Speaking in tongues?

[ltwin]

Clearly he does.

I am not sure what else to say, Mickey. The part I bolded, a quote from Chrysostom, is what needs to be renewed.

Indeed. The quote is very clear.

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.

John Chrysostom indeed may have seen the gifts cease in his time and his place. However, he is not satisfied with their ceasing. He is not content to let them pass. He mourns their cessation. And he feels as if the Church has lost something very important. He likens the Church of his age as “a woman who has fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity.” This is not a flattering picture. It is not how it is suppose to be. If you read further, he goes on to say that it is not just the gifts that have been allowed to cease, but also life and virtue of the Church is not where it should be either.

Thus the list of her widows, and the choir of her virgins, then gave great ornament to the churches: but now she is made desolate and void, and the tokens only remain. There are indeed widows now, there are also virgins; but they retain not that adornment which women should have who prepare themselves for such wrestlings. For the special distinction of the virgin is the caring for the things of God alone, and the waiting on Him without distraction: and the widow’s mark too should be not so much the not engaging in a second marriage, as the other things, charity to the poor, hospitality, continuing instant in prayers, all those other things, which Paul writing to Timothy requires with great exactness. One may see also the married women exhibiting among us great seemliness. But this is not the only thing required, but rather that sedulous attention to the needy, through which those women of old shone out most brightly. Not as the generality now-a-days. For then instead of gold they were clothed with the fair array of almsgiving: but now, having left off this, they are decked out on every side with cords of gold woven of the chain of their sins.

Shall I speak of another repository too emptied of its hereditary splendor? They all met together in old time and sang psalms in common. This we do also now: but then among all was there one soul and one heart: but now not in one single soul can one see that unanimity, rather great is the warfare every where.

Peace, even now, to all, he that presides in the Church prays for, entering as it were into his Father’s house: but of this peace the name is frequent, but the reality no where.

Is the author saying this is the way things should be? No. He is saying it is the way it is, but he ain’t happy about it nor is he satisfied and content.

 

[guanophore]

Due to the abuses in the Corinthian Church, the members where confused rather than edified. In answer to this St. Paul assured the Corinthians that God is not the God of confusion. therefore something was most assuredly amiss at Corinth.

Since God is not the author of confusion, this means that God was not initiating all of the tongue speaking occurring at the church in Corinth.

I don’t see how you get from one to the other, logically. There was also abuse of the Lord’s supper, but you wouldn’ say that the celebration of the Lord’s supper was not from God, because abuses around it’s celebration were amiss.

It is also reasonable to postulate that the Holy Spirit would neither cause someone to speak in tongues when another person was doing so, nor cause someone to speak without inspiring someone else with the gift to interpret the tongues, nor cause women to speak in tongues if, as 1 Corinthians 14:34 shows, he intended them to remain silent.

How is this “reasonable to postulate”? This is not what happened on Pentecost. God caused all of them to speak in tongues at the same time!

This being the case, it means that the inordinate an unrestrained tongue speaking - such as those exhibited in the CCR and Pentecostal movements - must have come from another source.

This is not consistent with the text of the letter at all. Paul says nothing of this kind, and on the contrary, affirms the gift of tongues. He is giving them instruction on how to properly exercise the gift, not telling them it is not from God!

If the rules are not being followed, it is a corollary truth that the tongue-speech is not of divine origin,

This is also an illogical conclusion. It is the same as saying “if the rules are not followed, then the Lord’s supper is not of Divine origin”. I will be the first to line up in opposition against liturgical abuses, and I will say that abuses of any of God’s gifts is not of divine origin. But to disparage the Divine Gift because people act badly is just not logical.

He says that people who are too hungry to wait should eat at home, and that no one should be drunk. He doesn’t say not to gather, or that the gathering around the Eucharist is not from God.

for God would not contradict his own mandates‘, St. Paul began his warnings of the church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14:20 by saying “brethern, do not be children in your thinking; but in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature.” The Corinthians childlike immaturity was precisely the condition of the church in Corinth. they would be very attracted to the pomp and pageantry associated with tongue speaking.

I agree. This is one of the main arguements for the fact that the charismatic gifts are given to rank amateurs.

As St. Paul had made clear in the opening chapters of this letter, the Corinthians were vying against each other for prominence in the church, one saying that he was “of Apollos", another saying he was “of Paul”, and then another saying that he was “of Cephas”, and yet another saying he was “of Christ”. (1Co 1:11-12; 3:3-5,21; 4:6) and due to their pride, they ran the risk of destroying the church due to this division. The proliferation of tongues in Corinth was one of the greater divisive issues occurring on a regular basis.

I don’t see how this follows, either. Disruptive, obviously, just like the disruption of the meal when they gathered for the Lord’s supper. But there is nothing in the letter that indicates tongues cause doctrinal division.

The more they spoke in tongues above that which was ordained of God, the more they harmed the church and subsequently opening themselves up to God’s judgment.

While I agree with this in principle, the point of fact is that there WERE NO ordinations of God. These are the first instructions to be given to believers about the use of the Gifts.

To use St. Paul’s analogy, inordinate tongue speaking was one of the means to build up the church with “wood, hay, and straw” due to the divisions it caused (1Co 3: 12).

This is just too far of a leap. There is nothing in that context that indicates tongues are referenced in any way. This interpretation also contradicts other things the Apostle is teaching on the gift of tongues. All of the text has to hang together. Eisegetically inserting the idea that tongues are “divisive” prevents the other scriptures from making sense.

Although when used properly tongue speaking was a blessing of God and a means to communicate the gospel, it could easily turn into a curse and the very means by which one might fall from the faith, as was the case in Corinth.

Here you are noting that “used properly tongue speaking” will fulfill God’s intention, a principle with which we can all agree.

I would venture that the misuse of any of God’s gifts can turn them into curses. The Apostle is also quite clear that partaking of the Body and Blood improperly has grave consequences. He never says, though, that the Gift of God is not valid.

In fact, in 1 Corinthians 14:22 St. Paul specifies that “tongues are for a sign, not for those who believe , but to unbelievers, but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but those who believe.” The “unbeliever”, as St. Paul goes on to describe in verse 23-25, would be some one who happens to walk into a Corinthians Eucharistic celebration‘.

I was hoping you would come to this, because this scripture seems to clearly contradict your previous statement, which his why I got lost on it. He is not saying that tongues are “a sign of unbelief”.

 

[guanophore]

St. Paul never said however, that the Corinthians’ tongue Speaking is a sign to the “ungifted” and “unbelievers” that have entered the Corinthian Church (1Co 14: 23-25).

Now you seem to be contradicting what you just asserted two paragraphs ago.

St. Paul’s entrance of the “ungifted” and “unbeliever” is only used for the purpose of illustrating to the Corinthians how silly they look when the whole church is speaking in tongues. Additionally, practically speaking, tongues could not be a sign to the ungifted or unbelieving man on the street, since, according to St. Paul’s reasoning upon hearing tongues the unbelievers would walk away in disgust thinking the Corinthians to be insane.

Yes, I think we are in agreement on this point, except that I don’t think Eucharistic celebrations were open to the unbaptized.

Moreover, it would be a contradiction for St, Paul to establish tongues as a sign to unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 14:21 , but then discourage giving tongues as a sign to the same unbeliever who walks into the Corinthian Church.

I don’t think this is a contradiction. Unbelievers were not permitted to attend Eucharist. If they were catachumens, they were allowed to remain through the Liturgy of the Word, then were dismissed at the presentation of the Gifts.

The Apostle is giving them instructions on how tongues are to be used for the building up of the Church. In this context, he states that prophesy is more valuable in the Church.

According to St. Paul’s reasoning the only “sign” to which unbelievers or ungifted will respond is prophecy, since when he hears the clear word of prophecy he will “fall on his face and worship God”

If this were true, there would not have been the conversion of 5000 at Pentecost.

the inordinate proliferation of tongues by those in the Corinthian church actually serves as a sign of their unbelief , not, ironically, their belief.

I am sorry, but I am still lost here. How does inappropriate use of God’s gifts make them “unbelievers”? If they were not believers, they would not be getting apostolic instruction on how to use God’s gifts properly.

The letter opens thus:

1 Cor 1:4-9

4 I give thanks to God always for you because of the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge - 6 even as the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you - 7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ; 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul is affirming that the gifts are authentic, and were given to them because of His Grace because they believed. He then goes on to instruct them how to use them properly, and how to eliminate abuse.

   Yet the Corinthians - for reasons of pride - were try to make tongues a superior gift. In proliferating tongue speech beyond what God had actually inspired and thus created their own version of tongues, resulting in several people speaking at one time, or out of turn. (many of them woman, whom were told to keep silent), often with no interpreter, causing mass confusion in the church.

These things do not equate to one another. Indeed, pride was present. Indeed, the gift of tongues was not being used properly. HOwever, there is nothing in the text that indicates they gifts were not inspired by God, or that they had created “their own verson of tongues”. This is simjply eisegesis.

Yes, they were disorderly. this lack of proper implementation does not make the gifts inauthentic. Furthermore, nothing you have said here supports this statement:

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

On the contrary, the Scriptural references you are using here are all written to BELIEVERS who were not using God’s gift most effectively and needed instruction and guidance.

 

[guanophore]

I appreciate your taking the time cutting and pasting Sacred Scripture…but it was unnecessary…I am familiar with the verses. It looks like the priestly “orans posture” can be defended by some of these verses. However, it is certainly not proof for the odd hand waving that ocurrs during modern day charismatic sevices.

If it is so acceptable for sports fans to fill the stands, jump, shout and wave their arms over the pigskin, why is it so objectionable that people would want to celebrate their faith this way?

 

[ltwin]

Road2Damascus;8330835:

First off, I wonder what Paul means when he says “Tongues…a sign…for unbelievers”, that Unbelievers would speak in such a way? But the emboldened part does show that this gift does need to be disciplined.

20Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord."

22Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

Paul is talking about prophecy and tongues being signs that signify God’s attitude. Signs can be positive or negative. When God speaks to a people in a language they do not understand, it is a sign of his anger and his judgement. Paul is saying to the Corinthians that to the unbeliever tongues are a negative sign - a sign of God’s judgement. When an unbeliever hears someone speaking in a tongue he cannot understand, it drives him away, because that is what happens when you speak in unintelligible language. Paul is saying to the Corinthians that in your childishness, you are displaying signs of judgement on people whose hardness of heart have not yet reached the point where they deserve that severe kind of judgement yet. This is why an unknown utterance in church needs to be interpreted, so that unbelievers can understand what is happening and will not be driven away.

Prophecy, on the other hand, is a sign of God’s favor and blessing on the congregation because it shows that God is present within the community. How can believer’s know this? Well Paul says that the unbelievers will openly declare that God is among the church when prophecy is being exercised. Hope this helps.

 

[gtrenewed]

What do you think is different?

The emphasis is on the seven gifts which build up the individual; while the nine gifts build up the body of Christ. The CCR believes that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit renews and releases the graces of water baptism and confirmation with the added faith to believe for the workings of the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit in todays believer.

 

[gtrenewed]

I would not say ceased completely…I would say very rare and obscure.
St Augustine was very wise.

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

Perhaps rare and obscure leading up to the time that the Holy Fathers prayed for a renewed outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His church. I met a man who told me he was praying the rosary on the fantail of a ship during WW2 and began praising God in tongues. There are many testimonies like this.

St. Augustine was very wise but also very biased towards an intellectual approach to the faith. Remember, the saints were human with all that goes with it here on earth.

I have not met any pentacostal protestants who pray the rosary, or go to Eucharistic Adoration, or submit to the Pope.

Are there abuses in the CCR - sure - but Jesus said there would be wheat and tares in the church. The wheat in the CCR are very respectful of the work of the Holy Spirit. The tares just like to put on a show.

We find bad practice in the church at large but that does not invalidate the church; just as, bad practice in the CCR does not invalidate the reality of the workings of the Holy Spirit.

 

[gtrenewed]

John Chrysostom also writes:

Maybe this is what the CCR longs to renew.

The CCR isn’t longing to renew anything on its own accord - the CCR came about in response to the Holy Father’s longing for a renewed devotion to the Holy Spirit.

There needed to be an Apostolate where those who were renewed could find direction and fellowship. Is it any wonder? Just look at the vitriol against Charismatic Catholics on this forum!

 

[bluelake]

The technical term for this is glossolalia. As you may know this phenomenon also appears in some charismatic Catholics. Google “glossolalia.” There are tons of articles by both believers and non-believers. Also do a youtube search for “speaking in tongues.” Some of the stuff you see there is rather shocking.

My understanding of the authentic phenomenon is that it exists in two forms. 1) People speaking in a language previously unknown to them; and 2) People speaking in what St. Paul called angelic tongues. In the first instance it would be like me speaking Russian to someone from Moscow who didn’t speak English. In the second case I understand that if someone is speaking in “angelic tongues” someone else should be interpreting the speech for those listening.

It happened at Pentecost. St. Paul speaks of it happening on at least a couple of different occasions. So the phenomenon is obviously real. However, my suspicion is that the vast majority of the people “speaking in tongues” in these mega-churches and on youtube are simply babbling because they think they’re supposed to.

Peace,

Scriptures refer to this gifrt. See Acts 2, 1Cor.12:29-31 Also 1Cor.14

God bless,
bluelake

 

[gtrenewed]

Further, proliferating tongue speaking beyond what God allowed would be fairly easy to accomplish. The speaker does not have to think of what he is going to say, he only needs to speak in an unintelligible “utterance” or gibberish and hope that the church would believe that God is actually speaking through him. Tongue speaking would be far easier to camouflage then prophecy, since if no interpreter is present the members would have no idea if what was being spoken was of divine origin or the speakers own mind. It would be far more difficult for a charlatan to pass the scrutiny of the church, since the words of a prophecy would be clearly understood by all present and those same hearers would subsequently hold the speaker accountable to whatever he prophesied. If the prophecy never comes to be, the prophet is a fraud.

The problem here with your opinion is that it is faulty logic. A prophecy, whether in tongues or language, was a teaching mechanism primarily and forth-telling secondarily. It was to be discerned by other prophets. If a prophecy was given in tongues but not interpreted it was not useful. Once interpreted it could be evaluated.

A charlatan could give all the tongues he wanted but no one would look on him as special if they were not interpreted. Once interpreted, they were evaluated as were language prophecies. So any prophecy, tongues or language, could be out of the mind and not from God.

To clarify, the “illicit origin” was in reference to tongue speech in the modern movement, not the authentic gift.

Again, it seems you place your opinion over that of the Church. Maybe you have encountered abuses and maybe you haven’t; you still can’t call the Catholic Charismatic Renewal illicit without placing yourself above the Church.

Tongues are just a part of the Renewal, a valid part, but just a part. There is so much more to the Holy Spirit so embrace it or embrace whatever spiritual discipline you desire but you should stop trashing the validity of the renewal. I say trashing because you have been educated on the validity of the renewal many times over but still persist in your misguided opinions. We have all acknowledged there have been abuses but the root is good, just some of the leaves are bad; just as in the Church proper.

 

[Portrait]

Again, it seems you place your opinion over that of the Church. Maybe you have encountered abuses and maybe you haven’t; you still can’t call the Catholic Charismatic Renewal illicit without placing yourself above the Church.

Tongues are just a part of the Renewal, a valid part, but just a part. There is so much more to the Holy Spirit so embrace it or embrace whatever spiritual discipline you desire but you should stop trashing the validity of the renewal. I say trashing because you have been educated on the validity of the renewal many times over but still persist in your misguided opinions. We have all acknowledged there have been abuses but the root is good, just some of the leaves are bad; just as in the Church proper.

Dear gtrenewed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend.

Can you point us to any official pronoucement since VII that declares that the faithful must embrace and accept the CCR as a genuine movement of God’s Holy Spirit in our times? Are there any documents even on the level of the ordinary magisterium that the faithful are under an obligation to submit their will and be obedient to?

We are well aware that there have been papal endorsements of the Renewal but endorsements do not amount to official approbation. It is customary for contemporary Catholics to ascribe “creeping infallibility” to unofficial pronoucements on a whole range of issues to support their progressive world-view or/and the laxity that now prevails in the Western Church.

It is undeniable that the extraordinary phenomena such as tongues speaking (i.e. actual earthly languages, not incoherent speech) dwindled considerably and vanished subsequent to the Apostolic age. The Church had by that time acheived moral universality and was established in such a way that these manifestations were no longer either useful or necessary to the developing Church. Once the building has been erected the scafolding is always removed as the edifice is quite capable of supporting itself; likewise, when the Christian religion had been firmly planted in the world and the first proclamation of the Gospel had been authenticated by “signs following”, the extraordinary gifts had fulfilled their purpose and so were withdrawn, not, as is sometimes alleged, because of some “stifling attitude” by the hieracrchy, but simply becuase their end had been accomplished.

Moreover, this ceassasionist position is not some novel theory of hidebound traditional Catholics who have a preference for reverential silence at Mass, but has been the consistent teaching of the Church throughout two millenia, that is until the emergence of the CCR in 1967 - right at height of the Hippy culture and its very superficial ideology. Many are of the opinion that this milieu was an ideal breeding ground for the Renewal because it sat very comfortably with the San Francisco movement of those times. Be that as it may the Baltimore Catechism, a sure and certain teaching norm if ever there was one, supports the view that the extraordinary gifts were foundational and belonged to the early days of Christianity before it aquired a foothold in the pagan Roman Empire where there were “gods many and lords many”:

Baltimore Catechism:

"Q. 448 Why are the sign gifts 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".

Incedently, the BC provides the answer as to why many traditional Catholics remain vehemently opposed to the Renewal movement and have chosen to distance themselves from that charismatic ways of our days.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[TrueLight]

Baltimore Catechism:

"Q. 448 Why are the sign gifts 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".

Good find!

 

[Portrait]

Is that an infallible statement…proclaimed ex-cathedra?
I’m guessing she didn’t call it “slain in the spirit”.

There are many accounts of supernatural events surrounding the lives of the holy saints. What I can’t seem to find is the en mass fainting, writhing, crying, laughing, convulsing, and hand waving that occurs in todays modern charismatic movement.
I won’t have to…thankfully, this type of thing does not happen much in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Dear Mickey,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Good observations.

It is possible to cite the statements of saints and give them a modern day charismatic slant for polemical purposes, but that is extremely disengenuous.

All Pentecostal type movements of the past have been deviations from the mainstream of Church history and, sadly, from orthodoxy. Even if they have not always shown themselves to be heterodox immediately, at length this characteristic has manifested itself. You only have to look at Montanism, the Anabaptists, the Quakers and the celebrated Irvingites, which have all claimed fresh outpourings of the Holy Spirit and a ‘rediscovery’ of long neglected apostolical sign gifts, yet all have been heterodox parentheses in the life of the Church. This ought to teach us that however large and significant a contemporary movement may be, if it stands in line with such a pedigree, it must needs be viewed with grave suspicion.

The Charismatic Renewal is, as with other Pentecostal groupings of the past, founded on a clearly heterodox pneumatological conception of the Church, which regards the institution of the Catholic Church as but a visible manifestation, however admirable, of a pre-existent pan-denominational “union in the Spirit” with objective heretics. Alas, this grotesquerie has pentetrated many parts of the Western Catholic Church and has been the occasion of much deep division among the faithful. Given that St. Paul admonishes us to “take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which (we) have been taught” (Rom. 16: 17), we surely ought to avoid the charismatic ways of days.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mickey]

It shouldn’t be happening in the Catholic Church either.

Agreed.

 

[Mickey]

But you can hardly dismiss it as something that should be despised.

Hanf waving at a worship service is not an apostolic tradition. It is a protestant invention.

 

[Mickey]

Clearly he does.

No. It is a statement of an early practice that has become rare and obscure. There is nothing regarding renewal.

 

[Mickey]

And he feels as if the Church has lost something very important.

Fortunately, you do not speak with the mind of St John and the holy Fathers. Were there gifts that he regrets are no longer present? You betcha! Amongst the great Fathers of the Egyptian desert, great mriacles were performed including raising people from the dead. If St John would witness what occurs today in the petecostalist movement (and mimicked by the CCR), it would be totally foreign to him. I imagine he would write a few more words about it.

 

[Mickey]

If it is so acceptable for sports fans to fill the stands, jump, shout and wave their arms over the pigskin, why is it so objectionable that people would want to celebrate their faith this way?

You’re kidding, right?

 

[Mickey]

The CCR believes that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit renews and releases the graces of water baptism

Is this what happens during the so-called “slain in the spirit” process? It is confession that renews the grace of our baptism. Each confession is like another baptism.

 

[Mickey]

I met a man who told me he was praying the rosary on the fantail of a ship during WW2 and began praising God in tongues.

I look to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition…not a man who claims he suddenly started speaking in tongues.

Remember, the saints were human with all that goes with it here on earth.

Indeed. But we also look to the saints for guidance, instruction, and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. You dismiss St Augustine because somehow you perceive that he was biased (because he speaks against tongues). Yet you accept the claims of a man from WW2.

I have not met any pentacostal protestants who pray the rosary, or go to Eucharistic Adoration, or submit to the Pope.

And you never will. However, the CCR has mimicked many other parts of the pentecostalist practices. I believe this began in the 1960’s at Duquesne University.