Thoughts on Charasmatic Renewal

[rom422]

As to the question of the rarity of the gift of tongues, I think if we read 1 Corinthians we must come away with the realization that in the church at Corinth the gift of tongues was not rare. This can be clearly seen by the amount of time Paul spends on the subject. In chapter 14 verse 12, Paul says, “So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.” The Corinthians were eager for the gift of tongues and, as can be seen by Paul’s letter, were speaking in tongues during public Christian worship.

There were many in the Church of Corinth who spoke in tongues, as there are many who claim to speak in tongues today. But that was NOT the charismatic gift of tongues! I do not think that all who spoke in tongues - be it during the time of St. Paul or today - had the charismatic gift of tongues. The so-called charismatic gift of tongues is not a natural ability, but a gift of the Holy Spirit. It was intended for the edification of the faithful, not just of the individual speaker. So, it has to be intelligible or interpretable, for if the speech is unintelligible, or if it is not being interpreted, then it fails to edify people other than the speaker. It CANNOT be classified as one of the charismatic gifts. Mere tongues-speaking is not the same as having the charismatic gift of tongues!!!

Why would Paul use an entirely glossolalic congregation and an entirely prophetic congregation as examples if these were impossibilities? Clearly, Paul was juxtaposing the actions of the Corinthians (a focus on speaking in tongues which no one can understand but God) with a better way (focusing on prophecy which everyone could understand).

It is not impossible for many people to speak in tongues. This happens even today. There are those who sincerely and honestly make utterances that proceed from the heart rather than from the mind; and these utterances, although unintelligible, are authentic prayers that I will not discourage. Therefore, I am not denying that there are some people who can speak in tongues. What I am denying is that all those who pray in this fashion have the charismatic gift of tongues. The true charismatic gift of tongues is always edifying to others. This is why St. Paul would rather see us prophesy than merely speak in tongues. Because prophecy is intelligible and capable of edifying others, whereas a mere speech in tongues (even if authentic) edifies only the speaker himself.

The gift of tongues was common enough in the church at Corinth that Paul felt it necessary to limit the number of people speaking in esoteric speech to 3 in one service and for those messages to be interpreted by one with the gift of interpretation. Notice also that prophecy was also apparently common.

It wasn’t the gift of tongues that was common. There were many who spoke in tongues, but their speech was unintelligible and not edifying to others (and, therefore, not the true gift that we must be zealous for). Precisely, St. Paul limited the number of those who should be allowed to speak in tongues in the congregation to just two or three, and (now this is important) he added the requirement to have the speech be interpretable to distinguish the the ones who had the true gift from those who merely spoke.

I do not agree that the gift of prophecy was common. Actually, St. Paul wished that there were more who prophesied than merely spoke in tongues. He regretted the lack of prophecies and the preponderance of unintelligible speech. Where did you get the idea that there were many who prophesied?

A number of things can be taken from this scripture. The most important is (1) that the gift of tongues is beneficial to the gifted person and to the wider church (otherwise Paul would not stress that he wanted all of the Corinthians to speak in tongues), (2) prophesy is more desirable than speaking in tongues because it does not need interpretation, (3) the most important thing when using charismatic gifts is that they build up the church.

Note the highlighted text (boldface). St. Paul would like to see all of them speak in tongues, yes, but only if their speech was intelligible. Otherwise, he would rather see them prophesy (1 Cor. 14:5). The more I meditate on this verse of Scripture, the more I am convinced that what St. Paul wanted was for more people to have the true charismatic gift of tongues, not just to be mere tongues-speakers. He personally did not want to be a mere tongues-speaker. He said, “But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19).

 

[rom422]

Second, we should note that before moving on to another subject, Paul ends this section of his letter with this command in verses 39-40

What exactly did St. Paul say in Verse 39? He said: “Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy:** and forbid not to speak with tongues.**” Let me explain the highlighted text a little bit.

A speech in tongues is either decipherable or undecipherable. If it is decipherable, or if it can be understood by others, then it should be encouraged, because if it is intelligible, then its effect is to edify the Church. It is a true charismatic gift of tongues! We have in this case the example of the Apostles during Pentecost. When the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, they spoke in different languages (hebrew, arabic, greek, latin, etc.), but they were human languages understandable by listeners who spoke the same language (the Jews, the Arabs, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.). Because of this, people marveled at the miracle and were edified.

If the speech is undecipherable, then it is either authentic or not authentic (fake). If it is fake, then it is just a form of babbling and must be stopped, for it just makes a mockery of our religion. If it is authentic, then the tongues speaking person must not be prevented from praying in this fashion. HOWEVER, because the speech is undecipherable, St. Paul counsels that the tongues speaker should pray not publicly or in Church, but in private. So, St. Paul indeed did not forbid anyone from speaking in (undecipherable) tongues, but He admonished the tongues-speaker to speak only to God!!! (1 Corinthians 14:28) St. Paul has a point. For if the prayer or speech is undecipherable (although authentic), then it will fail to edify the Church and likely produce only chaos (1 Corinthians 14:6-12). In that case, the tongues speaker should simply follow the injunction of our Lord: “But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly” (Matthew 6:6).

 

[ltwin]

There were many in the Church of Corinth who spoke in tongues, as there are many who claim to speak in tongues today. But that was NOT the charismatic gift of tongues! I do not think that all who spoke in tongues - be it during the time of St. Paul or today - had the charismatic gift of tongues. The so-called charismatic gift of tongues is not a natural ability, but a gift of the Holy Spirit. It was intended for the edification of the faithful, not just of the individual speaker. So, it has to be intelligible or interpretable, for if the speech is unintelligible, or if it is not being interpreted, then it fails to edify people other than the speaker. It CANNOT be classified as one of the charismatic gifts. Mere tongues-speaking is not the same as having the charismatic gift of tongues!!!

Your position cannot be supported by scripture. Where does Paul say that uninterpreted tongues are not the charismatic gift of tongues? Can there be a non-charismatic gift of tongues? When I speak in an uninterpreted tongue, that is not the charismatic gift of tongues. But when I speak in that same tongue but interpret it, it suddenly becomes the charismatic gift of tongues. That makes no sense.

You are confusing two things: (1) the gift and (2) the manner in which the gift is used. Your philosophy actually destroys the interdependence of the gifts which Paul was trying to establish. The one who speaks in a tongue has a charismatic gift. When he speaks in a tongue he utilizes his God-given gift, whether he interprets it or not. However, he must RELY on the one with the gift of interpretation to make his message useful to the body. Both are gifts, and we have no right to call a gift from God not a gift from God because someone with the gift of interpretation is not present. Paul does not say that uninterpreted tongues was not a gift from God. He only says it is a gift that must be used with greater discernment.

It is not impossible for many people to speak in tongues. This happens even today. There are those who sincerely and honestly make utterances that proceed from the heart rather than from the mind; and these utterances, although unintelligible, are authentic prayers that I will not discourage. Therefore, I am not denying that there are some people who can speak in tongues. What I am denying is that all those who pray in this fashion have the charismatic gift of tongues. The true charismatic gift of tongues is always edifying to others. This is why St. Paul would rather see us prophesy than merely speak in tongues. Because prophecy is intelligible and capable of edifying others, whereas a mere speech in tongues (even if authentic) edifies only the speaker himself.

Yes prophecy is desirable. But still I do not understand how you divide tongues. Honestly, you actually sound thoroughly Pentecostal. There are Pentecostals who distinguish private prayer language from the gift of tongues. The private prayer language is the tongues that are exhibited by Pentecostals newly baptized in the Spirit, in private prayer, and in corporate worship. These are uninterpreted, and edifies only the individual. Then there is the type of tongues that is interpreted and meant for the edification of others beside the gifted person. This is the gift of tongues.

However Pentecostal do not say these are two different things. They are both the languages of angels (and possibly man), but they are different degrees of the same phenomenon. All that is needed is someone to be a willing vessel to speak to the congregation in tongues.

And for your information, not everyone in Pentecostal churches give messages in tongues. In my church only a handful of people have ever given messages in tongues over my entire lifetime in that church. Many do pray and praise in tongues, and there are others who have never spoken in a tongue in their lives.

It wasn’t the gift of tongues that was common. There were many who spoke in tongues, but their speech was unintelligible and not edifying to others (and, therefore, not the true gift that we must be zealous for). Precisely, St. Paul limited the number of those who should be allowed to speak in tongues in the congregation to just two or three, and (now this is important) he added the requirement to have the speech be interpretable to distinguish the the ones who had the true gift from those who merely spoke.

I don’t dispute with you that tongues should be interpreted. Paul clearly says so. My post was considering the gift of tongues. The gift of interpretation is a separate gift, and for the sake of conciseness I did not get into it.

You do realize that Pentecostals practice interpretation in their services. However, we distinguish, as you seem to, uninterpreted tongues from those meant to be interpreted. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:16-18

Otherwise, 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? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

So, we see that a tongue expressing thanksgiving. This is why Pentecostals often will speak in tongues during a worship service. They are expressing thanksgiving to God. You may nitpick with us about not following Paul’s commands to the exact degree, but so many people argue about the very existence of the gift of tongues in the modern world.

 

[ltwin]

I do not agree that the gift of prophecy was common. Actually, St. Paul wished that there were more who prophesied than merely spoke in tongues. He regretted the lack of prophecies and the preponderance of unintelligible speech. Where did you get the idea that there were many who prophesied?

See my comment where he cites as an example a whole congregation prophesying and the positive effects it would have. Once again I ask the question, why use this as an example to the Corinthians if a whole congregation prophesying together was an impossibility or something that was highly unlikely?

Again, he felt the need to limit the number of prophetic oracles just as he did glossalalic ones. Look again at verse 29,

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

You can argue, and scholars have, who the “others” in the sentence are. Its quite possible Paul is talking about the other prophets. Its quite possible then that there were more than 2 or 3 prophets at Corinth. If it was not as common as tongues, Paul definitely felt that it was possible that it could be and that one day the circumstances would arise where there would be so many wanting to prophesy that for the sake of order a limit would be needed. To say it another way, Paul felt that prophecy (because its more desirable) SHOULD be, in an ideal congregation, more common than tongues.

Also, we have the situation in 1 Cor. 12 where Paul is discussing head coverings. In verses 4-5, Paul says

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

So we have men and women prophesying at Corinth, and Paul pointed that women who prophesy should cover their heads.

Note the highlighted text (boldface). St. Paul would like to see all of them speak in tongues, yes, but only if their speech was intelligible. Otherwise, he would rather see them prophesy (1 Cor. 14:5). The more I meditate on this verse of Scripture, the more I am convinced that what St. Paul wanted was for more people to have the true charismatic gift of tongues, not just to be mere tongues-speakers. He personally did not want to be a mere tongues-speaker. He said, “But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19).

No. Those people in Corinth babbling to the congregation in a language they did not understand, HAD the CHARISMATIC GIFT OF TONGUES.It was truly a gift from the God. The GIFT was not missing. What was missing was the INTERPRETATION of the glossolalic utterance. Paul is simply asking for those ALREADY possessing the gift of tongues to PRAY for the GIFT OF INTERPRETATION or to simply not speak out to the congregation unless they knew that there was someone who could interpret for them.

I think we should keep in mind that esoteric language was a feature of Greco-Roman religion. While there was interpretation, the interpretation itself was not all that important. What Paul was doing was moving these Corinthians from a pagan mindset, where they believed that a babbling incoherently and without interpretation was beneficial in itself. Paul knew that this was causing division between those possessing the language of the angels and those who did not. His remedy: both language in the spirit and in the mind are needed and should cooperate.

 

[ltwin]

What exactly did St. Paul say in Verse 39? He said: “Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy:** and forbid not to speak with tongues.**” Let me explain the highlighted text a little bit.

A speech in tongues is either decipherable or undecipherable. If it is decipherable, or if it can be understood by others, then it should be encouraged, because if it is intelligible, then its effect is to edify the Church. It is a true charismatic gift of tongues! We have in this case the example of the Apostles during Pentecost. When the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, they spoke in different languages (hebrew, arabic, greek, latin, etc.), but they were human languages understandable by listeners who spoke the same language (the Jews, the Arabs, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.). Because of this, people marveled at the miracle and were edified.

If the speech is undecipherable, then it is either authentic or not authentic (fake). If it is fake, then it is just a form of babbling and must be stopped, for it just makes a mockery of our religion. If it is authentic, then the tongues speaking person must not be prevented from praying in this fashion. HOWEVER, because the speech is undecipherable, St. Paul counsels that the tongues speaker should pray not publicly or in Church, but in private. So, St. Paul indeed did not forbid anyone from speaking in (undecipherable) tongues, but He admonished the tongues-speaker to speak only to God!!! (1 Corinthians 14:28) St. Paul has a point. For if the prayer or speech is undecipherable (although authentic), then it will fail to edify the Church and likely produce only chaos (1 Corinthians 14:6-12). In that case, the tongues speaker should simply follow the injunction of our Lord: “But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly” (Matthew 6:6).

And what if you are in a meeting only with believers? Outsiders, as Paul says, are not present?

I don’t think we disagree so much, except on your categorization of tongues. One type is a gift, the other isn’t. Both are from God, yes?

I think where we disagree is on how they are different. You seem to think that they are different simply because one is decipherable and the other is not. Okay lets explore that some.

Lets say I am in church and I possess the gift of tongues. I feel led (at an appropriate time in the service) to give a message in tongues. Personally, I don’t have the gift of interpretation, but I know 5 people who have exercised this gift in the past in this church. 1 of them is in the service. I pray in tongues, but that person (unbeknownst to me) stepped out and left early because of an emergency. So no one is able to interpret my message. According to you, the fact that one person left church early and couldnt interpret my tongue is the difference between me exercising an authentic charismatic gift and me exercising some in between unspecified not a gift but still legitimate thing a muh bob.

Lets look at this a different way. It’s not that the charismatic gift was not authentic. It was authentic. I had the gift of tongues and I had a message to share with the congregation in an unknown language. The fact that someone was not there to interpret for me has no effect on the gift God gave me. It may reflect bad on me that I didn’t exercise more caution or that I havent prayed to be able to interpret my own message or better yet that I have not “earnestly desired to prophesy.” But the gift itself does not morph into something less than a charismatic gift on the basis of whether people can understand it or not. It is still a gift, just not one used in the way it was intended=to build up the Church.

Which example comes closer to what Paul described in the Corinthian church? Nowhere does Paul say that those in Corinth were not exercising a genuine gift of tongues. He clearly only wants them to use it for a better purpose=the edification of everyone.

P.S. I have been in many services where people praise God in tongues as part of corporate worship. It is a fact that these are not interpreted, quite frankly because they were never intended to carry any meaningful content to the congregation besides an individuals praise to God.

But I have never been in a service where someone gave a message in tongues to the entire congregation and it go uninterpreted. It has always been interpreted, either by the original speaker or by someone else.

 

[po18guy]

That is what I thought, po18guy. From what I understand from CAF and reading up on the CCR, is that Catholics believe that baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. However, the gifts and empowerment are not always manifested at that time, but are often released at a later date. It is this releasing that is often termed Spirit baptism, although that term is not actually correct.

Precisely. I see it as being more akin to an epiclesis, or a calling down, as we have received the Spirit at our Baptism and Confirmation. But, there is really no term that is useful other than baptism, although it is certainly not a sacramental baptism. The thing is, that we should have this experience at our Confirmation, but most of us do not. I think that there is a lack of understanding of what to expect upon your confirmation as well as some pride that does not permit us to reflect the reception of the gifts in a community setting.

May I ask if you are aware of any charismatic gifts other than tongues at work in your own life? Coming from a Pentecostal background where tongues is the only initial physical sign looked for, I would be interested to know how do people in the CCR know that they have received an outpouring of the Spirit?

At the conclusion of a several week long “Life in the Spirit” seminar, our Priest laid hands on us and prayed over us for the release of the gifts (charisms) that the Spirit had given us at our Baptism and Confirmation. Although not all receive this particular manifestation, some are “slain” in the Spirit (or ‘rest’ in the Spirit). There is a reception of total mental and physical peace. Since this is usually done while one is standing (but can be done in any posture), its reception brings a relaxation which means that you will need others to support you and help you to the floor or a seat. It is, in a sense, similar to what we may have seen on TV, but is absolutely genuine. No push is needed.

In my case, it was an intense spiritual experience that is difficult to describe. However, what occurred after that is easy to describe. I lost the fear of speaking of faith. I began evangelizing and studying the faith. The difference was profound. What I received was the gift of prophecy, which is not what most people associate with that term. It is desire, a drive to encourage others in faith, to call them to a deeper practice of their faith, and very occasionally, to offer brotherly correction or chastisement. It can be about the future, but more accurately is about foreseeing how someone’s life will unfold according to their beliefs and behaviors.

We all have at least one charism. If we do not know what our charism is, we need to do something to determine what that charism is, then to put it to use in the building up of the Church. There is a parallel with Jesus’ parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30. At the end, we will be called to give an accounting of what we have done with the charisms (talents) that we received. We do not want to offer it back with no fruits of its use.

.

 

[rom422]

Your position cannot be supported by scripture. Where does Paul say that uninterpreted tongues are not the charismatic gift of tongues? Can there be a non-charismatic gift of tongues? When I speak in an uninterpreted tongue, that is not the charismatic gift of tongues. But when I speak in that same tongue but interpret it, it suddenly becomes the charismatic gift of tongues. That makes no sense.

Everything that we receive from God is, in a sense, a gift from the Lord. Some gifts are ordinary, others are extraordinary. Some are meant for the edification of the faithful (to build up the faith or charity); others are not. What we call a “charismatic gift” is a special gift that is meant for the edification of the faithful and the common good of the Church. The gift of tongues is not merely a charismatic gift; it is also an extraordinary gift (meaning uncommon and/or unusual). This definition is based on the following text from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC 2003: "There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” Whatever their character – sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues – charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church."

Allow me to elucidate the notion of “charism” with more examples because it is here, I think, where our disagreement lies. Consider a woman who can sing very beautifully. Does she have a gift from God? Yes! Is her gift charismatic? Not necessarily, because she could merely have a God-given natural gift. However, if she could sing in a way that can inspire and move many people’s heart to repentance, then that is different. She has a charismatic gift because her voice and singing are not merely natural, for they produce supernatural effects in the order of grace, and this is for the good of the Church.

Now, consider a man whom God has given the talent to speak fluently. Sure, that is also a great gift. A politician who has that gift can gather many votes. But is this a charismatic gift? No, because it is ordered for the good of civil society, not toward the edification of the Church. What about a preacher who can make eloquent sermons? Does he have a charismatic gift? Yes, in a certain degree. But if he can preach like St. Dominic, and by his preaching convert a multitude of heretics back to the faith, then YES – he has a charismatic gift. If, furthermore, he can speak in a way that even heretics from a foreign land who hear him understand his sermons and are converted or uplifted in faith, then he does not merely have a charismatic gift; he also has the charismatic gift of tongues! Note that the language in the gift of tongues need to have the character of diversity . But it does not have to be esoteric, obscure or mysterious. In fact, the gift of tongues takes the form of a charismatic gift when the language can be understood and interpreted, for then it is able to edify the Church.

Now I am ready to answer some of your questions. First, you ask, “Where does St. Paul say that uninterpreted tongues is not the charismatic gift of tongues?” Answer: He did not say it directly. But it is clear from the context of his epistle that uninterpreted tongues cannot edify and, therefore, cannot be charismatic. For example, in 1 Cor. 14:17 he said of a person who prays in tongues: “For thou indeed givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” If, for lack of interpretation and understanding by others, the others are not edified, then how can you call that charismatic? On account of this statement by St. Paul, and in view of the meaning of a charism, the position I have taken in my Post is fully scripturally based. Any tongues that fail to edify the Church is not charismatic. In fact, if you see a lot of opposition to the charismatic renewal, it is precisely because of the frequent display of uninterpreted speech in worship services that more often repel than attract the observers. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not against the charismatic renewal. I am against the false understanding that certain practices are charismatic when they actually are not.

Your second question: Can there be a non-charismatic gift of tongues? Yes. In fact, many uninterpreted and uninterpretable speech and prayers belong to this class. Some people have the God-given ability to pray from the heart, - with sighs, longings and undecipherable utterances. These groanings may lack intelligible content (because they proceed not from the mind), but they are rich in emotional and affective content. They are precious to God, and maybe to the individual soul. But these prayers fail to edify the Church and, as St. Paul says, these should not be prohibited, but they are better said in private.

Third, you said: “When I speak in an uninterpreted tongue, that is not the charismatic gift of tongues. But when I speak in that same tongue but interpret it, it suddenly becomes the charismatic gift of tongues. That makes no sense.” Ha-ha-ha. If your speech is uninterpreted, then nobody knows – not even you –whether it is charismatic or not. If it is later interpreted, and the interpretation causes edification of the faithful, then it is charismatic. However, it is not a non-charismatic gift that suddenly became charismatic. Rather, it was, and is, a charismatic gift that was not known to be charismatic, but which is now known to be charismatic. The nature of the gift did not change. Your knowledge of the exact nature of the gift changed.

Dear Itwin, you know how long it takes for me to answer even one paragraph of your long post. But if you are patient, I will answer later many more of your questions than I have time to do right now. Peace.

 

[rom422]

You are confusing two things: (1) the gift and (2) the manner in which the gift is used. Your philosophy actually destroys the interdependence of the gifts which Paul was trying to establish. The one who speaks in a tongue has a charismatic gift. When he speaks in a tongue he utilizes his God-given gift, whether he interprets it or not. However, he must RELY on the one with the gift of interpretation to make his message useful to the body. Both are gifts, and we have no right to call a gift from God not a gift from God because someone with the gift of interpretation is not present. Paul does not say that uninterpreted tongues was not a gift from God. He only says it is a gift that must be used with greater discernment.

I never said that the ability to speak in tongues is not a gift of God. One who prays in tongues is using a gift that God gave Him, and he or she should be thankful. All I am saying is that the ability to speak in tongues is not necessarily the charismatic gift of tongues, unless the speech is shown to be at least interpretable. If there is no interpreter, then it is impossible to know that. In that case the best policy is to be obedient to Scripture and be silent in the Church. Pray in your private room, if you want to, but not in the Church where you are only likely to cause confusion.

Also, the interpreted messages is subject to the scrutiny of the Church, like prophecies and all private revelations.

Yes prophecy is desirable. But still I do not understand how you divide tongues. Honestly, you actually sound thoroughly Pentecostal. There are Pentecostals who distinguish private prayer language from the gift of tongues. The private prayer language is the tongues that are exhibited by Pentecostals newly baptized in the Spirit, in private prayer, and in corporate worship. These are uninterpreted, and edifies only the individual. Then there is the type of tongues that is interpreted and meant for the edification of others beside the gifted person. This is the gift of tongues.

However Pentecostal do not say these are two different things. They are both the languages of angels (and possibly man), but they are different degrees of the same phenomenon. All that is needed is someone to be a willing vessel to speak to the congregation in tongues.

I want to make a comment on that so-called “language of angels.” The only place in Scripture where I saw that was in 1 Cor. 13:1, where St. Paul says: “If I speak with the tongues of men , and of Angels, and have not charity, I am become a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” Some have correlated the uninterpreted or uninterpretable tongues spoken by some people with the language of angels. But St. Paul himself never made that correlation. He never said that those who were speaking unknown language were speaking the language of angels. And how could you really say that? Angels have no bodies; they don’t talk amongst themselves with audible sounds. And those angels who have spoken to people (both in the OT and the NT) spoke with intelligible language. So where did that idea come from that the language of angels is unintelligible?

What I think St. Paul was saying in the above cited verse is simply this: “Even if I speak with the eloquence of men or of angels, and have no charity, then my speech is worthless” The angel figure was a figure of speech, intended to highlight the greater importance of charity above all other spiritual gifts. It does not mean that angels speak with undecipherable language!!!

 

[ltwin]

So where did that idea come from that the language of angels is unintelligible?!

I got it from the Judeo-Christian tradition. See my previous comment where I explain all this in detail, but I’ll post the relevant part:

One such text is the Testament of Job, an apocryphal Jewish text, which says the following concerning Job’s daughters:

21Now then, my children, in keeping these, you will not have the enemy plotting against you nor [evil] intentions in your mind because this is a charm (Phylacterion) from theLord.22Rise then and gird these around you before I die in order that you may see theangels come at my parting so that you may see with wonder the powers of God.”23Thenrose the one whose name was Day (Yemima) and girt herself; and immediately shedeparted her body, as her father had said, and she put on another heart, as if she nevercared for earthly things.24And she sang angelic hymns in the voice of angels, and shechanted forth the angelic praise of God while dancing.

Christians and Jews were not alone in this belief. An ancient writer, Dio Chrysostom wrote,

Tell me, do you think Apollo speaks Attic or Doric? Or that men and gods have the same language? (Discourses 10.23)

 

[rom422]

See my comment where he cites as an example a whole congregation prophesying and the positive effects it would have. Once again I ask the question, why use this as an example to the Corinthians if a whole congregation prophesying together was an impossibility or something that was highly unlikely?

Again, he felt the need to limit the number of prophetic oracles just as he did glossalalic ones. Look again at verse 29,

The fact that many were prophesying does not mean that many had the gift. That is why there is a need to test prophecies, and I think St. Paul saw that need. The reason he limited the number of prophetic oracles in the Church was to give the Church time to test the prophecies. Prophecies, just like the interpreted messages of tongues, are subject to the scrutiny of the Church.

Are prophets and prophecies really common? Were the prophecies significant and intended for the good of the Church? I have heard a lot of trivial prophecies, and fake ones. But I see very little of authentic ones. If these prophecies have significance for the Church, which is what I would expect from those who claim to have the charismatic gift of prophecy, then where are these prophecies published?

No. Those people in Corinth babbling to the congregation in a language they did not understand, HAD the CHARISMATIC GIFT OF TONGUES.It was truly a gift from the God. The GIFT was not missing. What was missing was the INTERPRETATION of the glossolalic utterance. Paul is simply asking for those ALREADY possessing the gift of tongues to PRAY for the GIFT OF INTERPRETATION or to simply not speak out to the congregation unless they knew that there was someone who could interpret for them.

If the interpretation was missing, then how do you know that the utterances made by the tongues speakers are even interpretable? I know that we should not condemn and say that their tongues speaking was fake just because we could not understand them, but neither should we credit them for a gift that has not been verified. The purpose of charismatic gifts is to edify, and a gift of tongues cannot achieve this purpose unless the speech is understood. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit was indeed the Author of this gift of tongues, don’t you think that He would provide the necessary interpreter if the gift was not intended for the good of the individual only, but for the common good of the entire Church? Did He give the gift in vain?

 

[ltwin]

So where did that idea come from that the language of angels is unintelligible?

You might also want to look into the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle which describes women singing hymns in the language of the cherubim. If you’re interested, check out The Tongues of Angels by John C. Poirier.

About glossolalia, I’m not convinced by your argument that the tongues at Corinth were not the charismatic gift of tongues. However, I think by now we understand one another’s viewpoints, and I don’t see much use in arguing that point any further. We probably aren’t going to change one another’s minds. In fact, our positions seem actually to be very close. We both support Paul’s admonition that both prophecy and tongues should be tested and intelligible through interpretation.

I think we differ in that you clearly see tongues and prophecy as extremely rarer than does the CCR. That is a debate I would enjoy having. I definitely think that is the biggest problem many Catholics have, whether the charismatic gifts are rare or more common. I was actually shocked coming to CAF and hearing Catholics arguing using Cessationist positions. It just does not seem to match with Catholic theology.

 

[rom422]

You might also want to look into the Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Bartholomew the Apostle which describes women singing hymns in the language of the cherubim.

Yes, thank you. There is a certain anthropomorphism here when we start thinking that the angels have a certain “language.” Angels communicate with each other with the swiftness of thought, and they don’t use broken syllables. And whenever they communicate with humans, they use human languages. That said, it is understandable that some Jewish apocryphal texts have portrayed Angels as having their own language, and that angelic language is not intelligible by humans.

However, was that undecipherable language what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 13:1? Or was he actually hinting at the beauty of he angelic language? I think it is the latter: “If I were to speak with the eloquence of men or of Angels,…” Honestly, I find it odd that he would hint at the unintelligibility of Angelic speech to indicate the higher value of charity.

About glossolalia, I’m not convinced by your argument that the tongues at Corinth were not the charismatic gift of tongues. However, I think by now we understand one another’s viewpoints, and I don’t see much use in arguing that point any further. We probably aren’t going to change one another’s minds. In fact, our positions seem actually to be very close. We both support Paul’s admonition that both prophecy and tongues should be tested and intelligible through interpretation.

I think we differ in that you clearly see tongues and prophecy as extremely rarer than does the CCR. That is a debate I would enjoy having. I definitely think that is the biggest problem many Catholics have, whether the charismatic gifts are rare or more common. I was actually shocked coming to CAF and hearing Catholics arguing using Cessationist positions. It just does not seem to match with Catholic theology.

I agree. We both have stated our positions sufficiently in our exchange of views. Regarding the CCR, I always welcome any movement that aim to renew our relationship with God. I think that is what the Popes have also done. That said, I will continue to blow the whistle whenever I see anything in the movement that seems to go out of line with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

It has been nice carrying a dialogue with you, Itwin, and hope to see you again in other threads. Good night, and God bless!

 

[ltwin]

Yes, thank you. There is a certain anthropomorphism here when we start thinking that the angels have a certain “language.” Angels communicate with each other with the swiftness of thought, and they don’t use broken syllables. And whenever they communicate with humans, they use human languages. That said, it is understandable that some Jewish apocryphal texts have portrayed Angels as having their own language, and that angelic language is not intelligible by humans.

However, was that undecipherable language what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 13:1? Or was he actually hinting at the beauty of he angelic language? I think it is the latter: “If I were to speak with the eloquence of men or of Angels,…” Honestly, I find it odd that he would hint at the unintelligibility of Angelic speech to indicate the higher value of charity.

I just tend to take the verse at face value. When the Apostle said, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels,” it is clear to me that he is referring to, well, the tongues of men and the tongues of angels. Humans have their tongues and angels have their languages as well, and it wouldn’t seem impossible that a gift of speaking in different kinds of languages would not only included the terrestrial languages but would also include celestial ones as well. We know that in the world Paul lived, these ideas were out there. Not only were they pagan, but Jews and Christians also thought that angels possessed their distinct languages.

To me it is not a question of whether angels spoke to Biblical people in a language they can understand. The gift of tongues is not for communication between angelic deities and humans. The gift of tongues is a spiritual gift for the benefit of the church and for the private benefit of the individual. To me the question is: is it possible that a spiritual gift for speaking in different kinds of languages would also include heavenly languages? If so, this gives some kind of idea exactly what is the undecipherable languages which people speak in the spirit sometimes.

I agree. We both have stated our positions sufficiently in our exchange of views. Regarding the CCR, I always welcome any movement that aim to renew our relationship with God. I think that is what the Popes have also done. That said, I will continue to blow the whistle whenever I see anything in the movement that seems to go out of line with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

I would expect nothing less from a Catholic.

It has been nice carrying a dialogue with you, Itwin, and hope to see you again in other threads. Good night, and God bless!

Same here.

 

[Fragile]

This, as well as a plethora of other issues, is empirical evidence that all Catholics DO NOT believe the same, and are not all of the same mind. In fact, here and elsewhere, I see the same debates and arguments I see on any other christian board…same as it ever was!