pews arranged in parallel rows, a service of rigid formality, and prescribed ritual formulae in words and gestures and particular directions to face – these do not sit readily with the freedom of glossolalia, falling and convulsions, that instant spontaneity of untrammelled charisma. The structural arrangements of many a traditional church building have not always accommodated these experiences in its ritual form of worship. And yet it is these latter three which have managed to engage many a soul thoroughly and personally in a way where perhaps the traditional sacramental practice did not suffice. Obviously more seems to have been wanted. Why should this be?

It does seem to an observer that the charismatic dimension of religious experience must in the Catholic church come as an optional extra (or is it?) and one which has to be carefully routinized and controlled; it is not necessary for salvation, if by that term one refers solely to glossalalia, falling and convulsions – particular symbolic expressions of a specific ritual form. If it means intense personal commitment then hopefully that would be possible within the traditional format. Is it? If not, why not? What matters to the hierarchical order of the church is the primacy of the Holy Mass. I have met many who cannot bring themselves to follow such charismatic practices and prefer the relative quietude and disciplined arrangements of a traditional Holy Mass where there is order and controlled ritual performance. But likewise have I met charismatics for whom the their understanding of the way in which the Holy Spirit moves can never be denied – almost a sine qua non and they look to a mass which harnesses this ‘added extra(?)’

So a Mass ‘with’ and a Mass ‘without? Do those who feel no need for this ‘extra’ and who criticise it (and there are many of these about) – do they miss out? Or is it simply a matter of preference/taste for a particular style of worship.

David E. Mahony

 

[Mysty101]

Les Richardson:

If you are peace, then you aren’t stifled are you? The above quote says exactly what I have been saying Mysty101,
But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God.
So you and I agree. If it is truly between you and God, it is unknown to me and none of my business. Right?

But if you pray out loud, you include me. .

no—we do not. %between% A prayer tongue is not the same as Speaking in tongues
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_5_11.gif

 

[Mysty101]

Exporter:

Misty, in your opinion do you think there is a heirchy of effectiveness in prayer. I mean are some kinds of prayer are more effective than others? If there are more effective prayers or methods of prayer - what are they? Why do you think that?

God hears every prayer. In my opinion, the heart of the person praying would be the most important factor in any prayer. Humility and sincerity----as the tax collector in the temple.

But we will also be judged from where we stand—To the one who has been given much, much is expected. A person cannot run before they can walk, in prayer as well as any other endeavor.

I pray in tongues in praise and healing on a prayer team (in a Catholic Church with the Pastor present), I pray the Rosary, and Chaplet of Diviine Mercy, I pray the Liturgy of the hours, and I sit before the Blessed Sacrament in silence. They are all wonderful forms of prayer, and give me much peace. People have reported good things after they have asked for prayer—especially peace.

God bless you,
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_5_11.gif

 

[RichT]

But then I listen to what many say about what takes place at a prayer meeting. Praying in tongues is done vocally at varying levels of volume. One poster here said “It is usually so loud in the room that you can’t really hear one particular person praying. I do have faith that these men are praying with good intentions.”
Les, I have also stated that it is often done very quietly. These things occur in a prayer setting. When you attend, you do so knowing that you may or may not hear someone praying or worshiping in tongues. It is no surprise when it happens. It is not as though you are at mass and suddently you hear someone praying tongues. That to me would be distracting.

I have no idea what language I pray to God in, when I am in silent prayer. It is irrelevant, as you point out, because it is communication to God and language is meaningless since God knows our mind. In that context, if you tell me that you pray in tongues, I say that is between you and God and I don’t even need to know about it. It is none of my business.
I have not said language was meaningless. By all means if that is your preference, pray out loud in your native tongue. I simply stated that the language itself is not important.

But if you are praying out loud in that setting, in tongues, so that others can hear, explain to me the difference between that and speaking in tongues which requires an interpreter? Is it not really an attempt at a short-cut to get around St. Paul?
No, it is something entirely different. If I pray out loud in a prayer meeting, I don’t do it with the intention of all who are present to listen. There is pretty much a common knowledge that if that happens, that is between me and God. The others present don’t stop what they are doing to listen only to me.

I am really not sure how else to explain it Les. As I have said, yes there are abuses. That does not negate the rest who are truly gifted. By the way, I hope you dont mind me editing your posts to make them easier to answer without going over the limit on characters. Also, I am only answering where I have experience.

Oh, and beware of the mass hysteria.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

misericordie:

this is probably the FUNNIEST thing I have ever heard. So God needs to communicate with a person via a NON existing language. SOMEONE, CALL AN EXORCIST FAST!!!:crying:

Your wish is my command,Everybody needs a spiritual cleaning once in a while. You can pm me and Ill pray over you.There is no distance in the spiritual realm.

 

[Church_Militant]

In my experience as a member of the Assemblies of God (before I came home. Deo Gratias!) I was often troubled by the way the scriptural guides were set aside & abuses let slide. All too often I found that people just let go w/o regard for what the Bible says in 1st Corinthians about the practice of such gifts. When scripture is ignored that is when abuse begins. We must also remember to test every spirit to see whether it is of God or not.

 

[Mysty101]

Church Militant:

In my experience as a member of the Assemblies of God.

Most of us here belong to authentic Catholic groups, under authentic Catholic leadership.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Mysty101:

no—we do not. A prayer tongue is not the same as Speaking in tongues

%between%

RichT:

No, it is something entirely different. If I pray out loud in a prayer meeting, I don’t do it with the intention of all who are present to listen. .

(No, RichT, I don’t mind the edits. I do the same.)

I have actually read these replies and I know that you firmly believe in the difference. Perhaps I could take a different approach to illustrate what I am getting at. The difference is irrelevant in this sense; if you look at St. Paul’s discussion, not only on tongues but other issues, what do you think is the over-riding theme?
I think, as well as many others, much smarter than me probably, that you can reduce St. Paul’s discussion to requiring order first, and then “if it can be heard, it should be understood.” (my words)

Certainly, the discussion is about the charisms and he gives nine examples, not exhaustive by any means, and if you define “praying in tongues” as something other than “speaking in tongues” then it is not a charismatic gift, by definition. (What it is, then, is open for debate) It is something else and falls under any general protocols of order, as they exist for a mass in the GIRM, or as they are agreed upon for any other meeting. Clearly, a group meeting for prayer can decide that vocal tongues prayer is fine, and if that is happening with the agreement of all, certainly that is the prerogative of the meeting. (I certainly won’t be there.)

However, it would seem to me, that out of respect for others, if nothing else, if you are not sure whether vocal praying in tongues is acceptable, it should be avoided until you are sure, one way or another. As I said before, if you are vocalizing your prayer next to me, you are including me, whether you would like to believe it or not. In that case, the spirit of St. Paul is very applicable, as I have summarized it. “If it can be heard it should be understood.” I am not under the presumption that anything that I hear that is unintelligible under the rubric of “charismatic” as it is so narrowly defined (by the movement itself I would maintain) is of the Holy Spirit. I look for verification, such as a physical healing. That can be shown medically. Speaking in tongues, an interpretation.

Believe it or not, I am charismatic myself, as it is classically/traditionally understood. I have had powerful, intense life-changing experience of the Holy Spirit, at different times, in different ways. I don’t speak of it here for several reasons(I did briefly once in a conversion story thread). First, it always feels like boasting. (Hey, check out my experience!) Second, I know that it has been my experience, and is not transferrable to another person, and in no way should be held as a yardstick for anyone else, to measure their spirituality. That produces spiritual pride and that is deadly. I have enough rebellion and individualistic pride to deal with already. Finally, I can hardly do the experiences justice in words anyway. Anything I can say always falls short.
And over the past year I have been in the process of discerning the gifts that have been given to me by the Holy Spirit. I take St. Paul’s words seriously, as well as the experience and words of the saints; “Those deceive themselves who believe that union with God consists in ecstasies or in enjoyment of Him. For it consists in nothing except the surrender and subjection of our will.” St Teresa
I do know this, any charismatic gift is given to build up the church, so whatever I discover it will mean I have a job to do, even if I don’t get any peace or pleasure from that charism. That is incidental. True peace comes from obedience itself we are told.

 

[Mysty101]

Did you read the footnotes on the bible which I posted? They are from the USCCB site.

I think I’ll go with the interpretation on the Bishops site.

And St Paul also said in Romans 8

26 In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings.

Why do you persist in slamming a legitimate movement of the Catholic Church because of bad experiences with non-catholic or inauthentic Catholic groups?

You will answer for this.

 

[Les_Richardson]

“When the church needed a spark of life”. This is quite telling for it could imply that a sacramental practice of the faith is somehow not enough. Why? Had it become a mere shell of practise, empty form? In contrast, a powerful, moving and personal, emotional commitment is experienced in glossolalia, falling and bodily convulsions – no mediation is necessary, no necessity for an ordained hierarchy in moral and ritual authority to mediate between the worshipper and the divine. The worshipper is touched (no other intervention required) directly, strongly, personally and demonstrably by the divine – demonstrable for all to see…

…So a Mass ‘with’ and a Mass ‘without? Do those who feel no need for this ‘extra’ and who criticise it (and there are many of these about) – do they miss out? Or is it simply a matter of preference/taste for a particular style of worship.

David E. Mahony

Interesting thoughts. I think the premise is wrong. It is not the mass that is faulty, whether Tridentine or Novus Ordo. The catechesis, or lack thereof is where the problem has arisen. That, of course, demands a look at the catechists themselves, in the time before the CCR, and just what it was that they understood as their faith. Fr Cantalamessa has a very fascinating discussion of cradle Catholics and the incomplete faith of many. We have heard from one on this thread who first heard that Jesus loved her personally through the renewal. Although it may be a natural resistance to the “born again” theology of the protestants, there has clearly been a large piece missing in the teaching of the Church or the understanding. The Catholic Church actually teaches, and Fr Cantalamessa reiterates, that every baptized person must at some point make the assent of faith personally and activate, if you will, their baptism and confirmation. The CCR in his view, and mine, is the discovery of that fact on the part of many who hitherto had participated in that “shell of practise.” For them it may well have been an empty liturgical shell. When they truly made the commitment to Jesus Christ at that personal level, it was an assent to the Holy Spirit to activate them. The tongues and the falling have been superimposed on the real event by mistaken theology, called Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and have sadly become the sign or standard by which the action of the Holy Spirit is measured. Indeed, tongues are taught in some places by some groups. However, as Fr Cantalamessa points out, this is really something that should have happened anyway but didn’t. For the convert from paganism, it happens usually at the time of the conversion, or the baptism or the confirmation. But the cradle Catholic has a time separation or “tied” sacrament which sometimes is not “untied.”
But the amazing thing is this. When one is truly filled by the Holy Spirit the mass, as it is, comes alive and becomes a very moving experience, without jazzing it up or changing it one iota.
The desire to change it, in my opinion, comes from a mistaken perception that excitement equals better worship. They forget that mass is at most seven hours per week and that leaves 161 hours for Christians to get together and sing and dance. There is no canon law that prohibits Christians meeting together.

 

[Lucija]

I am a prayer group leader , but we are not charasmatic. We simply meet to reflect on the gospel , pray and also sing . I use catholic books that explain the Sunday Gospel. Our pastor does not attend and his assistant is scared to attend just in case he might thing that he is stepping on his toes.
I am very spiritual but I have never studied Theology.
I have to admit , even though I think we spend a good hour together and I could see how everyone is in the spirit of prayer and reflection, I do miss not having a priest with us in the group.

I think that the people miss it too. To tell you the truth if I did not decide to do it whether we have a priest or not , we might have been left without a group . I have been leading it now for 3 years

All pastors are different , one could lead you to be rich in spirit , and the other could do the opposite. I never thought this could be possible as in the past we always had a priest , but now I see it does happen in some churches as we are going through it ourselves .

Having said that I ask for everyone to pray for me and our group so that we will not get discouraged and we can keep on meeting and praising the Lord who is so worthy of it all.

 

[Mysty101]

Lucija:

All pastors are different , one could lead you to be rich in spirit , and the other could do the opposite. I never thought this could be possible as in the past we always had a priest , but now I see it does happen in some churches as we are going through it ourselves .

Having said that I ask for everyone to pray for me and our group so that we will not get discouraged and we can keep on meeting and praising the Lord who is so worthy of it all.

Just remember one thing. Your pastor is responsible for you as well as everyone in the Parish, and he does have authority over you. He is right, regardless of what you think. Remember how all protestant sects began—someone thought he knew more than his legitimate authority.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Mysty101:

Did you read the footnotes on the bible which I posted? They are from the USCCB site.

I think I’ll go with the interpretation on the Bishops site.

And St Paul also said in Romans 8
Why do you persist in slamming a legitimate movement of the Catholic Church because of bad experiences with non-catholic or inauthentic Catholic groups?

You will answer for this.

Who are you speaking to here Mysty101? If me, I will respond. You might want to explain the threat as well.

Read my post over again. I think you will find that I am agreeing with you on the point of liturgy as opposed to a non-liturgical gathering. You have been one poster here that has been consistent on the point that nothing should be introduced into the liturgy that does not belong. On that I have always agreed with you. A disagreement over theology is not necessarily a “slam” either. I might ask, why do you persist in seeing it that way?

 

[Les_Richardson]

Lucija:

Having said that I ask for everyone to pray for me and our group so that we will not get discouraged and we can keep on meeting and praising the Lord who is so worthy of it all.

Done. I will pray for God’s blessing on you and your group.

 

[Elainevw]

Hi Lucija,

When two or more are gathered in my name I am there among them…I know that it isn’t easy often as not to have a priest able to be present for a group who come to pray or read scripture.
I did the same as you for years at my parish with a small group, and tho we invited our priests to come often as not they didn’t.
Perhaps that is why I first started attending a weekly mass and prayer meeting after at the Oblate Community, and these who called themselves charismatics gathered together after mass for prayer, healing, confession, or just to talk to a priest, which was easy because there were always four or more present.

I understood with my head the schedules of our priests and the demands on them daily, as well I understood that they perhaps
didn’t understand our coming together for whatever reason, so I began more and more to go to Our Lady of Hope Community for what was missing in my own parish and our little group. It was here that I was told that as individuals coming together to pray outside of our formal rituals was a desire to spend more time with our Lord, and when we gathered truly He was as He said among us as our priest, brother, saviour and Lord and that we continued because of Him not because of man. I thought about it and yet I too missed the pressence of a priest in our group, I think because personally I was looking for afformation of the group, but perhaps looking for it in the wrong place. And yet we were not denied the time or the place so in a way we had the permission necessary to make us valid tho not the presence of the validator. And if we discussed the scriptures and there was a point or question we could seek council and share with the others later, but our coming together was a good thing and as such would be blessed by God.

Well I ended up becoming very involved with Oblates, and yes was even willing to have that name tag of charismatic attached to my
description, because in reality I was. In my parish I was soon after asked to be our CCD co-ordinator, and I had always studied religion, which is basically what theology is…the study of, and
continued in this capacity for eleven years, as well as remaining in our little group and the Oblate community as a charismatic…which allowed me to be more active without remorse regardless the situations in my parish that at times existed. Eventually I was asked by one of the priests who wouldn’t come to our group to join him in teaching adult catechism for those wanting to convert, so I joined him, tho he still did not join us… It seemed that God was putting us together one way or another. We continued and
grew a little, and twenty four years later Today in our parish that little group (with many originals now gone) has a priest that holds scripture study every Thursday night and that little group has grown so, every Saturday there is a healing mass at our parish, not like I attended but then God’s love and grace takes on many forms for He works with His children where they are. And eventually brings us all where we need to be in Him.

Perservere, try not to be too unsettled by the absence of a priest,
allow him to see your integrity and faithfulness and with God’s grace your gathering will bear fruit. And I too will pray for you and your group, Jesus started out with one, then another and another till there were twelve and now look at the size of His group.

God bless,
Elaine

 

[Intercessor]

do you know what it is you are saying in the prayer tongue?

I received the gift of tongues about two years ago. I don’t have an extensive prayer vocabulary…just a couple of words. I do not know what the words mean literally but I do pray them with different senses of meaning. For instance, sometimes there is a sense of urgency in my prayer…sometimes great awe and worship of our King Jesus Christ… sometimes pain and sorrow. I too was skeptical about tongues. Then one night several months after attending a Life in the Spirit seminar I was praying alone in my room. I was saying the word “Allelujah” out loud several times when my mouth began forming words that were not coming from me. I am now a believer. All I can say is that since surrendering my will to the Holy Spirit I have grown closer to God and am increasingly learning to recognize His movements. As the song says, “Sometimes I think I glimpse eternity.” Read the lives of the saints and of their mystical experiences…And know that our beautiful Holy Father, Pope John Paul II is a mystic. We too can have that closeness to our dear Heavenly Father
…through the Holy Spirit.
Love,
Jeanne

 

[Elainevw]

Hi All,

Thought this might be an interesting read. Simple enough to start with anyway, it is only a part found in the Catholic Encyclopedia
about the charismata. But since the discussion was on tongues
thought might be of some help to discuss it better rather then just
our own personal understandings, maybe, maybe not.

God Bless,
Elaine

1. The gift of tongues and (5) the interpretation of tongues (collectively known as glossolalia) are described at length in I Cor., xiv. In what did glossolalia exactly consist?

• It was speaking, opposed to being silent (I Cor., xiv, 28), yet
• not always in a foreign tongue. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles did indeed speak the various languages of their hearers, but the still unbaptized Gentiles in the house of Cornelius “speaking with tongues, and magnifying God” (Acts, x, 46) and the twelve newly baptized Ephesians speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts, xix, 6) had no reason for using any strange tongue. Again, instead of the expression “speaking with tongues” Paul uses the alternative phrases, “speaking in a tongue”, “by a tongue”, “with a tongue” (I Cor., xiv, 2, 4, 13, 14, 27).

The object of the gift was not to convey ideas to listeners, but to speak to God in prayer (ibid., 2, 4), an object for which a foreign language is unnecessary. Lastly – and this argument seems conclusive – Paul compares glossolalia, as regards its effect, with talking in an unknown language; it is, therefore, not itself an unknown language (ibid., 11).

• It was an articulate language, for the speaker prays, sings, gives thanks (ibid., 14-17).
• The speaker was in a kind of trance – “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit [pneuma] prayeth, but my understanding [nous, mens] is without fruit” (ibid., 14).
• on unbelievers glossolalia made the impression of the marvellous; perhaps it recalled to their mind the religious ravings of hierophants: “Wherefore (i.e. because unintelligible) tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers. If . . . all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?” (I Cor., xiv, 22, 23).
• The gift of tongues is inferior to that of prophecy: “Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification” (ibid., 5).
• The charisma of interpretation is, then, the necessary complement of glossolalia; when interpretation is not forthcoming, the speaker with tongues shall hold his peace (ibid., 13, 27, 28). Interpretation is the work either of the speaker himself or of another (ibid., 27). It takes the form of an intelligible address; the explanation was to follow the speech with tongues as regularly as the discerning of spirits succeeded prophecy (I Cor., xiv, 28, 29).