Speaking in tongues?

[Irish_Polock]

I had a surprise awakening this morning reading the [Baltimore Catechism.

Q. 448. Why are these signs not continued everywhere at the present time?

A. These signs are not continued everywhere at the present time, because now that the Church is fully established and its divine character and power proved in other ways, such signs are no longer necessary.

Q. 449. Were such powers as the “gift of tongues” a part of the Sacrament of Confirmation?

A. Such powers as the “gift of tongues” were not a part of the Sacrament of Confirmation, but they were added to it by the Holy Ghost when necessary for the good of the Church. ](~Baltimore Catechism #3 : Lesson 9~)

This explains why so many Traditionalists oppose the “movement”.

Also, we see this in the Roman Catechism.

from the moment when the Sacraments began to be administered, to manifest by the evidence of miracles the effects which they operate interiorly in the soul. (This He did) in order that we may most firmly believe that the same effects, although far removed from the senses, are always inwardly produced. To say nothing of the fact that at the Baptism of the Redeemer in the Jordan the heavens were opened and the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a dove, to teach us that when we are washed in the sacred font His grace is infused into our souls ** to omit this, which has reference rather to the signification of Baptism than to the administration of the Sacrament ** do we not read that on the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles received the Holy Ghost, by whom they were thenceforward inspired with greater alacrity and resolution to preach the faith and brave dangers for the glory of Christ, there came suddenly a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting, and there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were, of fire? By this it was understood that in the Sacrament of Confirmation the same Spirit is given us, and such strength is imparted as enables us resolutely to encounter and resist our incessant enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. For some time in the beginning of the Church, whenever these Sacraments were administered by the Apostles, the same miraculous effects were witnessed, and they ceased only when the faith had acquired maturity and strength. (The Catechism of Trent 2000)

Additionally, Popes, Doctors of the Church, and other great saints. It is a consensus. The fact that the Church today is ambiguous on the matter is disheartening.

 

[guanophore]

Additionally, Popes, Doctors of the Church, and other great saints. It is a consensus. The fact that the Church today is ambiguous on the matter is disheartening.

A couple testimonies that the gifts were not observed hardly amounts to a “consensus”. If this indeed were the sensus fidelum, then the documents of Vat 2 would not say otherwise, and the writings of the mystics would not testify to the presence of the gifts.

I am sorry you find the work of the HS disheartening.

I am sorry that you reject the teaching of the Holy Fathers in these matters, the Scripture, and the Councils. However, God has granted you free will, that you may choose what to believe. You can reject the Church teaching if you wish. You can grasp at non-magesterial statements to support your view.

The Holy Fathers prayed for a New Pentecost, and it has come. The documents of the Church were revised to accomodate this work of the Spirit. That is why the New Catechism does not have these statements.

Be encouraged, though, and lift up your heart! Think of the words of Gamaliel about the early Christians. If it is not of God, it will quickly pass away, and if it is, you might find yourself fighting against God.

 

[Irish_Polock]

A couple testimonies that the gifts were not observed hardly amounts to a “consensus”. If this indeed were the sensus fidelum, then the documents of Vat 2 would not say otherwise, and the writings of the mystics would not testify to the presence of the gifts.

This is the entirety of the problems within the post-councilor Church; the ambiguity of VII’s verbiage has definitely caused error, and has mislead many Catholics.

We are on the subject of “speaking in tongues”, not of the other various gifts - although, their are certainly other problematic gifts (resting in the spirit ).

I am sorry you find the work of the HS disheartening.

This is not my position, to clarify; the fact that Rome has been ambiguous on specific gifts, and has yet to address them definitively and universality, especially since JPII and our current Pope - to a lesser extent - have been instrumental in promulgating the CCR and any errors that might be attributed to the movement due to said ambiguities.

I am sorry that you reject the teaching of the Holy Fathers in these matters, the Scripture, and the Councils. However, God has granted you free will, that you may choose what to believe. You can reject the Church teaching if you wish. You can grasp at non-magesterial statements to support your view.

I assume that you feel the Catechism of Trent is not of any significance, and it is only the opinion of its time, is that correct? I have seen the Holy Fathers have a different opinion on the matter (St. Gregory comes to mind). I have read our Scared Scriptures and I - along with many traditional commentaries - have reached a far different conclusion then the CCR. I will indeed resist these errors, to the face.

The Holy Fathers prayed for a New Pentecost, and it has come. The documents of the Church were revised to accomodate this work of the Spirit. That is why the New Catechism does not have these statements.

The new Catechism doesn’t address these issues at all, the authors - which included our current Holy Father - apparently thought it advantageous to not address these issues as previous Catechism had. Therefore, there is no contradiction, just ambiguity.

Be encouraged, though, and lift up your heart! Think of the words of Gamaliel about the early Christians. If it is not of God, it will quickly pass away, and if it is, you might find yourself fighting against God.

Indeed, “Truth will out”. Additionally, I am also willing to correct myself if the church gives me a reason for a full assent of my faith. But, as of yet, the Church has yet to speak definitively on the subject.

 

[vardaquinn]

Irish Polock,

You will forgive me, but as yet you have produced no substantial document that claims that the gifts are no longer for this age, and that they have necessarily ceased to exist beyond a quote from the Baltimore Catechism. What you quote from the Catechism of Trent merely says that they ceased when there was a maturity in faith. There is not a maturity in the faith today, and there has not been in various times in the Church. The gifts are around today, and to deny this flies in the face of what other Church documents - even more authoritative - have claimed. Furthermore, if you criticize us as being heterodox in this matter, you also criticize the last two Popes who have both said on explicit occasions that what the Bible tells us of the charisms are no longer ancient past history, but a burning reality alive today (to quote Pope Benedict, see the Ratzinger Report). I stand with the Popes. If you consider their views heterodox, then so be it.

And furthermore, your argument is, if you’ll forgive me, just plain stupid. Your cessassionistic view of the working of the Holy Spirit is rooted in Reformation theology, and clearly contradicts the reality. The gifts and miracles of God the Holy Spirit happen today, and have happened through out Church history. To deny this simply denies your basic facts, the data.

I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be such fierce opposition to the claim that the Holy Spirit still works in wondrous and miraculous ways today, as He has always done. Jesus Christ is the same forever.

 

[guanophore]

This is the entirety of the problems within the post-councilor Church; the ambiguity of VII’s verbiage has definitely caused error, and has mislead many Catholics.

I am very curious about your thoughts on this, but I am sure it is too far afield for this thread. Perhaps another time? My point was that the existence and encouragement of charisms was very strong, and especially the active participation of the laity in the work of the ministry. Too many Catholics were bench warming, and sitting back expecting the ordained to do all the work.

We are on the subject of “speaking in tongues”, not of the other various gifts - although, their are certainly other problematic gifts (resting in the spirit ).

If you ever have the delightful experience of resting in the Spirit, I am sure you will not find it problematic at all.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not separated, some accepted, and some rejected. He it is who inspires all of them in everyone as He wills. It is not for us to say that certain of His gifts have “ceased” because we no longer seem to see a need for them.

 This is not my position, to clarify; the fact that Rome has been ambiguous on specific gifts, and has yet to address them definitively and universality, especially since JPII and our current Pope - to a lesser extent - have been instrumental in promulgating the CCR and any errors that might be attributed to the movement due to said ambiguities.

It is good that you are willing to accep that JPII and BDXVI do support the Renewal. I have read some posts on here from people who even deny that, or say that they are in error for saying it comes from the HS. I am in agreement with you that clarity does mitigate errors. I guess I don’t see the ambiguity you are.

 I assume that you feel the Catechism of Trent is not of any significance, and it is only the opinion of its time, is that correct?

On the contrary, as a long time student of the Reformation, I would say the opposite is true. It has pivotal significance. It, like all the other councils, needs to be placed within it’s historical context, of course. I would never say that any Holy Council, even one that is not infallible reflects “only the opinion of it’s time”. When we look at the concilar documents in their historical context, we can understand more fully how the HS is guiding the Church.

  I have seen the Holy Fathers have a different opinion on the matter (St. Gregory comes to mind). I have read our Scared Scriptures and I - along with many traditional commentaries - have reached a far different conclusion then the CCR. I will indeed resist these errors, to the face.

Yes, this is your perogative. However, your conclusion is contrary to the Teaching of the Magesterium. Besides, from reading your posts, you are really not “far different” from the CCR. You share most of the fundamental principles of the Renewal, and abhor abuses.

The new Catechism doesn't address these issues at all, the authors - which included our current Holy Father - apparently thought it advantageous to not address these issues as previous Catechism had. Therefore, there is no contradiction,  just ambiguity.

I don’t doubt that the framers were just as surprised at the New Pentecost as those upon whom it fell.

 

[guanophore]

Irish Polock,

You will forgive me, but as yet you have produced no substantial document that claims that the gifts are no longer for this age, and that they have necessarily ceased to exist beyond a quote from the Baltimore Catechism.

I think Irish has provided several good sources to back up this view. What is “unsubstantial” about the Fathers and Doctors of the church he has provided?

And furthermore, your argument is, if you'll forgive me, just plain stupid. Your cessassionistic view of the working of the Holy Spirit is rooted in Reformation theology, and clearly contradicts the reality.

Now, now, Varda let’s be charitable! I think this is not correct. Just because his conclusions are identical to those of Reformation heretics does not mean that his views are rooted in theirs. I think his views are rooted in only Catholic sources, and his own unpleasant perceptions of the phenomena.

The gifts and miracles of God the Holy Spirit happen today, and have happened through out Church history. To deny this simply denies your basic facts, the data.

Well, this is easy, and the explanation has been forwarded successfully several times. The “facts” and “data” can be blamed on human error and emotionalism and the devil.

I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be such fierce opposition to the claim that the Holy Spirit still works in wondrous and miraculous ways today, as He has always done. Jesus Christ is the same forever.

I don’t see Irish opposing this at all. A person can completely object to the CCR as valid,a nd yet affirm that the HS still works in wondrous and miraculous ways today. They just don’t think it happens the same way we do.

 

[lorilee11]

I was raised Pentecostal and this is what my Church believes to this day…
(I have spoken in tougues as God gave me the utterance…not on my own, but as God (the Holy Spirit) spoke through me…I was simply united with God either like a one on one converstation or where is spoke through me (like he spoke through the donkey)…just a vessel, if you will…
Hope this helps you!
(PART 1)

** Introduction **
He was a deacon in a fashionable church, but he did not believe in the Pentecostal doctrine relative to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Yet he had been exposed to that belief through members of his immediate family. One night, at the close of an Evangelistic service in an Apostolic church, he went forward to pray and was overwhelmingly filled with the Spirit of God. He spoke in other tongues fluently and was so inundated in the Spirit that even hours later he could not speak English. Definitely, this was a biblical experience accompanied not only by speaking in another tongue, but also by the joy and peace of the Holy Ghost.
Millions have experienced this same baptism in the Spirit. Wherever this message is proclaimed, the question is asked, “Why did God choose speaking in tongues as the initial, physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost?” There may be many answers to this question, and perhaps we do not know them all. Several key points are apparent, however.

The Sovereignty of God
First, we must recognize that God is not accountable to us for what He chooses to do. Isaiah asked, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13-14). We have no license to question God’s ways or to dispute His actions. His purposes are supreme, His promises sure, His performances sane and sensible. The following passages of Scripture, when studied prayerfully with a hungry heart and an open mind, show that there is a definite connection between speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Ghost: Isaiah 28:11-12; Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 10:44-46; 19:6; Romans 8:15-16; Galatians 4:6.
Why did God choose blood as the basis for atonement? Why did God choose water as the element in baptism? Why did God choose gold as the overlaying metal for the ark of the covenant? Why did God choose stone as the material upon which to record the Ten Commandments? Why did God choose Jerusalem as the site for the Temple? Why did God choose dust out of which to form mankind? There is divine purpose behind these choices, although we may not understand all the reasons. We certainly cannot deny or disavow God’s sovereign right to do as He pleases and to choose what He wishes.

An Immediate, External Evidence
One vital reason why God chose other tongues as the initial sign of receiving the Holy Ghost is that speaking in tongues is an immediate, external evidence. There are many other evidences of the operation of the Spirit of God in a person’s life, but it is a matter of time before they are manifest. For example, the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23 follows in the wake of the spiritual infilling.
Peter and the six Jewish Christians who went with him to Caesarea knew that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost, not because of longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, or temperance, but because they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God (Acts 10:46). Peter specifically pointed to speaking in tongues as the irrefutable evidence (Acts 10:46-47).
Speaking in tongues is an outward, external evidence, instantly observable and heard. By contrast, peace, joy, righteousness, and spiritual fruit are inward, internal results of the infilling that become evident with the passing of time.

A Uniform Evidence
Another reason why God chose other tongues as the initial sign of receiving the Spirit is that speaking in tongues is a uniform evidence. It applies to everyone, regardless of race, culture, or language.
Some people quote I Corinthians 12:30 in an attempt to prove that not all speak in tongues when they are filled with the Spirit: “Do all speak with tongues?” However, this verse refers to the gift of tongues, that is, speaking a public message in tongues to be interpreted for the congregation, which is a spiritual gift that a person may exercise subsequent to the infilling of the Spirit. Though both tongues as the inital evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and tongues as a later spiritual gift are the same in essence, they are different in administration and operation. For example, the regulations regarding the gift of tongues in I Corinthians 14:27-28 did not apply to the conversion accounts in Acts, where many people spoke in tongues simultaneously, without interpretation, as the sign of being filled with the Spirit.
Some people may question this distinction between the initial use of tongues at the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the later use of tongues as a spiritual gift in a Christian’s life. But the same distinction is apparent with regard to faith. To be saved, everyone must have faith (John 3:16; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 2:8). Yet I Corinthians 12:9 reveals that there is a special, supernatural gift of faith that can operate in a Spirit-filled person’s life over and beyond the faith necessary for salvation. Saving faith and the spiritual gift of faith are the same in essence but different in administration and operation.

 

[lorilee11]

(Part 2)

In speaking about the birth of the Spirit, Jesus emphasized the uniformity of the experience: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). Moreover, Jesus placed emphasis upon the accompanying sound, not on sight or feeling. The sound of the wind blowing is evidence of its presence.
Some people conclude that Jesus referred only to “the sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind” on the Day of Pentecost. But this sound of wind is never mentioned again in the later accounts of receiving the Holy Ghost, while speaking in tongues is. Speaking in tongues by itself caused the Jewish Christians to recognize that the experience of the Gentiles at Caesarea was identical to theirs on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 10:44-47; 11:15-17). Hence, the important, conclusive evidence of the Spirit’s manifestation at Pentecost was speaking in other tongues. The sound of wind was impersonal, but the speaking was personal. Speaking in tongues was the first evidence of each individual infilling.

At Caesarea all who heard the Word were filled, and all who heard the Word spoke in tongues. If some of them had not spoken in tongues, would the Jewish Christians have accepted their experiences? Clearly not. All twelve men mentioned in Acts 19:6 had a uniform experience. If ten of the twelve had spoken in tongues and the other two had not, would Paul have believed that the two had received the Holy Ghost just as the ten? Certainly not. Paul would not have accepted their experience if they have failed to exhibit the uniform evidence.

A Symbol of Complete Control
Speaking in tongues symbolizes God’s complete control of the believer. Perhaps this is one of the strongest reasons why God chose speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This symbolism becomes apparent when we study James 3, which provides more information on the tongue than any other chapter in the New Testament.

First, the tongue is capable of defiling the whole body. If so, is it incredible to claim that the tongue is also capable of symbolizing the sanctification of the whole body?

Second, though the tongue is a smaller member, it has never been tamed by humanity. It is the most unruly member of the body. If so, is it not necessary for the tongue to be tamed before the whole body can be consecrated to God? James illustrates the importance of the tongue by comparing it to the bit in a horse’s mouth, which gives the rider complete control over the horse, and to the helm of a large ship, which gives the pilot full command of the vessel. In other words, whoever controls the tongue of a person controls him. And a person cannot tame his tongue by himself; only God can tame it for him.

According to Matthew 12:29, before someone can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, he must first bind the strong man. The strong man of our house is the tongue. We can tame every member of the body but this one. When God tames a person’s tongue, that person comes under God’s full control. He is in the hands of the Almighty. He has been conquered by Christ, endued with a spiritual force from on high, and empowered for God’s service.

Humanity’s Greatest Expression
The tongue provides the greatest expressions of the human spirit. We humans are spiritual and emotional beings, and as such we must give expression to our emotions. The ability and power to coordinate thought and tongue into intelligent speech is one of our highest prerogatives, elevating us above the beasts of the field. This ability makes us superior to the rest of God’s creation on earth, and it is the most distinguishing feature of our being.

The tongue becomes the vehicle of expression for the spirit. All of the emotions–such as love, hate, anger, sorrow, joy, happiness, relief, serenity–are communicated through the tongue. The tongue is the gate way to the heart, feelings, attitudes, and spirit.

Conclusion
In light of these truths, it is not difficult to see why God has chosen speaking in tongues to express the greatest, most wonderful experience that we mortal humans can receive. In the baptism of the Holy Ghost, His Spirit and our spirit become one. He uses our tongue and voice to express this union. It is a wonder of wonders, chosen not by humans, but by God, the sovereign ruler of the universe.

Why fight against Him? Believe His Word, accept what He says, and you too can be baptized with the Holy Ghost, for God will give the Holy Spirit to all who repent and ask in faith (Luke 11:13; Acts 2:38-39).

 

[guanophore]

I was raised Pentecostal and this is what my Church believes to this day…
(I have spoken in tougues as God gave me the utterance…not on my own, but as God (the Holy Spirit) spoke through me…I was simply united with God either like a one on one converstation or where is spoke through me (like he spoke through the donkey)…just a vessel, if you will…
Hope this helps you!
(PART 1)

Thanks for joining the thread, lorilee. Since you are new, you may not have read the forum rules, so maybe now would be a good time? Cutting and pasting like this is forbidden by the rules. You can post the link to the site where members can go read it, and you can use parts of it in your reply, but you must cite your source (give the address of the website from where it was copied).

This particular article is used on a number of Pentecostal sites. As long as they are not anti-Catholic you can put the link here.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Irish Polock,

You will forgive me, but as yet you have produced no substantial document that claims that the gifts are no longer for this age, and that they have necessarily ceased to exist beyond a quote from the Baltimore Catechism. What you quote from the Catechism of Trent merely says that they ceased when there was a maturity in faith. There is not a maturity in the faith today, and there has not been in various times in the Church.

I forgive you.

I find it odd that you do not feel that I have supplied any substantial documentation. I have put forth Saint, Doctors of the Church, Catechisms, theologians and Popes.

You and I will have to agree to disagree with concerns of the Catechism of Trent (which was propagated by decree via the Council of Trent).

For some time in the beginning of the Church, whenever these Sacraments were administered by the Apostles, the same miraculous effects were witnessed, and they ceased only when the faith had acquired maturity and strength. (The Catechism of Trent 2000)

If one was to look at the above quote honestly, it is hard to come to any other conclusion then these specific gifts might have” ceased when the faith had acquired maturity and strength. “ The current CCC has gone into more depth in concerns of charism’s, although, it remains ambiguous on the specifics of each charism.

So I studied our Sacred Scripture for any clues that might help me discern this juxtaposition.

1 Corinthians 13; 8-13 states:

8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1Corinthians (RSV) 13)

I am naturally drawn to “as for tongues, they will cease;” this clearly tells me tongues will eventually cease. Yet, although the cessation of tongues is clear, scripture is ambiguous as to when it might occur. Moreover, the verse dose not state weather tongues could cease temporarily and return intermediately. Since St. Paul main concern here was the elevation of love - as the most superior gift - St. Paul had put little weight on tongues. Nevertheless, there are some clues as to what St Paul meant by the phrase “they will cease”.

Paul chose different Greek words for the cessation of tongues that he did for the cessation of prophecy and knowledge The Greek word for “cease” is pauomai where as the Greek word for “done away’ is katargeo. I assume this choice of verbiage is deliberate. The word Katargeo refers to a non-physical destruction by means of a superior power coming in to replace the power previously in effect. (as in Hb 2:14; 2Tm 1:10; 2Th 2:8, in 1Corinthians, 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 15:24, 26) Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 13:8 katargeo is in the Greek Passive voice, which means that the superior force is acting directly upon prophecy and knowledge in order to replace them.

Pauomai means to stop or cease, usually immediately. (as in Lk 5:4; 8:24; Ac 20:1; 1Pt 3:10; 4:1) This suggest that tongues will have an abrupt end. It will not linger for some time, then fade away gradually. It will be here one day then gone the next, as it were. This conclusion agrees with the testimony of the early fathers who wrote that, except for fringe reports of tongues, the gift had ceased already by the time of their writings.

The gifts are around today

And I agree, these gifts will remain until the end of time, although, scripture and the early Church Fathers have seemingly spoken quite clearly on the gift of tongues. However, I see no reason why tongues could not reappear after the apostolic age, at the Holy Spirits discretion. I feel , when used properly, tongues were a means to preach the gospel, as is plainly evident when the apostles spoke in tongues at Pentecost to men from 15 different nations who heard gods word in their own language.

 

[Irish_Polock]

, and to deny this flies in the face of what other Church documents - even more authoritative - have claimed. Furthermore, if you criticize us as being heterodox in this matter, you also criticize the last two Popes who have both said on explicit occasions that what the Bible tells us of the charisms are no longer ancient past history, but a burning reality alive today (to quote Pope Benedict, see the Ratzinger Report). I stand with the Popes. If you consider their views heterodox, then so be it.

While I would be the first to admit that I am indeed critical of BJPII, and to a lesser extent our current Holy Father, however, I don’t fell that his statement is contradictory of my own thoughts on the subject. That particular statement does not address any specific charism, it only brushes a broad stroke over charisms, the apparent ambiguity is begging the question.

And furthermore, your argument is, if you’ll forgive me, just plain stupid. Your cessassionistic view of the working of the Holy Spirit is rooted in Reformation theology, and clearly contradicts the reality. The gifts and miracles of God the Holy Spirit happen today, and have happened through out Church history. To deny this simply denies your basic facts, the data.

I assure you, Vardaquinn, I rarely - if ever - use protestant theology to “make a case” in a conversation with a fellow Catholic. Also, I wouldn’t call myself a “cessationist” in the proper definition of the word. I am more of a prudent skeptic. The way I see the Catholic view is; that it maintains that private revelation has not ceased, nor have private manifestations of miracles, prophecies, visions, or any other authentic divine gift In other words, the gifts of the Holy Spirit remain intact, albeit some of them may not be as common as in the early days of the Church, since some gifts perhaps fell into disuse as circumstances demand. The Church’s only stipulation is that anything of private origin will not be required necessary for belief, but can be used for edification and devotion if officially approved by the Church. Although, on that same token, the Church warns that the demonic world continues its own supernatural activity, such that miracles, prophecies and tongues may be mimicked by forces opposed to God and his Church. Additionally, the Church has certainly not ruled out that claims to private revelations may be the product of an individuals over-active imagination. Which of these three sources is at work at any one time is a matter that the Magisterium of the Church decides when appropriate, yet she does so only in a small percentage of reported cases.

I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be such fierce opposition to the claim that the Holy Spirit still works in wondrous and miraculous ways today, as He has always done. Jesus Christ is the same forever.

I look at tongues from - what I believe to be - the proper biblical perspective, which is: That the New Testament does not regard tongues as a prominent gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter books of the New Testament do not even mention the gift of tongues. This is clearly evident in the listings of spiritual gifts and offices (Rm 12:4-8; Ep 4:11; Gl 5:22; 1Pt 4:7-11; 1Tm 4:14; 2Tm 1:6) This suggests that the gift of tongues was already ceasing during the apostolic times, which coincides with the consensus from the Fathers of the Church. Indeed, tongues is the only gift that the New Testament specifies will “cease” at some point in time. Yet, even when tongues are considered positive and viable, they are classed as one of the least important spiritual gifts (1Co 14: 1-25). Also, In the book of Acts, which contains the most instances of tongue-speech, tongues are only spoken by three groups of people: the twelve apostles, Cornelius, and the twelve Ephesians. In Acts 2, the 3000 converts at Pentecost are not said to speak in tongues, nor the 5000 believers of Acts 4:4. At Corith, St. Paul gave strict instructions that only two or three could speak in tongues at any given assembly, which would be a small percentage compared to the actual numbers in the congregation, this would seem to contradict modern statistics of those whom are involved in the charismatic movement.

Although the New Testament does not specify that the gifts of tongues would no longer be manifested in the Church before the return of Christ, it severely warns against any illicit elevation of tongues over the other gifts, and warns in no uncertain terms, that a mass proliferation of tongues is a sign of unbelief. Although, when used legitimately, tongues remains a gift of God, nevertheless history shows that legitimate tongue - speaking is a rare occurrence. It is a gift given to exclusive people in very selected instances. Conversely, in the modern movement, tongue-speaking is advertised with a very high-profile of acceptability and accessibility. Underneath this profile however, there is an almost total disregard for the biblical directives regarding tongue speaking, which in itself indicates an illicit origin. From what I have read, the preponderance of research shows that the modern glossolalia is self-generated and learned experience, showing all signs of classic psychologically induced phenomenon which relies solely on the vast pool of information already stored in the linguistic background of the speaker.(Smith, Charles R. Tongues in Biblical Perspective, 1972) Coupling this with the fact that tongues speech is common in many pagan religions, cults, and heretical groups, which produce tongues in unique states of hyper-arousal and mental dissociation, one must conclude that most modern tongues speech is far removed from the legitimate gift described in the New Testament.

 

[Mickey]

Although the New Testament does not specify that the gifts of tongues would no longer be manifested in the Church before the return of Christ, it severely warns against any illicit elevation of tongues over the other gifts, and warns in no uncertain terms, that a mass proliferation of tongues is a sign of unbelief. Although, when used legitimately, tongues remains a gift of God, nevertheless history shows that legitimate tongue - speaking is a rare occurrence. It is a gift given to exclusive people in very selected instances. Conversely, in the modern movement, tongue-speaking is advertised with a very high-profile of acceptability and accessibility. Underneath this profile however, there is an almost total disregard for the biblical directives regarding tongue speaking, which in itself indicates an illicit origin. From what I have read, the preponderance of research shows that the modern glossolalia is self-generated and learned experience, showing all signs of classic psychologically induced phenomenon which relies solely on the vast pool of information already stored in the linguistic background of the speaker.(Smith, Charles R. Tongues in Biblical Perspective, 1972) Coupling this with the fact that tongues speech is common in many pagan religions, cults, and heretical groups, which produce tongues in unique states of hyper-arousal and mental dissociation, one must conclude that most modern tongues speech is far removed from the legitimate gift described in the New Testament.

“This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more”?
St John Chrysostom

 

[1voice]

“This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more”?
St John Chrysostom

The simple answer is that the gifts of the Holy Spirit dont just automatically happen. Paul said “seek the gifts” He also admonished Timothy to “stir up” the gifts. Active participation is required. The gift of tongues happens today all over the world where people are hungry for and actively seek God’s gift.

500 people were present when Jesus said to wait for the Holy Spirit … 120 were still waiting when it happened. The others, for what ever reasons, did not receive because they did not follow the instructions. Same with every gift.

 

[Mickey]

The gift of tongues happens today all over the world .

As St John has indicated…the gift is obscure…and has all but ceased.

St Augustine regarded speaking in tongues as a gift reserved for only the New Testament era Church. He argued that this was evident from the fact that his contemporaries did not see people receiving that gift in their own day. Notice how he refers to the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation) and Baptism.

In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues”, which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance”. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when he laid the hand on infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so strong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him.
St Augustine of Hippo

 

[guanophore]

I look at tongues from - what I believe to be - the proper biblical perspective,…

Thank you for your informative post.

… the New Testament warns in no uncertain terms, that a mass proliferation of tongues is a sign of unbelief.

Can you please elucidate on this, or give some references? I am afraid you lost me on this point.

Underneath this profile however, there is an almost total disregard for the biblical directives regarding tongue speaking, which in itself indicates an illicit origin.

I don’t think abuse or disobedience in the use of the gift means that the gift is not from divine origin. One would not say that the Eucharist is of “illicit origin” because there were instances of liturgical abuse or outright disobedience related to it.

 

[gtrenewed]

As St John has indicated…the gift is obscure…and has all but ceased.

St Augustine regarded speaking in tongues as a gift reserved for only the New Testament era Church. He argued that this was evident from the fact that his contemporaries did not see people receiving that gift in their own day. Notice how he refers to the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation) and Baptism.

In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues”, which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance”. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when he laid the hand on infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so strong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him.
St Augustine of Hippo

It is the opinion of the pope and magesterium following Vat2 as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that tongues has not ceased.

St. Augustine was very much biased against what he called the “ecstatics”. He sought to rid the church of those who practiced the gifts being instead in favor of an intellectual approach to learning the faith. They both should be used.

If you listen to the Confirmation prayers it is clear that it is not the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit found in scripture and prayed for by the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. You get what you pray for in faith when it is the will of God. In response to the popes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a renewed outpouring of the Holy Spirit with all His gifts and charisms has been granted by the Father and the Son.

 

[guanophore]

If you listen to the Confirmation prayers it is clear that it is not the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit found in scripture and prayed for by the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. You get what you pray for in faith when it is the will of God.

What do you think is different?

 

[Mickey]

It is the opinion of the pope and magesterium following Vat2 as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that tongues has not ceased.

I would not say ceased completely…I would say very rare and obscure.

St. Augustine was very much biased

St Augustine was very wise.

If you listen to the Confirmation prayers it is clear that it is not the same as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit found in scripture and prayed for by the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

I believe the CCR is nothing more than the pentecostal potestants…repackaged.

 

[ltwin]

John Chrysostom also writes:

What now can be more awful than these things? For in truth the Church was a heaven then, the Spirit governing all things, and moving each one of the rulers and making him inspired. But now we retain only the symbols of those gifts. For now also we speak two or three, and in turn, and when one is silent, another begins. But these are only signs and memorials of those things. Wherefore when we begin to speak, the people respond, “with your Spirit ,” indicating that of old they thus used to speak, not of their own wisdom, but moved by the Spirit. But not so now: (I speak of my own case so far.) But the present Church is like a woman who has fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity; displaying indeed the repositories and caskets of her golden ornaments, but bereft of her wealth: such an one does the present Church resemble. And I say not this in respect of gifts: for it were nothing marvelous if it were this only: but in respect also of life and virtue.

Maybe this is what the CCR longs to renew.

 

[Mickey]

Maybe this is what the CCR longs to renew.

Renew? Explain. It looks like St John is talking about the Divine Liturgy here.