Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

[justtryin]

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don’t think you are saying that these gifts have ended entirely, because if you are it would seem to go against what I’ve read about charismata in the Catholic Church’s catechism and in the Catholic/Pentecostal dialogue report you so helpfully linked to:

I’m just trying to see if you don’t believe the CCR is correct in its beliefs about and its exercise of spiritual gifts, then how do you think they can be correctly exercised?

It’s Kind of self-explanatory. The practices of CCR cannot be found prior to the 1960’s.
They claim this is what the Early Church taught and practiced. In trying to defend CCR they
appear to co-opt phrases and alter definitions.

The catechism only mentions charisms as graces. All the other stuff is being read into it.There are no definitions in there. There are no explicit teachings on the manner of reception and practice of charisms.

I can find no clear record of the Catholic Church
using these approaches to worship. That document itself says the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit”
is not used in the Catholic Church. It says that phrase is commonly used by Catholic Charismatics.
If no historical, traditional case can be found of CCR’s practices prior to the 1960’s, it becomes
something new.

The only historical practises of CCR seem to lie outside of the Church. Why were Catholics
so eager to embrace something with origins outside the Church?

 

[justtryin]

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don’t think you are saying that these gifts have ended entirely, because if you are it would seem to go against what I’ve read about charismata in the Catholic Church’s catechism and in the Catholic/Pentecostal dialogue report you so helpfully linked to:

The nine gifts (by the way there are more of them) would certainly fall into the category of charismata.

I’m just trying to see if you don’t believe the CCR is correct in its beliefs about and its exercise of spiritual gifts, then how do you think they can be correctly exercised?

I’m not denying spiritual gifts or charisms.

The gift of tongues as mentioned by Paul has always been held to have ended. The gift of healing as practiced at healing services cannot be found to be historical, traditional Catholic practice.

This is how the CCR understands charisms.

This is why I don’t mean charisms as the Church understands them, but rather how the CCR understands them.

I don’t deny your quote from that document either.
However, that document also says the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not used in the Catholic Church but is commonly used by Catholic Charismatics.
That is probably why I can’t find a definition from the Church.

There are some recent Church statements and documents using that phrase. It appears to be a new practice picked up from the CCR. But when She uses “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, She is always referring to the Sacrament of Baptism or the renewal of one’s Baptismal vow/promise.

 

[ltwin]

I’m not denying spiritual gifts or charisms.

The gift of tongues as mentioned by Paul has always been held to have ended. The gift of healing as practiced at healing services cannot be found to be historical, traditional Catholic practice.

This is how the CCR understands charisms.

This is why I don’t mean charisms as the Church understands them, but rather how the CCR understands them.

I don’t deny your quote from that document either.
However, that document also says the phrase “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not used in the Catholic Church but is commonly used by Catholic Charismatics.
That is probably why I can’t find a definition from the Church.

There are some recent Church statements and documents using that phrase. It appears to be a new practice picked up from the CCR. But when She uses “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”, She is always referring to the Sacrament of Baptism or the renewal of one’s Baptismal vow/promise.

So you believe that the gift of tongues as understood by Pentecostals and charismatics is not the gift of tongues as practiced in the early church. I can understand and respect that. But is their a reason why just because something like prayer for healing is not traditional that it has to be rejected? I mean what is it about the healing services that you object to or find outside of tradition? I’m actually curious. I’ve never witnessed a Catholic healing service so just wondering.

I bought a book recently, Christian Initiation and Baptism In the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries, by Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague. They are both Catholic and at least one is involved in the CCR. I haven’t read the book yet so I can’t comment on its content. Though it seems that it can be informative to at least know how some would reconcile or modify understandings of Spirit baptism with the post-biblical authors.

 

[justtryin]

But is their a reason why just because something like prayer for healing is not traditional that it has to be rejected? I mean what is it about the healing services that you object to or find outside of tradition? I’m actually curious. I’ve never witnessed a Catholic healing service so just wondering.

Praying for the sick or dying is not oppesed to Catholic Tradition. There are many prayers
such as THESE and THESE.

THIS however has no historical or traditional support in Church practice. (CLICK).

Though it seems that it can be informative to at least know how some would reconcile or modify understandings of Spirit baptism with the post-biblical authors.

The Church teaches Baptism of water and Spirit. It is one thing, not two things.

1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” ***for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit ***without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.” source

The Church has thus shown by her teaching and practice that she knows no other way apart from Baptism for ensuring children’s entry into eternal happiness. Accordingly, she takes care not to neglect the mission that the Lord has given her of providing rebirth “of water and the Spirit” for all those who can be baptized. source

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord ***to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” ***God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. source

There is no seperate Spirit Baptism. The Church teaches only one Baptism of water and spirit.

 

[gtrenewed]

I’m not saying there aren’t nine spiritual gifts listed by Paul. Rather I am saying there is no historical, tradional teaching of **nine charismatic gifts *as understood and practiced ***by CCR.

Marian devotion can be seen taught and practiced from the time of the ECF to the present age. The nine charismatic gifts **as understood and practiced **by CCR seem to have ended with the early Church only to re-emerge in modern times.

It seems you give more credence to the sketchy material on Marian practices than you do to charismatic practices. You can’t have it both ways. The first church mass was a charismatic mass. As the church grew after persecution, the gifts became less normative due to the secular make up of the church. The gifts became more a part of an individual spiritual process. We can see a shift in teaching from prophetic to the intellectual. The modern renewal is in response to modern papal prayer.
Marian practices are vastly different today due to modern papal prayer.

I hope you don’t find my questions and comments “derogatory.” That is not my intent. Yes, I am skeptical of CCR. And although I may have traditional leanings, I feel some traditional groups take things too far as well.
How do I really feel about all this? Here it is:
If you take into account the vision of Leo XIII, Our Lady’s words at Fatima, and the comment of
Paul VI about the smoke of satan, I think you end up where we are now. We are being played by the author of confusion.

If we are being played at all it is the infighting. The foundation of the CCR is solid. You may not feel comfortable with it but that does not mean it is evil. You must remember that members of the CCR are not being rewarded for holiness, we are pursuing holiness and by faith see the gifts as part of our spiritual inheritance.

Two extremes are being erected. On one side you have traditionalism which goes so far as to become sedevacantism. On the other extreme are charismatics who have gone so far as to become Catholic in name and Pentecostal in nature.

Not all CCR go too far, and not all traditional go too far. We are being presented various degrees of two extremes. This isn’t a good place for the Church to find Herself. This doesn’t even include the problems the world thrusts upon the Church.

There is the Church founded on Pentecost, the Church is Pentecostal. There are those who prefer the preVat2 church. There are those who have found the renewal and prefer the TLM. There are those who are charismatic and Marian. I don’t agree with your fatalistic view of two extremes. The blending of spiritual disciplines is our great strength.

I’m just trying to figure out how we got here and which direction things are moving.

Anyway, back on point. I know what Charastmatics mean by “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” But does the Church have a definition other than the Sacrament of Baptism or the renewal of Baptismal vows.

If we all pursue holiness and treat each other with love, the direction will be just fine. The Catholic church is not defined by individuals but is the sum of its parts.
Jesus said He would baptize with the Holy Spirit which would provide power to the believer. In the early church we see water baptism and a laying on of hands to receive (be baptized with) the Holy Spirit. Today we know this as Confirmation. The Renewal draws on both of these sacraments.

 

[ltwin]

Jesus said He would baptize with the Holy Spirit which would provide power to the believer. In the early church we see water baptism and a laying on of hands to receive (be baptized with) the Holy Spirit. Today we know this as Confirmation. The Renewal draws on both of these sacraments.

Is it correct then that Catholic charismatics believe that the experience termed "baptism with the Holy Spirit’ is a release of spiritual gifts already imparted in water baptism and confirmation? Also, is there concern within the CCR for terminology like “baptism with the Holy Spirit” being too confusing within the framework of Catholic theology? If so, what other terms to describe this experience are used?

 

[justtryin]

It seems you give more credence to the sketchy material on Marian practices than you do to charismatic practices. You can’t have it both ways. The first church mass was a charismatic mass.

The history and tradition of Marian devotion and practice is far more extensive than you
may realize.

ECF on Assumption HERE

ECF on Immaculate Conception HERE

ECF on Ever-Virgin HERE

ECF on Mother of God HERE

From there it can be seen taught and practiced throughout history and tradition to the present day.

The early Masses were far from todays Charismatic Mass. In fact, history and tradition show them as not being Charismatic at all.

There are descriptions HERE

Then there is the Catechism

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
CCC

As for the foundation of CCR, I think someone else provided that HERE in Post #6

I don’t agree with your fatalistic view of two extremes. The blending of spiritual disciplines is our great strength.

If we all pursue holiness and treat each other with love, the direction will be just fine. The Catholic church is not defined by individuals but is the sum of its parts.

We may disagree on the two extremes, but I think we might agree on your description above. I think these are the people found inbetween the two extremes. These may just be the ones who pull it all together in the end. They may not only unify the Catholic Church, they might just be the ones to unify all of Christianity. May God bless and keep them.

 

[ltwin]

At least one thing in post 6 was wrong:

No Christian practiced tongues until Agnes Ozman claimed to do so on Jan 1, 1901.

Tongues (as practiced today) has been observed in many Christian movements and revivals far earlier, in different locations, and by different persons far more earlier than 1901 out of the mouth of Agnes Ozman.

Some Anabaptists were known to be strongly charismatic. Their refusal to remain in the established churches was that the churches did not allow people to exercise spiritual gifts according to 1 Corinthians 14.

The Huguenots of France also reported an outbreak of speaking in tongues among other demonstrative and enthusiastic worship. This lasted for over a decade. (See Little Prophets of Cevennes).

The Moravians also knew speaking in tongues and other charismatic phenomenon. Count Zinzendorf described their services as “the Savior permitted to come to us a Spirit of whom we had hitherto not had any experience or knowledge. The Holy Spirit himself took full control of everything and everybody.”

The early Quakers were also known to speak in tongues.They would wait in silence for hours until the Holy Spirit moved. Edward Burroughs wrote: “We received often the pouring down of the Spirit upon us . . . as in the days of old, and our hearts were made glad, and our tongues were loosed, and our mouths opened, and we spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and as his Spirit led us.”

Early Methodism also has a few accounts of tongues speaking. John Wesley believed it was readily available in his day. One Methodist who actually spoke in tongues was Thomas Walsh who wrote, “This morning the Lord gave me a language I knew not of, raising my soul to him in a wonderful manner.”

George Whitefield’s meetings saw charismatic phenomenon: “many more would scream and cry out, or send forth the most lamentable groans, while others made great manifestations of joy by clapping their hands, uttering ecstatic expressions, singing psalms, and inviting and exhorting others.”

In the 1830s, the well educated and respected Presbyterian minister Edward Irving saw speaking in tongues and interpretation in his church.

There are others, but you get the point. And I only included Protestant examples.

 

[justtryin]

And I only included Protestant examples.

And I think that has been the point all along.

 

[ltwin]

And I think that has been the point all along.

I could have included Catholics but then I’d get a ton of comments saying I was taking those out of context or they were doing something different. So what’s the point?

What I was simply trying to establish is the fact that glossolalia did not just appear in 1901 when Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues. It has been going on all throughout Christian history.

 

[Dorothy]

Is it correct then that Catholic charismatics believe that the experience termed "baptism with the Holy Spirit’ is a release of spiritual gifts already imparted in water baptism and confirmation? Also, is there concern within the CCR for terminology like “baptism with the Holy Spirit” being too confusing within the framework of Catholic theology? If so, what other terms to describe this experience are used?

As I mentioned in a much earlier post, it is better to articulate the movement as “Renewal in the Holy Spirit” or “Renewal of Baptismal Vows” than “Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” The latter term causes undersandable confusion. More and more groups are using the terms that would not cause confusion.

 

[ClayPots47]

I could have included Catholics but then I’d get a ton of comments saying I was taking those out of context or they were doing something different. So what’s the point?

What I was simply trying to establish is the fact that glossolalia did not just appear in 1901 when Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues. It has been going on all throughout Christian history.

How about this story? I have personally met Mrs. Anna Mariea Schmitt through a mutual friend of my mother’s. She is a well-known mystic who has given talks throughout the country. Like another well-known mystic (Mrs Eileen George), she has been active in the Charismatic Renewal, and like Eileen, she has been granted the permission of her bishop to teach and preach on Sacred Subjects (which is the only way the non-ordained can do so). I attended one of her talks held in Baltimore. Maryland; where she discussed the horrible events that occurred in her village, and her time spent in concentration camps (she showed the tattoo she was given to identify her). My impression upon meeting her privately following the talk, was that she is a very humble and holy person. She does not talk of her mystical experiences. Do note that in the story below (she also gives this story in her talks), that she mentions the charisms being exhibited among the villagers starting in the eleventh century, which means that this was going on in this isolated little Catholic village for nine centuries, from the eleventh to the twentieth century. While it has never been verified who the woman of the apparition was, many believe it was the Blessed Mother herself, who was present with the apostles in that Upper Room on the first Pentecost. Who would be a better teacher than the Spouse of the Holy Spirit Herself?

A Village and a Pope

The following story is told by Mrs. Anna Mariea Schmitt, a surviving member of a small village in Czechoslovakia, which was wiped out by the Nazis in 1938.

In the eleventh century, when her village was faced with starvation because the severe cold had ruined their crops, a beautiful lady appeared on the mountain. She never identified herself but taught them to invoke the Holy Spirit. By following her teaching, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, manifesting all of the Pentecostal gifts, including healing, prophecy and tongues.

They avoided starvation that winter because the bread, which they had baked, was multiplied and their supply lasted miraculously until the next harvest.

Each successive generation manifested these charisms, although they didn’t consider their little village unique because they were so isolated. The power of prayer and God’s presence were so strong, the village needed no jails, nor hospitals. When someone was sick, the whole village united in prayer, expecting God to heal. There was no divorce and families welcomed all the children sent by God. The Bible was read in the home and the children were taught how to live in the power of the Spirit. Each Sunday, their celebration of Mass was joyful and they shared a fellowship meal afterward.

In the 1930’s, they were told, through the prophetic word, that a severe testing would come upon the village and empty it. This prophecy was fulfilled in 1938, when the Nazis killed almost everyone. During these executions, the Holy Spirit gave them perseverance and no one renounced their faith due to the threats. Anna Mariea herself survived both Nazi and Russian concentration camps.

The story shows a remarkable parish, totally immersed in the Holy Spirit for nine centuries. However, one more part makes the story almost too good to be true.

This totally charismatic village was visited many times by Bishop Angelo Roncalli, later Pope John XXIII. Anna Mariea delighted to sit at his feet and listen to his teachings about Jesus. He was totally at home amidst the openly charismatic manifestations of this totally Pentecostal village.

When Angelo Roncalli became the Pope and called the Second Vatican Council, he asked the whole Church to say a special prayer which began, “Renew your wonders in this our day, as by a New Pentecost.” A few years later, 1967, the total surprise of the Spirit, the Catholic Pentecostal Renewal, began.

In those early days, we constantly thanked Pope John, knowing that this new Pentecostal Movement would never have been accepted without his Council. We often would say, “If only Pope John knew what would happen because of his prayer for a New Pentecost.”

Now we realize that Pope John knew all along. Before all of us experienced Catholic Pentecostalism, he had witnessed a little village where a beautiful lady taught the people to invoke the Spirit and to use charismatic gifts.

Anna Mariea was asked if she thought the Pope John’s prayer for a New Pentecost was inspired by this village. She thinks that his desire for a new Pentecost was born in his heart long before visiting their village. He seemed to know all along what was possible when people invoked the Holy Spirit.

 

[gtrenewed]

Is it correct then that Catholic charismatics believe that the experience termed "baptism with the Holy Spirit’ is a release of spiritual gifts already imparted in water baptism and confirmation? Also, is there concern within the CCR for terminology like “baptism with the Holy Spirit” being too confusing within the framework of Catholic theology? If so, what other terms to describe this experience are used?

Yes, it is a release or renewal of those gifts imparted. But understand that some of the 9 gifts in 1Cor12 are given as the Spirit wills at the moment, such as healing. Some have the gift all the time, so to speak, and sometimes healing is imparted to someone who never has had it before. Remember, the gifts are for the good of the body not as a sign of holiness of the one demonstrating the gift.

It has been confusing but since tongues was the typical initial sign of receiving the Spirit in scripture and typically in the CCR, the term stuck.

 

[gtrenewed]

The history and tradition of Marian devotion and practice is far more extensive than you
may realize.

ECF on Assumption HERE

ECF on Immaculate Conception HERE

ECF on Ever-Virgin HERE

ECF on Mother of God HERE

I don’t dispute the references to the history of recognizing Mary but my point was material defining the actual practice is sketchy. Your references do not describe a procession or feast day practice. I don’t doubt they were observed, we just don’t see them written down. My point is that the practices of the ancient charismatics would be just like that, observed just not written doen.

The early Masses were far from todays Charismatic Mass. In fact, history and tradition show them as not being Charismatic at all.

They were because Paul was correcting the abuses in the Corithians Eucharistic celebration.

As for the foundation of CCR, I think someone else provided that HERE in Post #6

That is not the foundation. The foundation is the deposit of faith. It is the renewal of that deposit within the Catholic who believes the Holy Spirit will release those gifts today. The protestant release of that deposit of faith is a WHOLE other subject not for here.

We may disagree on the two extremes, but I think we might agree on your description above. I think these are the people found inbetween the two extremes. These may just be the ones who pull it all together in the end. They may not only unify the Catholic Church, they might just be the ones to unify all of Christianity. May God bless and keep them.

Amen.

 

[TommyWommy]

I’ve never really heard a good explaination of how speaking in unknown tongues is supposed to help edify the Church or convert nonbelievers. What’s the point, exactly? If someone feels the need to babel incoherently while praying, fine. (Seems kind of like humming a song that you don’t know the words to). But why do it in public as part of a service? That seems more akin to the Tower of Babel than to Pentecost.

Furthermore, I have very dear people in my life (Protestants) that are exploring Catholicism. They look upon this babeling as the “madness” Paul described to the Corinthians. It is a stumbling block to their conversion, and they don’t understand why the Catholic Church tolerates it.

When a person speaks gibberish, people generally become concerned that there is a problem, not holiness or reasonableness. Maybe they are having a stroke. Maybe they are insane. Maybe there is a mental health issue. Maybe they are trying to get attention. Maybe they are confused. As Paul said, “Will they not think you are mad?”

Pope John Paul II said that faith and reason are the two wings on which the soul takes flight. How, exactly, does this babel fit within the bounds of reason?

If the purpose of using language is to communicate, why not use a language that both the sender and ALL the receivers can understand? Unless, of course, you don’t want everyone to understand it. Then you can either whisper in the person’s ear or use a secret code (which sounds like gibberish to others).

So, would someone please explain to me how and why unknown tongues are edifying to the Church and to non believers? What’s the point of it? If God is not the author of confusion, why is it so confusing to hear this gibberish?

 

[ltwin]

I’ve never really heard a good explaination of how speaking in unknown tongues is supposed to help edify the Church or convert nonbelievers. What’s the point, exactly? If someone feels the need to babel incoherently while praying, fine. (Seems kind of like humming a song that you don’t know the words to). But why do it in public as part of a service? That seems more akin to the Tower of Babel than to Pentecost.

Furthermore, I have very dear people in my life (Protestants) that are exploring Catholicism. They look upon this babeling as the “madness” Paul described to the Corinthians. It is a stumbling block to their conversion, and they don’t understand why the Catholic Church tolerates it.

When a person speaks gibberish, people generally become concerned that there is a problem, not holiness or reasonableness. Maybe they are having a stroke. Maybe they are insane. Maybe there is a mental health issue. Maybe they are trying to get attention. Maybe they are confused. As Paul said, “Will they not think you are mad?”

Pope John Paul II said that faith and reason are the two wings on which the soul takes flight. How, exactly, does this babel fit within the bounds of reason?

If the purpose of using language is to communicate, why not use a language that both the sender and ALL the receivers can understand? Unless, of course, you don’t want everyone to understand it. Then you can either whisper in the person’s ear or use a secret code (which sounds like gibberish to others).

So, would someone please explain to me how and why unknown tongues are edifying to the Church and to non believers? What’s the point of it? If God is not the author of confusion, why is it so confusing to hear this gibberish?

Speaking a message in an unknown language coupled with the interpretation of the message is equal to prophecy:

The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. (1 Corinthians 14:5)

Paul gives us the purpose of the public use of tongues and interpretation in 1 Cor. 14:6,

Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some** revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching**?

We may not understand why God might choose to instruct using this method, but if it is done in order and according to the directions Paul gives, then it can hardly be condemned or rejected.

Now, when it comes to private, uninterpreted speaking in tongues, Paul also gives us the uses and purposes for this gift:

14For** if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays** but my mind is unfruitful. 15What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also;** I will sing praise with my spirit**, but I will sing with my mind also.

16Otherwise, if you** give thanks** with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?

 

[TommyWommy]

Speaking a message in an unknown language coupled with the interpretation of the message is equal to prophecy:

Paul gives us the purpose of the public use of tongues and interpretation in 1 Cor. 14:6,

We may not understand why God might choose to instruct using this method, but if it is done in order and according to the directions Paul gives, then it can hardly be condemned or rejected.

Now, when it comes to private, uninterpreted speaking in tongues, Paul also gives us the uses and purposes for this gift:

So, are you supposed to know ahead of time that there is an interpreter present before you speak in tongues? And how do you know the interpretation is accurate? How do you “test” the spirit or the genuineness of the interpretation? What if there are several interpreters present? Do they all agree to the interpretation since they all have that gift? What if they disagree?

Why do so many people speak in tongues spontaneously without the message being interpreted?

 

[ltwin]

Good questions.

So, are you supposed to know ahead of time that there is an interpreter present before you speak in tongues?

The person who possesses the gift of tongues and receives a message that they discern is for the body has the responsibility to discern when it is appropriate to exercise such a gift. Paul says:

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.

If you are in a group of people that you are familiar with, then you will have some of idea of who, if any, has exercised the gift of interpretation in the past. If you really do not know who can interpret, and you cannot interpret it yourself, the best option might be to be silent. Of course, you could always go ahead with the message, then wait and see if there is an interpretation. If not, stay silent and the next time you receive a message you will know that there probably isn’t an interpreter in that group. Another option is just to ask the leaders of the meeting if there is someone known as an interpreter within the group, and whether it would be in order to give a message in an unknown language.

13Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.

Ultimately, the responsibility of providing an interpretation is with the one who gave the message. Paul says if you have been given the gift of tongues, then you should also pray for the gift of interpretation.

And how do you know the interpretation is accurate? How do you “test” the spirit or the genuineness of the interpretation?

Since the gift of interpretation is a supernatural ability distributed by the Holy Spirit as he wills, it is not subject to scientific analysis. However, we can judge the spirit by which the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation are manifested: either divine, human, or diabolical. This can be done is some measure by all Christians, but is specifically the suited to one with the gift of discerning between spirits.

Paul says:

29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

This passage can be interpreted differently, but the essential message is not up for debate: prophecy (and by extension messages in unknown languages) are subject to the discernment of the church, whether that be the congregation as a whole or the proper ecclesiastical officer.

What if there are several interpreters present? Do they all agree to the interpretation since they all have that gift? What if they disagree?

I do not have the gift of interpretation, but from what I have observed, just because someone has exercised the gift of interpretation in the past and on a regular basis doesn’t mean he will always receive an interpretation of every message he hears. It is similar to the gift of healing - not everyone is healed when someone with the healing gift prays for them.

In my experience, only one person gives an interpretation. If two people simultaneously attempt to interpret the message, one will yield and be quiet while the other gives the message. In Pentecostal churches, it is a serious breach of order when one of the two people refuses to cease and let the other one give the message without confusion.

If there are questions about the legitimacy of a message and interpretation, the leadership of that meeting will probably address such concerns to the body and later in private with the person in question. The goal is never to embarrass or punish a person who has acted inappropriately or illegitimately, but instead to correct them in love so that they do not repeat such errors in the future.

Why do so many people speak in tongues spontaneously without the message being interpreted?

Because they are exercising prayer, praise, petition to God and never intend or feel the need to address it to the entire body. There is a difference between tongues addressed to God and tongues addressed to either the body or to both the body and God.

If the intent is not to instruct or address the body, then ideally one should not speak in tongues loudly enough for one to be heard by other people. Obviously, this isn’t always done.

In Pentecostal churches, because it is so common to spontaneously praise God in English, by extension people just praise God in tongues as well. However, this is not the biblical ideal.

 

[TommyWommy]

Good questions.

The person who possesses the gift of tongues and receives a message that they discern is for the body has the responsibility to discern when it is appropriate to exercise such a gift. Paul says:

If you are in a group of people that you are familiar with, then you will have some of idea of who, if any, has exercised the gift of interpretation in the past. If you really do not know who can interpret, and you cannot interpret it yourself, the best option might be to be silent. Of course, you could always go ahead with the message, then wait and see if there is an interpretation. If not, stay silent and the next time you receive a message you will know that there probably isn’t an interpreter in that group. Another option is just to ask the leaders of the meeting if there is someone known as an interpreter within the group, and whether it would be in order to give a message in an unknown language.

Ultimately, the responsibility of providing an interpretation is with the one who gave the message. Paul says if you have been given the gift of tongues, then you should also pray for the gift of interpretation.

Since the gift of interpretation is a supernatural ability distributed by the Holy Spirit as he wills, it is not subject to scientific analysis. However, we can judge the spirit by which the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation are manifested: either divine, human, or diabolical. This can be done is some measure by all Christians, but is specifically the suited to one with the gift of discerning between spirits.

Paul says:

This passage can be interpreted differently, but the essential message is not up for debate: prophecy (and by extension messages in unknown languages) are subject to the discernment of the church, whether that be the congregation as a whole or the proper ecclesiastical officer.

I do not have the gift of interpretation, but from what I have observed, just because someone has exercised the gift of interpretation in the past and on a regular basis doesn’t mean he will always receive an interpretation of every message he hears. It is similar to the gift of healing - not everyone is healed when someone with the healing gift prays for them.

In my experience, only one person gives an interpretation. If two people simultaneously attempt to interpret the message, one will yield and be quiet while the other gives the message. In Pentecostal churches, it is a serious breach of order when one of the two people refuses to cease and let the other one give the message without confusion.

If there are questions about the legitimacy of a message and interpretation, the leadership of that meeting will probably address such concerns to the body and later in private with the person in question. The goal is never to embarrass or punish a person who has acted inappropriately or illegitimately, but instead to correct them in love so that they do not repeat such errors in the future.

Because they are exercising prayer, praise, petition to God and never intend or feel the need to address it to the entire body. There is a difference between tongues addressed to God and tongues addressed to either the body or to both the body and God.

If the intent is not to instruct or address the body, then ideally one should not speak in tongues loudly enough for one to be heard by other people. Obviously, this isn’t always done.

In Pentecostal churches, because it is so common to spontaneously praise God in English, by extension people just praise God in tongues as well. However, this is not the biblical ideal.

Thank you for your perspective.

 

[ClayPots47]

I’ve never really heard a good explaination of how speaking in unknown tongues is supposed to help edify the Church or convert nonbelievers. What’s the point, exactly? If someone feels the need to babel incoherently while praying, fine. (Seems kind of like humming a song that you don’t know the words to). But why do it in public as part of a service? That seems more akin to the Tower of Babel than to Pentecost.

Furthermore, I have very dear people in my life (Protestants) that are exploring Catholicism. They look upon this babeling as the “madness” Paul described to the Corinthians. It is a stumbling block to their conversion, and they don’t understand why the Catholic Church tolerates it.

When a person speaks gibberish, people generally become concerned that there is a problem, not holiness or reasonableness. Maybe they are having a stroke. Maybe they are insane. Maybe there is a mental health issue. Maybe they are trying to get attention. Maybe they are confused. As Paul said, “Will they not think you are mad?”

Pope John Paul II said that faith and reason are the two wings on which the soul takes flight. How, exactly, does this babel fit within the bounds of reason?

If the purpose of using language is to communicate, why not use a language that both the sender and ALL the receivers can understand? Unless, of course, you don’t want everyone to understand it. Then you can either whisper in the person’s ear or use a secret code (which sounds like gibberish to others).

So, would someone please explain to me how and why unknown tongues are edifying to the Church and to non believers? What’s the point of it? If God is not the author of confusion, why is it so confusing to hear this gibberish?

First, there are two types of tongues, the prayer tongues which you hear more commonly from many individuals all at once, in a gathering, only edify the individual; according to St Paul. The Apostolic Tongues, in which one or many speak, and others hear in their own languages (The original Pentecost Experience, also known to have been later exhibited by certain saints, such as Anthony of Padua), and when one speaks a prophecy tongue, and another is given the gilt to interpret; edify the Church; according to St Paul.

The only public services in which tongues are manifested, are the designated prayer meetings, and the Masses for Healing, and ones specifically for charismatic gatherings; these must go through the Chancery Office, and receive the approval of the bishop. They should not be exercised loudly during a normal OF mass; it is actually an abuse to do so. One may quietly pray in tongues (as Paul suggested to the Corinthians), but one should not disturb others in the assembly with loud tongues.

As to how Apostolic Tongues edify the Church and unbelievers? I don’t think even St Paul answered that one. All we know is that the early Church benefited from many conversions, and this in turn was edify to the Church. I have seen many converts to the RCC from the Catholic Charismatic Renewal; in one parish I attended, the CCR was responsible for at least half of the participants in the parish RCIA program, typically more than 5 individuals per year.

You could explain to those you know who are exploring Catholicism, that the CCR is just one of many spirituality’s in the RCC, and that they are free to be involved, or not be involved, as well as free to believe, or not believe. And they do not have to attend or participate in any CCR-sponsored event. They should not let this be a stumbling block, any more than any other spirituality’s would be stumbling blocks. I’ve know nprotestants to have trouble with things such as DeMontfort’s whole Marian Slavery thing, to the extreme penances practiced by certain saints. Many are relieved to learn that they are not required to either believe or participate in such spiritual practices in their personal lives.