Speaking in Tongues

[catholic_daddy]

At Pentecost, those filled with H.S. were speaking in valid languages … understood by those Jews who lived abroad, and had a learned understanding thereof.

What I’ve heard at Protestant services … doesn’t seem to fit what happened @ the Church’s inception.

Paul claimed the gift, but put other gifts he had far above tongues.

I do think praying aloud, in the spirit, is valid. But, I’m not sure its the same process that happened in the First Century Church.

I have seen at least one report where linguists tested recordings of modern tongues speaking and not one instance revealed an actual language. There were all gibberish such as that spoken by people in institutions.

 

[BRB1]

I have seen at least one report where linguists tested recordings of modern tongues speaking and not one instance revealed an actual language. There were all gibberish such as that spoken by people in institutions.

Important point. Gibberish is not legit.

A Hebrew speaking a valid language [spoken by the Philistines, Amorites, etc] is truely miraculous … and is what happened @ Pentecost.

 

[Cs6153]

I have been to a pentacostal prayer service where everyone spoke in tounges at the same time. I felt uncomfortable the first time. Afterwords I felt more comfortable but still feeling uneasy because I hardly ever pray outloud except if I am by myself. I just stand there in quiet reflective prayer while everyone else cries and yells out their prayers…but I do not feel like I am the only one because my boyfriend prays in silence as well. But still I feel like I am doing a discervice to the ecumencial spirit since I am a catholic, if I do not pray aloud with them.but I just do not feel called to that type of prayer and I feel like I would do a greater disservice if I forced myself.

I heard some people there call it a made up language. but I do not know what they mean by that.

 

[claire0202]

With reference to the question "Do tongues just come or does one control it I can only say for my disabled niece it definitely “comes when it wants to” in her own words.Often for her she starts the rosary & the last 3 hail mary’s are in tongues/ Also when someone prays over her (without tongues). she goes into tongues. For me the first and second times I went into tongues it was completely involuntary. I did not kow how it happened but since then I would not say it completely takes me over.I am usually praying for someone or something and just can’t think of the right words to say or how to express my thoughts & I think a thought comes to me “pray in tongues” and I do. I also sometimes when I am concentrating particularly hard on the consecratrion find myself silently mouthing tongues & I get a great feeling of closeness to Our Blessed Lord but I am aware & can stop at any time. I do not understand what I am saying but I just feel very close to Jesus. If someone else had told me 5 years ago thatr I would speak in tongues I would have said “Never” but I have to eat the provewrbial hat and say "Thank you God for this wonderful gift.

 

[BRB1]

I do not understand what I am saying but I just feel very close to Jesus. If someone else had told me 5 years ago thatr I would speak in tongues I would have said “Never” but I have to eat the provewrbial hat and say "Thank you God for this wonderful gift.

I think you are acknowledging what many have experienced. Sometimes in our prayers, our mouths get disconnected from our minds … and what comes out is our deepest spiritual yearnings.

It doesn’t make sense, even to us … but, it is the essence of the soul expressing itself to our Lord.

Guanophone makes a valid point … in that our soul is not the same as our mind / intellects. However, it does interact with our intellect/mind … in most cases.

Is this speaking in tongues ? Perhaps to a degree. But, its not what was happening in the First Century … as discussed in N.T. [for Pentecost, etc.].

 

[guanophore]

I can take you point by point through the reasons why it is the explanation most faithful to the scriptural material. What parts of it do you think are significant and incorrect?

All of it that is inconsistent with the teaching of the Church. Go ahead with your "points’, but please first read the thread. A lot of this has been addressed already.

My daddy was catholic, actually.

Thank you. I will not expect you, then, to espuose a Catholic view!

I have seen at least one report where linguists tested recordings of modern tongues speaking and not one instance revealed an actual language. There were all gibberish such as that spoken by people in institutions.

Just because a language is not currently in use on earth does not mean that there are not valid other languages.

I would not assume that what sounds to you like “gibberish” is that. Also, as a lifelong worker in “institutions”, I think you would be equally in error thinking that what people say in them is not valid.

 

[guanophore]

At Pentecost, those filled with H.S. were speaking in valid languages … understood by those Jews who lived abroad, and had a learned understanding thereof.

What I’ve heard at Protestant services … doesn’t seem to fit what happened @ the Church’s inception.

Paul claimed the gift, but put other gifts he had far above tongues.

I do think praying aloud, in the spirit, is valid. But, I’m not sure its the same process that happened in the First Century Church.

There are many varieties of tongues. These are only two.

I think you are acknowledging what many have experienced. Sometimes in our prayers, our mouths get disconnected from our minds … and what comes out is our deepest spiritual yearnings.

It doesn’t make sense, even to us … but, it is the essence of the soul expressing itself to our Lord.

Guanophone makes a valid point … in that our soul is not the same as our mind / intellects. However, it does interact with our intellect/mind … in most cases.

Is this speaking in tongues ? Perhaps to a degree. But, its not what was happening in the First Century … as discussed in N.T. [for Pentecost, etc.].

Yes, but I think this is more properly described as praying in tongues. The Apostles preached in tongues, then there is a form of tongues that can be used in a meeting with a translator. Then there are varieties of tongues for prayer. I think this is what Paul was talking about when he said “I pray in tongues more than you all”. He probably used several varieties, but most often his private prayer.

All these forms are evident in the early church, as well as throughout the history of the Church.

 

[catholic_daddy]

There are many varieties of tongues. These are only two.

Yes, but I think this is more properly described as praying in tongues. The Apostles preached in tongues, then there is a form of tongues that can be used in a meeting with a translator. Then there are varieties of tongues for prayer. I think this is what Paul was talking about when he said “I pray in tongues more than you all”. He probably used several varieties, but most often his private prayer.

All these forms are evident in the early church, as well as throughout the history of the Church.

That is incorrect. And Paul makes it clear in I Cor 14 when he tells the Corinthians not to be children in their understanding, that the phenomenon of tongues is for a sign to the Jews in fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (a prophecy of judgement). In I Cor 13 he says tongues would cease. History shows they did, until about 100 years ago when gibberish began to surface in Pentecostal circles.

 

[catholic_daddy]

There are many varieties of tongues. These are only two.

Yes, but I think this is more properly described as praying in tongues. The Apostles preached in tongues, then there is a form of tongues that can be used in a meeting with a translator. Then there are varieties of tongues for prayer. I think this is what Paul was talking about when he said “I pray in tongues more than you all”. He probably used several varieties, but most often his private prayer.

All these forms are evident in the early church, as well as throughout the history of the Church.

Proponents of a ‘prayer language point to Paul’s talk about ‘praying in the spirit’, and say that this is instruction to pray in ‘tongues’. But two things to note here: 1. He says "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding’, and if you study the passage, he is saying that WHENEVER he prays, he will pray both with his spirit and with understanding (as opposed to praying in an unknown langurage, which he can’t understand).
2. Paul commands elsewhere to be ‘praying ALWAYS in the spirit’ If praying in the spirit meant praying in an unknown tongue, then he would be commanding Christians to always pray in tongues. Clearly that is not correct.

 

[guanophore]

That is incorrect. And Paul makes it clear in I Cor 14 when he tells the Corinthians not to be children in their understanding, that the phenomenon of tongues is for a sign to the Jews in fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (a prophecy of judgement). In I Cor 13 he says tongues would cease. History shows they did, until about 100 years ago when gibberish began to surface in Pentecostal circles.

Apparently this is what you have been taught to believe ,but it is not accurate.

When Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, he is speaking of the specific manner in which they are used at the prayer meeting he is describing. This does not encompass all the varieties of tongues.

Secondly, tongues will cease, when the Church is no longer on earth, there will be no more need for the Charismatic gifts. Their purpose is to build up the church. When the Church is united to her Bridegroom, they will no longer be needed.

You are in error believing that ever ceased.

The modern Pentecostal movement is full of abuses of every kind, the misuse of this gift being only one. That does not make the gift invalid.

Proponents of a 'prayer language point to Paul’s talk about ‘praying in the spirit’, and say that this is instruction to pray in ‘tongues’.

This is one form of praying in the Spirit. There are many.

But two things to note here: 1. He says "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding’, and if you study the passage, he is saying that WHENEVER he prays, he will pray both with his spirit and with understanding (as opposed to praying in an unknown langurage, which he can’t understand).

No, it does not say that.

It says that he does both. It does not say that he does both all the time.

1. Paul commands elsewhere to be ‘praying ALWAYS in the spirit’ If praying in the spirit meant praying in an unknown tongue, then he would be commanding Christians to always pray in tongues. Clearly that is not correct.

Clearly not.

Praying in tongues is an effective way to remain in the Spirit. It is not the only way.

Why is it so important to you to believe that this Gift no longer exists?

 

[catholic_daddy]

Apparently this is what you have been taught to believe ,but it is not accurate.

When Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, he is speaking of the specific manner in which they are used at the prayer meeting he is describing. This does not encompass all the varieties of tongues.

Secondly, tongues will cease, when the Church is no longer on earth, there will be no more need for the Charismatic gifts. Their purpose is to build up the church. When the Church is united to her Bridegroom, they will no longer be needed.

You are in error believing that ever ceased.

The modern Pentecostal movement is full of abuses of every kind, the misuse of this gift being only one. That does not make the gift invalid.

This is one form of praying in the Spirit. There are many.

No, it does not say that.

It says that he does both. It does not say that he does both all the time.

Clearly not.

Praying in tongues is an effective way to remain in the Spirit. It is not the only way.

Why is it so important to you to believe that this Gift no longer exists?

Sorry, Guanophore, but that is not what the texts say. The mood of the Greek verb in Ch 13, when he says tongues will cease implies that they will cease in and of themselves, and it is a different action than when in the same place he talks about knowledge and prophecy being done away with.

Also, you are confused about what Paul says when he uses the word ‘sign’. In the text he says, ’ In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving…’ He is clearly saying they were a sign, and to unbelieving Jews, at that, for that is who the prophecy was against. The fulfillment of the prophecy was the sign that God was getting ready to judge the Jews, and in fact not too awful long after, the temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered everywhere. And in fact there are no clear documentations of biblical tongues speaking until near the turn of the 19th century.

Again, the tongues today are not languages. Also, what I said about Paul’s words on praying in the Spirit, I won’t repeat. You need to read them again and study the passages. It is quite clear.

As to why it is important that they ceased, it wouldn’t be important if not for two matters. First, it is what Scripture teaches, and I imagine that is important to you also. Second, there is a lot of confusion spread because of abuse in that area. People stand up in churches, rattle off gibberish, and then someone gets up and says ‘Thus says the Lord…’ If that is true, then of course it should be written down and obeyed as certainly as Scripture or Catholic dogma. Paul says God is not the author of confusion. I don’t believe the Bible reveals that He authored this.

The problem is (and this may be what you struggle with) that people have an experience and then their experience becomes the judge of Scripture, rather than the other way around, as it should be.

 

[BRB1]

When Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, he is speaking of the specific manner in which they are used at the prayer meeting he is describing. This does not encompass all the varieties of tongues.

?

Guanophore …

I believe you mentioned you had read the 10 page article that someone here has referenced for us : Bible.org: Speaking in Tongues.

I’ve gone thru it, checking all the references. It would seem the author has hit a homerun with his conclusions of Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church.

In his conclusions on tongues he writes on page 10:

Paul says “When I was a child, I spake as a child… but, when I became a man, I put away childish things”. The word spake in context can only refer to speaking in tongues. So that Paul himself came to the place of Christian maturity, through God’s revelation to him, where tongues were no longer necessary. And so in the same tongues context he admonishes the Corinthians, "Brethren, be not children in understanding … but in understanding be men. Experientially, tongues cease when the Christian matures on a diet of the meat of God’s Word. Actually tongues is baby talk. … First, speaking in tongues can be self-induced. Second, speaking in tongues can be group-induced. Third, speaking in tongues can be of satanic origin.

His rationale is opposed to validity for tongues in our present age. Do you know of a scholarly Catholic source of that makes the scriptural/traditional case for finding merit for tongues in today’s church ?

 

[BRB1]

I did come across this Catholic link:

www.scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html

Mentions that Paul teaches “as for tongues, they will cease” 1 Cor. 13:8

Augustine wrote that the gift of tongues had ceased by the time of his day. Explaining that this was because the Catholic Church now spoke the language of the nations, and the earlier tongue-speaking was only for purposes of evangelization.

Thomas Aquinas agreed with the great St. Augustine.

So who of us here at CAF can argue with these two Catholic luminaries ?

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, Guanophore, but that is not what the texts say. The mood of the Greek verb in Ch 13, when he says tongues will cease implies that they will cease in and of themselves, and it is a different action than when in the same place he talks about knowledge and prophecy being done away with.

All of these charisms are given for the building up of the Church. When the Church no longer needs them, they will cease. If you wish for them to cease for you, the Paul says this is possible. One can quench the Spirit, or refuse to earnestly seek the gifts.

I wonder what your motive might be in discounting the authentic experiences of faithful Christians that practice the use of these gifts? What possible benefit does that serve to the Body?

Also, you are confused about what Paul says when he uses the word ‘sign’. In the text he says, ’ In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving…’ He is clearly saying they were a sign, and to unbelieving Jews, at that, for that is who the prophecy was against. The fulfillment of the prophecy was the sign that God was getting ready to judge the Jews, and in fact not too awful long after, the temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered everywhere. And in fact there are no clear documentations of biblical tongues speaking until near the turn of the 19th century.

I have the same understanding of that sign, so if I am confused, then we are confused together.

However, your belief that there are no clear documentations of tongue speaking until the turn of the 19th century is false. Why is it important for you to deny this gift?

Again, the tongues today are not languages.

Some varieties are.

Also, what I said about Paul’s words on praying in the Spirit, I won’t repeat. You need to read them again and study the passages. It is quite clear.

I understand that you interpret them differently. What I don’t understand is why?

As to why it is important that they ceased, it wouldn’t be important if not for two matters.

Is this a Freudian slip?

First, it is what Scripture teaches, and I imagine that is important to you also.

Scripture does not teach. People teach. Teaching is an office that God gave to the Church. The Church, who Jesus empowered to teach, says they have not ceased.

You are interpreting scripture apart from Sacred Tradition, so you understand it differently than those who wrote it.

Second, there is a lot of confusion spread because of abuse in that area.

Well, that seems like an absurd reason to me. God gives the Church a beautiful gift, and because it is abuse, we should pretend it does not exist?

Supposing we did that with marriage? God give humankind a wonderful gift. There is a lot of confusion and abuse, so let’s just call it done! NO more marriage!

People stand up in churches, rattle off gibberish, and then someone gets up and says ‘Thus says the Lord…’

This abuse was going on at the Corinthian Church also. It does not make the gift invalid.

If that is true, then of course it should be written down and obeyed as certainly as Scripture or Catholic dogma.

Why would you say such a thing?

Paul says God is not the author of confusion. I don’t believe the Bible reveals that He authored this.

I do too! That just goes to show that your confused response to the abuse of God’s gift did not come from HIm!

The problem is (and this may be what you struggle with) that people have an experience and then their experience becomes the judge of Scripture, rather than the other way around, as it should be.

No. I don’t have a "problem’ with the charismata. However, I do agree with your premise. People’s experiences do taint the way they understand scripture, just as yours have here.

But the Catholic faith does not come from scripture. All of what the Catholic Church teaches comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. It was whole and entire before one word of the NT was ever written. It did not cease to be whole afterwards.

 

[guanophore]

In his conclusions on tongues he writes on page 10:

Paul says “When I was a child, I spake as a child… but, when I became a man, I put away childish things”. The word spake in context can only refer to speaking in tongues.

Well…we understand the Apostle differently.

So that Paul himself came to the place of Christian maturity, through God's revelation to him, where tongues were no longer necessary.

If it helps your Christian practice to believe this, I will not argue with you.

And so in the same tongues context he admonishes the Corinthians, "Brethren, be not children in understanding … but in understanding be men. Experientially, tongues cease when the Christian matures on a diet of the meat of God’s Word.

If you wish, you can cease to practice them. The spirit of the prophet is under the control of the prophet.

Actually tongues is baby talk. … First, speaking in tongues can be self-induced. Second, speaking in tongues can be group-induced. Third, speaking in tongues can be of satanic origin.

I think you left out the only authentic source.

Rom 8:26-27

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. 27 And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

The Spirit is praying through the person.

His rationale is opposed to validity for tongues in our present age.

Yes. That is one reason I said the article was full of errors.

 Do you know of a scholarly Catholic source of that makes the scriptural/traditional case for finding merit for tongues in today's church ?

nsc-chariscenter.org/

I also very much like Morton Kelsey’s book on “Tongue Speaking”. An excellent scholarly work, though he is not Catholic, he presents the Catholic position well.

 

[guanophore]

I did come across this Catholic link:

www.scripturecatholic.com/tongues.html

Mentions that Paul teaches “as for tongues, they will cease” 1 Cor. 13:8

Augustine wrote that the gift of tongues had ceased by the time of his day. Explaining that this was because the Catholic Church now spoke the language of the nations, and the earlier tongue-speaking was only for purposes of evangelization.

Thomas Aquinas agreed with the great St. Augustine.

So who of us here at CAF can argue with these two Catholic luminaries ?

Luminaries though they are, they do not always agree with the Teaching of the Church. They also had limited experiences, since they did not sojourn much in the East. The mystical practices have been alive and well in the East while our Latin Brethren were busy analyzing everything with “reason”.

I believe that Augustine did not know anyone who spoke in tongues, and was reflecting the lack of exposure common in his day.

Aquinas did not have any exposure to it either. HOwever, if these two great luminaries were actually representing the teaching of the Church, why does the Church teach the opposite? why have the last three Popes welcomed delegations of Charismatic Catholics, and welcomed their practice of praying in tongues? Why would the Church officially delegate shepherds for the charismatic movement? Why not rather chastize us,and reprimand?

It is because the Church has dealt with abuses of all the gifts, even the Sacrifice of the Mass. the Church knows that abuse does not equal the termination of the gift.

 

[catholic_daddy]

All of these charisms are given for the building up of the Church. When the Church no longer needs them, they will cease. If you wish for them to cease for you, the Paul says this is possible. One can quench the Spirit, or refuse to earnestly seek the gifts.

I wonder what your motive might be in discounting the authentic experiences of faithful Christians that practice the use of these gifts? What possible benefit does that serve to the Body?

I have the same understanding of that sign, so if I am confused, then we are confused together.

However, your belief that there are no clear documentations of tongue speaking until the turn of the 19th century is false. Why is it important for you to deny this gift?

Some varieties are.

I understand that you interpret them differently. What I don’t understand is why?

Is this a Freudian slip?

Scripture does not teach. People teach. Teaching is an office that God gave to the Church. The Church, who Jesus empowered to teach, says they have not ceased.

You are interpreting scripture apart from Sacred Tradition, so you understand it differently than those who wrote it.

Well, that seems like an absurd reason to me. God gives the Church a beautiful gift, and because it is abuse, we should pretend it does not exist?

Supposing we did that with marriage? God give humankind a wonderful gift. There is a lot of confusion and abuse, so let’s just call it done! NO more marriage!

This abuse was going on at the Corinthian Church also. It does not make the gift invalid.

Why would you say such a thing?

I do too! That just goes to show that your confused response to the abuse of God’s gift did not come from HIm!

No. I don’t have a "problem’ with the charismata. However, I do agree with your premise. People’s experiences do taint the way they understand scripture, just as yours have here.

But the Catholic faith does not come from scripture. All of what the Catholic Church teaches comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. It was whole and entire before one word of the NT was ever written. It did not cease to be whole afterwards.

We’ll just agree to disagree on that. As I said, I’ve studied it very extensively and was on the other side of that discussion years ago. What I shared here and more is, I believe, the most faithful to God’s word and the full mention of the issue of glossalalia. It certainly isn’t a life or death matter!

God Bless.

 

[catholic_daddy]

I wonder what your motive might be in discounting the authentic experiences of faithful Christians that practice the use of these gifts?

Why would you wonder about my motive? There are a number of us here who know both the meaning of these verses as well as the errors, confusion and imbalance that are common in the movements. The desire to protect the body of Christ and exalt the truth would be our motive. You are very sensitive to the teaching, it seems, because you are caught up in the practice. This may or may not define your motive. I’m sorry it bothers you and that you aren’t open to seeing the texts in the same light. I have many friends in the same boat and love them dearly. I would take more time to analyze the passages, but I can see you have your mind made up.

Supposing we did that with marriage? God give humankind a wonderful gift. There is a lot of confusion and abuse, so let’s just call it done! NO more marriage!

As I said, I believe Paul teaches that that gift would fade.

Well, that seems like an absurd reason to me. God gives the Church a beautiful gift, and because it is abuse, we should pretend it does not exist?

Show me where it is used today as it was in Acts.

Scripture does not teach. People teach. Teaching is an office that God gave to the Church. The Church, who Jesus empowered to teach, says they have not ceased.

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will be your teacher in all things and will put you in mind of everything I have said to you.”

“…from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

 

[guanophore]

We’ll just agree to disagree on that. As I said, I’ve studied it very extensively and was on the other side of that discussion years ago. What I shared here and more is, I believe, the most faithful to God’s word and the full mention of the issue of glossalalia. It certainly isn’t a life or death matter!

God Bless.

You are right. The life and death matter here is that you are relying on your own private interpretation of the scripture and the conclusions of your research instead of the Teaching Authority put in place by Christ 2000 years ago. This practice has far reaching ramificatons. To reject the revelation that God has given to the Church is extremely dangerous, especially when substituting one’s own subjective judgement. Very dangerous.

Why would you wonder about my motive?

It seems to me that a person who has put as much effort into this as you apparently have must be highly motivated.

There are a number of us here who know both the meaning of these verses as well as the errors, confusion and imbalance that are common in the movements.

At least you are convinced that you do. You have made yourself the Standard.

The desire to protect the body of Christ and exalt the truth would be our motive.

A person who is really interested in this will remain in unity with the Church that was founded by Christ. You have apparently departed from that Church, whether knowingly or unwittingly, you have engaged in division to the body.

You are very sensitive to the teaching, it seems, because you are caught up in the practice. This may or may not define your motive.

Hmmm. Caught up? Not like Paul was when he received his revelations from God! Nor like John on the island of Patmos. However, I do not find any evidence that God has ceased to use “caught up” whenever He deems it necessary.

I’m sorry it bothers you and that you aren’t open to seeing the texts in the same light.

I am certainly open to seeing the text in the light of your personal revelation. I have seen them. I used to also be bound by the error of Sola Scriptura.

I have many friends in the same boat and love them dearly.

They have run after error, and you still call them your friends?

I would take more time to analyze the passages, but I can see you have your mind made up.

Jesus promised to lead the Church into all Truth. That saves me a lot of confusion.

As I said, I believe Paul teaches that that gift would fade.

Yes, of course. Once Jesus comes for His Bride, non of the Charsimatic gifts will be necessary.

Show me where it is used today as it was in Acts.

How can a person be shown something they do not believe exists? That is like me pointing to the North Star, and trying to convince you that it is what it is. You have made up your mind it is something else!

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will be your teacher in all things and will put you in mind of everything I have said to you.”

Yes, and that Helper was given to the Church, and does not depart from the Church. When people such as yourself try to find the leading of the Helper apart from the Church He was sent to guide, error is inevitable.

“…from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Perhaps you were unaware that Paul here is talking about the OT? Could you live a good Christian life with only the OT?

 

[BRB1]

why have the last three Popes welcomed delegations of Charismatic Catholics, and welcomed their practice of praying in tongues? Why would the Church officially delegate shepherds for the charismatic movement? Why not rather chastize us,and reprimand?

It is because the Church has dealt with abuses of all the gifts, even the Sacrifice of the Mass. the Church knows that abuse does not equal the termination of the gift.

Guanophore …

Paul didn’t toss those Corinthians out of Church. But, in Chp. 14 of 1st Corinthians … he strongly admonished them for misusing tongues. Some people have grown up in denominations (esp. Pentecostal) where it’s second nature to them. The fact it is so widespread in these groups, suggests it is learned behavior. Learned behavior from childhood is often permanent behavior, indeed very hard to modify/extinguish.

Clearly the recent Popes have had an eye toward promoting Ecumenism. They don’t wish to drive away or offend those who believe in tongues. But, answer me this … has any Pope since Peter spoken in tongues ? If Christ thought it was crucial for us … would not we of had a Pope [since Peter] who claimed it for themself & advised it for the faithful ?

Yes, it does appear the Popes wish to keep close tabs on the Charismatic Catholics … and perhaps ‘shepherd’ them into better understandings of the gift.

As far as the scriptures teaching one to pray / meditate [Lectio Divina, for example] under influence of spirit ---- this is a strong affirmative. The CC does teach/advise this for us.

I think Paul’s primary point to the Corinthians was to encourage them to emphasize the gifts of [spritual prayer, prophesy, teaching, and demonstrating Law of Love to all] … and to let tongues have a rest.