Speaking in tongues?

[sedonaman]

That is ok, since it is not for sale.

I have done this. I have found all my answers in Scripture, the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II and statements from the Popes and the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith.

This is a false assumption. Further, you will find that this position contradicts what the Church teaches. It is part of the Doctrine of the Faith, that is why you will find no Magesterial document that teaches otherwise.

You have misunderstood the gift of the HolySpirit. People dont’ “introduce an unknown language”. God does this. Nothing the Holy Spirit does is divisive.

I agree, we are all to walk by the Spirit,and to pray in the Spirit without ceasing. Unfortunately, there are many people who do not do this, or don’t know how to do this. I am glad you are not in need of extra help to have a strong spiritual walk, but please do not denigrate your brothers and sisters who need more of God’s grace to do this than you do.

In some circles, you are right, there is an exclusivity practiced. This is not Catholic, and is an abuse of God’s gifts. It is seen among our separated brethren, especially those who have rejected the Teaching of the Magesterium on how these gifts are to be used.

God’s “gift”? See Genesis, 11:5-9, [esp. 11:9]. usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Genesis&ch=11,

 

[cruiseladytexas]

As a lay person, I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that many are confusing the gifts of tongues and of prophesy and between speaking in tongues in private prayer and in public. St Paul distinguished between them. I also see the Bible quotes throughout this and other threads on various subjects. But many times there is only one verse from an entire chapter, with no context around it, which we all know is not a proper way to interpret a Bible chapter.

So, it seems that the only way to understand how the gift of tongues is properly used, would be to read 1COR14 in it’s entirety and to follow Paul’s instruction regarding using it privately,or publicly with interpretation. In other chapters tongues are spoken of as a gift, or in historical context, but only Paul has given us instruction on how to use the gift.

So, I understood from the chapter that prophesy is a much better gift and will raise up the entire community, that tongues should be used publicly only if interpreted to uplift non-believers. Tongues not interpreted should be used in private prayer. It also seems that Paul favored praying both with spirit and mind and that tongues, while a proper gift, only allows one to pray in the spirit and provides no fruit to the mind.

What really confuses me is that a charismatic congregation who believes in sola scriptura often and inevitably fail to adhere to Paul’s teaching. I have witnessed instances in which several people would loudly proclaiming unknown utterances in tongues, all at the same time, with no interpretation. I have questioned people about this contradiction, but have never gotten an answer.

 

[gtrenewed]

As a lay person, I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems that many are confusing the gifts of tongues and of prophesy and between speaking in tongues in private prayer and in public. St Paul distinguished between them. I also see the Bible quotes throughout this and other threads on various subjects. But many times there is only one verse from an entire chapter, with no context around it, which we all know is not a proper way to interpret a Bible chapter.

So, it seems that the only way to understand how the gift of tongues is properly used, would be to read 1COR14 in it’s entirety and to follow Paul’s instruction regarding using it privately,or publicly with interpretation. In other chapters tongues are spoken of as a gift, or in historical context, but only Paul has given us instruction on how to use the gift.

So, I understood from the chapter that prophesy is a much better gift and will raise up the entire community, that tongues should be used publicly only if interpreted to uplift non-believers. Tongues not interpreted should be used in private prayer. It also seems that Paul favored praying both with spirit and mind and that tongues, while a proper gift, only allows one to pray in the spirit and provides no fruit to the mind.

What really confuses me is that a charismatic congregation who believes in sola scriptura often and inevitably fail to adhere to Paul’s teaching. I have witnessed instances in which several people would loudly proclaiming unknown utterances in tongues, all at the same time, with no interpretation. I have questioned people about this contradiction, but have never gotten an answer.

First, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal emphasises the use of the bible but does not believe in sola scriptura.
Why do you say “inevitably fail…”? While we all fail at times, there is nothing inevitable about the incorrect use of tongues. All charismatic meetings should have experienced leadership to keep order and answer questions.
No matter what, the incorrect use of tongues by anyone does not invalidate tongues. If you are drawn to the renewal keep asking with grace in your heart. If not, then give it up to the Lord for He will deal with them just as He dealt with the Corinthians through Paul.

 

[cruiseladytexas]

I was not speaking of Charismatic Catholic churches in my questions. I was speaking of evangelical protestant church; I think I mispoke. I used the word Charismatic just in reference to speaking in tongues. The service I attended was basically non-denominational so I did not know what to call it.

I am not trying to be judgemental about tongues, it’s just that we don’t know that the words are even from G-d if no one interprets them. It seems that they could be blaspheming the congregation without knowing it If it is babel, perhaps it is not from G-d. Jesus warned of false prophets in sheeps clothing. If it can be interpreted; if it is actually a language that someone could understand, it falls in line with what the Bible says is tongues. If not, no one knows. It was always used so that an unbeliever could understand in his native language, except when Paul prayed in the spirit in private.

When people refer to Pentacost, and compare modern tongues to the Pentacost, don’t they have the act without the miracles (no rushing wind nor tongues of fire)?

So, I would be very careful to do it properly.

 

[guanophore]

God’s “gift”? See Genesis, 11:5-9, [e
sp. 11:9]. usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Genesis&ch=11,

This is a good reference, sedonaman. The Gift of Tongues that comes from the Holy Spirit is a mending of the separation that occurred at Babel. This is clearly demonstrated in the book of Acts, when each one that heard thought it was in his own language.

The Magesterium teaches that the gift of tongues is still valid today as it was when the book of Acts was written.

What makes you think the promise of Jesus is “expired”?

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

 

[gtrenewed]

I was not speaking of Charismatic Catholic churches in my questions. I was speaking of evangelical protestant church; I think I mispoke. I used the word Charismatic just in reference to speaking in tongues. The service I attended was basically non-denominational so I did not know what to call it.

I am not trying to be judgemental about tongues, it’s just that we don’t know that the words are even from G-d if no one interprets them. It seems that they could be blaspheming the congregation without knowing it If it is babel, perhaps it is not from G-d. Jesus warned of false prophets in sheeps clothing. If it can be interpreted; if it is actually a language that someone could understand, it falls in line with what the Bible says is tongues. If not, no one knows. It was always used so that an unbeliever could understand in his native language, except when Paul prayed in the spirit in private.

When people refer to Pentacost, and compare modern tongues to the Pentacost, don’t they have the act without the miracles (no rushing wind nor tongues of fire)?

So, I would be very careful to do it properly.

In Acts chapter 10, following the preaching of Peter, Cornelius’ household spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit fell upon them. At this point the house was filled with believers so your claim that tongues is always used for unbelievers is incorrect. Does this make you a false prophet? No, you are just incorrect. If a tongue is not interpretted in a meeting that should be means that someone was incorrect about what the Spirit was doing. To automatically assume they are a false prophet is judgemental.

In a charismatic catholic prayer meeting, oftentimes praise is offered in tongues by the whole group. Like in Cornelius’ house these tongues are not meant for interpretation since they are offered to God. When tongues are from God to the group, that is when they are interpretted. From your post it is clear that you do not have a good grasp on what biblical tongues include.

Pentecost was Pentecost. If you read Acts you will see the Holy Spirit coming on believers without the miracles, as you put it, that occured at Pentecost, except for tongues.

Finally, why are you using “G-d”?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t buy any of this.

That’s ok, because it is not for sale.

Just ask yourself what theological purpose it serves. “Speaking in tongues” probably had a different meaning in Biblical times.

You know, I have found, after many decades of asking myself (and answering myself) that I am not really the best source on such matters. I have decided instead to go with what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith teaches on matters of faith and morals.

Nothing unifies like language, and the early Church was obviously striving for unity at a most crucial time, as it is even today. Introducing an unknown language would only serve to divide.

I agree.

But the languages used by the Holy spirit are not “new”. Nor are they “introduced” by some human source.

It could even be a redundant phrase, sorta like saying, “walking with feet.” How else would you walk?

It seems like you are really spinning hard to deny that the Pentecostal gifts of the Holy Spirit are still valid today. This is not necessary. If you do not wish to receive or use the Gifts that God has given to you, you don’t have to.

In addition, I suspect this is nothing more than an attempt to gain some prestige through membership in an exclusive club by excluding non-“speakers-in-tongues”.

I think this definitely happens amoung groups that have embraced heresies. This is not part of Catholic Teaching though.

 

[guanophore]

I was not speaking of Charismatic Catholic churches in my questions. I was speaking of evangelical protestant church; I think I mispoke. I used the word Charismatic just in reference to speaking in tongues. The service I attended was basically non-denominational so I did not know what to call it.

I am not trying to be judgemental about tongues, it’s just that we don’t know that the words are even from G-d if no one interprets them. It seems that they could be blaspheming the congregation without knowing it If it is babel, perhaps it is not from G-d. Jesus warned of false prophets in sheeps clothing. If it can be interpreted; if it is actually a language that someone could understand, it falls in line with what the Bible says is tongues. If not, no one knows. It was always used so that an unbeliever could understand in his native language, except when Paul prayed in the spirit in private.

When people refer to Pentacost, and compare modern tongues to the Pentacost, don’t they have the act without the miracles (no rushing wind nor tongues of fire)?

So, I would be very careful to do it properly.

There are many of our separated brethren that do not follow the Apostolic instructions for the use of this gift. This may be because they are false, but usually it is because they are improperly catechized.

There are also many varieties of tongues, not all of them meant to be interpreted.

1 Cor 14:3-4
4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself…

1 Cor 14:2-3
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

This kind is to be used privately, and not publicly in a meeting.

 

[sedonaman]

…
You know, I have found, after many decades of asking myself (and answering myself) that I am not really the best source on such matters. I have decided instead to go with what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith teaches on matters of faith and morals.

I read over your link, and I did not see the words “tongues” or “speak” in it. So, I don’t see what a secret language has to do with faith and morals. Not only was it never mentioned as an article of faith in any of the Catechism classes I attended, it was it never mentioned at all. If it is as big a deal as you seem to believe, one would think it would deserve at least a footnote.

But the languages used by the Holy spirit are not “new”. Nor are they “introduced” by some human source.

So what are they? No one can seem to answer that.

Look. I believe the Holy Spirit gave the first Apostles the ability to speak foreign languages so they could spread the gospel outside the immediate area of Israel, which MAKES SENSE [God being a God of reason]. Making people click and clack their tongues serves no purpose at all.

It seems like you are really spinning hard to deny that the Pentecostal gifts of the Holy Spirit are still valid today. This is not necessary. If you do not wish to receive or use the Gifts that God has given to you, you don’t have to. …

You are one doing the spinning to confuse the discussion by moving off on tangents and using figures of speech not relevant. For example, I used the analogy of walking [literally] with feet; you said we must always walk in the ways of the Lord, which means something entirely different, and irrelevant. Same with introducing the gifts God gave me, another subject completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, “speaking in tongues.”

I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere, so I will not waste any more time and end it here.

 

[vardaquinn]

So what are they? No one can seem to answer that.

Real languages.

Look. I believe the Holy Spirit gave the first Apostles the ability to speak foreign languages so they could spread the gospel outside the immediate area of Israel, which MAKES SENSE [God being a God of reason]. Making people click and clack their tongues serves no purpose at all.

Sure, but that’s not what tongues is. It’s either a form of instruction in a language one hasn’t studied, or it’s praying in a language one’s never studied.

 

[guanophore]

I read over your link, and I did not see the words "tongues" or "speak" in it. So, I don't see what a secret language has to do with faith and morals.

Praying in tongues is not “secret”. It is mystical. Mystical things exist in the supernatural realm. that does not make them “secret”, it just means that they sometimes do not follow human laws of science or logic.

The link was to a talk given by Father Cantelamessa, who has been the preacher for the Papal household since 1980. He is a charismatic, and prays in tongues. Do you really think that the last two Popes would have retained him if they thought he was full of hogwash?

The charismatic gifts are affirmed and supported by the Magesterium.

Not only was it never mentioned as an article of faith in any of the Catechism classes I attended, it was it never mentioned at all. If it is as big a deal as you seem to believe, one would think it would deserve at least a footnote.

What gave you the impression that I thought it was “a big deal”? However, I do think the catechesis has been poor on the charismatic gifts. They were not covered in my Catechism classes either. The Renewal is correcting this imbalance of instruction, and the Life in the Spirit seminars introduce the baptized to the gifts.

So what are they? No one can seem to answer that.

We don’t always know - that is why it is a mystery.

Sometimes they are languages that can be identified, sometimes they are languages that have not been used for centuries. Sometimes they are not identifiable at all.

Look. I believe the Holy Spirit gave the first Apostles the ability to speak foreign languages so they could spread the gospel outside the immediate area of Israel, which MAKES SENSE [God being a God of reason]. Making people click and clack their tongues serves no purpose at all.

If you read the text, it is clear that the Apostles were at Pentecost extolling God. It does not say they spoke any other languages. It says the listeners could HEAR in their own languages. I agree that clicking and clacking one’s tongue would serve no purpose at all. I strongly suggest you avoid such behavior.

 You are one doing the spinning to confuse the discussion by moving off on tangents and using figures of speech not relevant. For example, I used the analogy of walking [literally] with feet; you said we must always walk in the ways of the Lord, which means something entirely different, and irrelevant. Same with introducing the gifts God gave me, another subject completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread,  “speaking in tongues.”

I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere, so I will not waste any more time and end it here.

This is probably for the best. One cannot receive the gifts of God if one:

1. Does not believe they are valid
2. Does not accept the Teaching of the Church
3. Is recalcitrant about learning

 

[InDefense]

I have a question.

In Acts 8, the Samaritans had believed, been baptised in water, yet the text describes that they had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. How did anyone know that they didn’t have the Holy Spirit ?

 

[guanophore]

I have a question.

In Acts 8, the Samaritans had believed, been baptised in water, yet the text describes that they had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. How did anyone know that they didn’t have the Holy Spirit ?

I have seen this get explained away easily by those who say the sign of tongues was only for the Apostolic age.

 

[InDefense]

I have seen this get explained away easily by those who say the sign of tongues was only for the Apostolic age.

Why explain it away ? Has knowledge passed away ? No. Therefore, tongues have not ceased. If tongues have not ceased, then how did they know that the Samaritans didn’t have the Holy Spirit ?

 

[guanophore]

Why explain it away ? Has knowledge passed away ? No. Therefore, tongues have not ceased. If tongues have not ceased, then how did they know that the Samaritans didn’t have the Holy Spirit ?

The NT is clear that tongues will cease when the perfect comes, which is thought to be the New Testament.

Besides, the theory that the Gifts were for the Apostolic Age only includes the Samaritans, because the Apostles were still alive at the time.

Like Apostolic Authority, the Gifts are thought to have died with them. They are no longer needed today, since we have the Bible.

 

[InDefense]

The NT is clear that tongues will cease when the perfect comes, which is thought to be the New Testament.

Besides, the theory that the Gifts were for the Apostolic Age only includes the Samaritans, because the Apostles were still alive at the time.

Like Apostolic Authority, the Gifts are thought to have died with them. They are no longer needed today, since we have the Bible.

No. That which is perfect is not the New Testament. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians after the New Testament came into force, otherwise Paul would never have been saved in the way that he was, and he wrote about the gift of tongues. That which is perfect is more likely to be Jesus Christ !

1 Corinthians 13:
8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Has knowledge ceased ? No. Then that which is in part has not been done away with yet.

12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Paul knew in part at the time of writing this letter.

Two statements have been made:

1. tongues have ceased because the New Testament has arrived, which is false.
2. The statement that the gifts ceased when the apostles passed away, is without basis.

 

[guanophore]

The statement that the gifts ceased when the apostles passed away, is without basis.

This assertion can be supported by the writings of the doctors of the Church.

 

[gtrenewed]

This assertion can be supported by the writings of the doctors of the Church.

Some of the doctors but not all.

Others, including saints, the catechism, and current leadership, say that the gifts have not passed away.

 

[guanophore]

Some of the doctors but not all.

Others, including saints, the catechism, and current leadership, say that the gifts have not passed away.

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”.

 

[gtrenewed]

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”.

I suppose it does but what they miss is that “it” is a relationship not a movement. I suppose that if enough “its” get together “it” becomes a movement.

We are all trying to relate to and experience the mystery that is God. What has been revealed to the generations before us forms the foundation upon which we build our relationship.

It is a misunderstanding that the gifts were just a sign for outsiders and thus when outsiders had material to read these gifts were no longer needed. However, these gifts are part of the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit meant to keep the legacy of Jesus’ walk on earth alive until He returns. These gifts are a portion of our inheritance from God, of which tongues is just a part.

One thing to keep in mind is that there was plenty of material to read in every synagogue. St. Paul contended that if outsiders wanted to relate to God they had ample opportunity in the old covenant. To relate to and experience God is the essence of the new covenant, a part of which are the gifts.