Speaking in tongues?

[Mickey]

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.

Indeed.

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.

The heretic Montanus used to speak in tongues:

He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times. (Eusebius, d.c.339)

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.

Indeed. And I am pleased that Pope Benedict has reinvigorated the TLM. I remember it from my youth…I was quite fond of it.

 

[guanophore]

You’re kidding, right?

Not a bit, but I did not mean to imply that it should occur during Divine Liturgy. I would love to see the local stadium filled with jubilant worshippers of the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

 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?

This is a good question, because it highlights the fact that there are different levels of authorative teaching in the Chuch, about which many Catholics are confused. I was listening to Catholic radio when the decision came out to abandon the theological speculation of “limbo”, and there were many hours spent explaining the differences.

I think ClayPots has made an excellent post on this point.

An Apostolic Exhortation is not an Encyclical, nor is it considered an infallible document.

 We are well aware that there have been papal endorsements of the Renewal but endorsements do not amount to official approbation.

What is official is the theology that underpins the movement. The HS apportions gifts to every believer according to His will during baptism. We are to implement these gifts to His Service, and that of HIs One Body, the 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.

Dwindled, certainly, but never vanished completely from the Church. This is clear from the writings of the saints, doctors, and mystics in the Church. The Church does not teach cessationism.

 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.

This is the position that has been held by some, certainly. But if anyone thinks that the Catholic Church demonstrates moral universality in the United States, they are living in a fanasy world. The majority of American Catholics are in a state of rebellion against the 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.

This is a very good analogy. However, the Apostles did not teach that the Gifts of the HS are “scafolding”. Jesus indicates that the HS will be with us “until the end of the Age”. Since the militant Church is still in the world, the gifts will be necessary. And again, anyone who thinks that scafolding is no longer needed in the church has their eyes closed and ears plugged. The Church has suffered a gross invastion of moral relativism, and there is an entire generation of very poorly catechized Catholics.

There are some in the hierarchy that stifle the Spirit. Often it comes out of fear. In the early days of the Church, movement away from the manifestations of the charisms accompanied movement away from the heresy of Montanism.

  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,

I don’t think this claim is any more supportable than it’s opposite. This position, while espoused, lacks the same magesterial authority that subscribing to the CCR lacks.

 that is until the emergence of the CCR in 1967 - right at height of the Hippy culture and its very superficial ideology.

Indeed, a very timely intervention by the Spirit of God.

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.

Yes. Just as Fatima and Lourdes were an ideal breeding ground for visits from our Blessed Mother.

 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":

Yes, it does. And will be clung to by the nails of those who don’t want to embrace the “sure norm of the faith” represented in the present catechism - one that validates the current working of the HS in the Church through charisms.

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.

Yes. Accepting change is very difficult. Accepting a new Catechism has proved downright impossible for some. Human beings are more comfortable in what is familiar. It is our nature.

 

[guanophore]

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

It seems clear that your preconceived notions have contributed to your misunderstanding of my post.

 

[Mickey]

I would love to see the local stadium filled with jubilant worshippers of the Lord.

Worshipping at the local stadium?

 

[Mickey]

It seems clear that your preconceived notions have contributed to your misunderstanding of my post.

I don’t know about preconceived notions…but it is possible that I misunderstand your often ambiguous posts.

 

[guanophore]

Worshipping at the local stadium?

For Catholics, the Divine LIturgy is the highest form of worship, so meetings that happen outside of it are more properly called prayer meetings. In them, participants may lift up holy hands, play the stringed instruments and cymbols (tamborines) and sing jubilant praise to God. There is no reason this cannot happen in a stadium.

 

[guanophore]

Well. St John clearly tells us what he thinks about tongues.

Clearly he does.

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

Of course St. John would not speak about the Renewal. Pope John XXIII prayed for the new Pentecost centuries later!

 

[Mickey]

Indeed, a very timely intervention by the Spirit of God.

Prelest.

Accepting change is very difficult.

Not really. The CCR seems to have been embraced rather easily.

 

[Mickey]

For Catholics, the Divine LIturgy is the highest form of worship, so meetings that happen outside of it are more properly called prayer meetings.

You said, “jubilant worshippers”.

In them, participants may lift up holy hands, play the stringed instruments and cymbols (tamborines) and sing jubilant praise to God. There is no reason this cannot happen in a stadium.

Sounds like a Benny Hinn revival.

 

[Mickey]

Pope John XXIII prayed for the new Pentecost centuries later!

What did he say?

 

[Mickey]

Pope John XXIII prayed for the new Pentecost centuries later!

What did he say?

Nevermind. I see that he referred to the second Vatican Council as a “new Pentecost”…which of course has nothing to do with speaking tongues and the CCR movement.

However, it is my opinion that V2 created an atmosphere for some things to be improperly interpreted. Hence, the birth of the CCR movemnet.

 

[guanophore]

Prelest.
Not really. The CCR seems to have been embraced rather easily.

Only by people that were not embracing the traditional values of the Church. Are you speaking for yourself? your posts don’t seem to be consistent with that…

I am in a thread on the Traditional forum that seems to contradict your assertion here.

You said, “jubilant worshippers”.
Sounds like a Benny Hinn revival.

God fearers?

Catholics jubilant about their God?

Don’t you ever wonder what a revival might look like if it took place within orthodox Christianity? (ie, NOT Benny Hinn?)

What did he say?

He asked for a New Pentecost, as in the days of the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

However, it is my opinion that V2 created an atmosphere for some things to be improperly interpreted. Hence, the birth of the CCR movemnet.

Having come up, for the most part, in the post concilar church, I can certainly affirm that quite a bit was improperly interpreted, or implemented. The liturgical abuses were one of the things that prompted me to abandon the faith.

 

[Irish_Polock]

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”.

When St. Paul warns of the misuse of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14: 21, he quotes from Isaiah 28 :11.The context of Isaiah 28 indicates that the tongues in view are foreign languages, namely the language of the Assyrian invaders. As St. Paul quotes the passage to the Corinthians he does not feel the need to explain whether there is a difference between the form of tongues among the Corinthians and the foreign language of the Assyrians, except that it is implicitly understood that the latter did not speak under the power of the Holy Spirit. By quoting Isaiah 28: 11 St. Paul seems to assume the Corinthians know that tongues come in the form of Foreign languages.

21 In the law it is written, “By men 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.” 22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. (1Corinthians (RSV) 14)

Nay, but by men of strange lips and with an alien tongue the LORD will speak to this people, (Isaiah (RSV) 28)

St. Paul is warning the Corinthians that the proliferation of tongues in the church is Illicit. Consequently, the more the Corinthians engage in this behavior the more they show themselves to be unbelievers like the Jews in Isaiah’s time who no longer wanted to hear the clear words of the prophecy and thus God forced them to hear his words through the babbling tongues of their Assyrian oppressors, but obviously it was a word of judgment, not a blessing. As St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:22, tongues are a “sign to unbelievers” . St’ Paul’s introduction of the word “sign” appears as a commentary on the incident recorded of the Jews in Isaiah’s time the people of God in that day, but who became apostate unbelievers. The “sign” the Jews were given for their unbelief and God’s ensuing judgment was tongues - a tongue, which at God’s direction, replaced the clear word of prophecy, the same that we are beginning to see in the Corinthian Church.

 

[guanophore]

. By quoting Isaiah 28: 11 St. Paul seems to assume the Corinthians know that tongues come in the form of Foreign languages.

This is only one variety of tongues. There are other tongues that are not intended to be understood by others:

1 Cor 14:1-3
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.

The purpose of this variety of tongues is to build up the individual:

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

This is the private prayer language that Charismatics refer to that is not intended for the congregation.

1 Cor 14:27-29
each in turn; and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, **let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. **

. St. Paul is warning the Corinthians that the proliferation of tongues in the church is Illicit. Consequently, the more the Corinthians engage in this behavior the more they show themselves to be unbelievers like the Jews in Isaiah’s time who no longer wanted to hear the clear words of the prophecy and thus God forced them to hear his words through the babbling tongues of their Assyrian oppressors, but obviously it was a word of judgment, not a blessing.

Honestly, this is quite a stretch. Misusing the gifts of God does not make the gifts bad or wrong. St. Paul is giving them guidance on how to use the gifts properly during the public gathering. He is not saying that having them or using them is wrong. I am not sure what you mean by “proliferation in the Church”. If you mean during the meeting, yes, they need to use the gift in an orderly manner.

If by “proliferation in the Church” you mean that this gift was not intended for everyone, that interpretation is not consistent with the other scriptures.

. As St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:22, tongues are a “sign to unbelievers” . St’ Paul’s introduction of the word “sign” appears as a commentary on the incident recorded of the Jews in Isaiah’s time the people of God in that day, but who became apostate unbelievers. The “sign” the Jews were given for their unbelief and God’s ensuing judgment was tongues - a tongue, which at God’s direction, replaced the clear word of prophecy, the same that we are beginning to see in the Corinthian Church.

No, this is not what the Apostle is trying to say. The reason that tongues is a sign for unbelievers is for the same reason it functioned on Pentecost. If an unbeliever hears the congregation, and can understand in his own language through someone who does not know that language, they will realize a miracle has taken place.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given for our upbuilding as a Body, to serve God, and to evangelize the world. They are not some sort of judgement or condemnation of the Church.

 

[gtrenewed]

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.

You are throwing up strawman arguments. Are we forced to submit our wills to the Rule of St. Francis? Yet, it is endorsed by Rome. If you do not want to follow a particular spiritual discipline-don’t-but you should not demean papal approval. The basis of the opinion of the papacy was seen in the letter from Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians. They were to take him at his word. So papal approval does indeed carry weight and legitimacy.

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.

What is undeniable are the papal prayers for a renewed devotion to and outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the response of the Father and Son. There were Catholics speaking in other tongues way before 1967. What is more important are the operation of the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ and for the good of the Body of Christ.

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”:

Scripture says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It also says the gifts and calling of God are without recall. Once given they were there for the using, if done by faith. There came a point when philosophy and intellectual pursuit of the faith took over. This did not do away with ecstatic teaching or gifting in the Body but it certainly took the preminence. This served well until modern, post-modern, and relativism took over.

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

Signs for the unbeliever are not needed; however, the renewal is for the Body of Christ. You are misapplying the BC due to your ignorance of what the renewal is all about. The traditionalist’s stiff-necked approach to the renewal creates a tension that should not be there, it affronts unity. I am not saying you have to embrace it; just don’t trash it.

 

[gtrenewed]

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

If you truly look to Scripture and Tradition you will find the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit found in the renewal today.
So you don’t believe anything a man says, you are a church unto yourself

We also look to the Pope for approval and more than one have approved.

The Father and Son poured out the Holy Spirit at the request of papal prayers in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The protestants had no hope of receiving without the Apostolic prayer. Whether theirs is legimate is another debate - but it is a Catholic blessing just like the bible is. Protestants use the bible, put together by the Catholic Church, sometimes legitimately other times not.

 

[gtrenewed]

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.

No.

Being slain in the spirit is being overwhelmed by the power of the Holy Spirit where an inner healing is taking place.

Confession renews, but Baptism of the Holy Spirit releases.

 

[vardaquinn]

Confession renews, but Baptism of the Holy Spirit releases.

Well, that’s a silly distinction. Confession releases too (not only in the sense that it ‘releases’ us from sin), and baptism in the Holy Spirit certainly renews. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience that’s supposed to take place in the context of Christian initiation (especially through the reception of baptism and/or confirmation), and a renewal of one’s awareness of the sanctifying grace bestowed by those sacraments. Confession is a sacrament itself. They do different things.