Charismatic Spirituality

[DavidFilmer]

A  previous thread inquired about the nature of Charismatic Catholicism. I wanted to respond, and also open a new thread to invite further inquiry into this subject, which I find deeply troubling.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of those who identify themselves, as “Charismatic Catholics” are faithful sons and daughters of the Church who deeply love Our Lord and seek to do His Divine Will. However, I have serious misgivings about the nature of Charismatic spirituality within the Catholic Church. I believe that some good can and does arise from this form of spirituality, but that the influence of it will eventually undermine and corrupt authentic Catholic spirituality, because the Charismatic movement does not arise from authentic Catholicism.

Before I begin, I wish to point out that participation in Charismatic Catholicism by nuns, brothers, or priests does NOT lend the movement any credibility whatsoever!  Individual Religious or Clerics can be (and frequently are) mistaken about things. Martin Luther (the person who invented Protestantism) was a Catholic priest! I’ve seen pictures of nuns at pro-abortion rallies, and in my part of the country (the beautiful Pacific Northwest) I’ve known of priests and brothers who participate in pagan (druid-ish) Solstice celebrations. Just because clergy or religious participate or something doesn’t make it OK.

I could discuss the Charismatic movement from a number of perspectives, but time and space compel me to be more concise. So, let’s open the discussion with a clear equation:

    Charismatic = “speaking in tongues”

I am not aware of ANY movement, Catholic or protestant, which calls itself “charismatic” that does not have a strong emphasis on speaking in tongues. It is this practice that I feel is most at odds with authentic Catholic spirituality, so this is the aspect I will focus my attentions on in this space.

Biblically, the practice of tongues was manifest in two ways. In Acts 2 and 10, we see that “speaking in tongues” meant that the Apostles were speaking in KNOWN human languages. Those in the audience who were open to the message of the Gospel each heard and understood the Apostles in their own native dialect (as if they had a "Universal Translator" from Star Trek). This was a miracle of unifying language, in contrast to what happened at the Tower of Babel (where language differences drove people apart). But this is NOT what happens in Charismatic worship.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (perhaps the earliest Epistle in the Bible) is the only book to mention speaking in “unknown” tongues. There is NOT ONE sentence in Scripture that promotes or encourages this type of activity. Everything that Paul wrote on the subject was intended to limit and restrict the practice, as it was causing disturbances and disorder within Christian worship (which is reason enough for skepticism!). And Paul even said flat-out, “tongues are a sign NOT for those who believe, but for unbelievers.” [1 Cor 14:22].  THIS is what happens in Charismatic worship.

Paul does not mention the practice at all in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. So did the practice of speaking in tongues (either known or unknown) continue in early Christianity???

No, it did not, as the testimony of Early Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine demonstrates:

This entire passage [regarding tongues in 1Cor] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer takes place [St. John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON FIRST CORINTHIANS, Vol. XII (AD 392)]

In the earliest time, "the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believed; and they spake with tongues, "which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance. " These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign, and is passed away. (St. Augustine, TEN HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, Vol. VII)

Signs and miracles often accompany new revelation from God, but the miracles do not persist. The Fathers tell us that the miracle of tongues was like that – it manifested itself for a short time and then ceased.

In more than eighteen and a half centuries of Christian spirituality the practice of speaking in tongues is mentioned only by a small smattering of heretics (Montanus and Tertullian) and wacky groups like the Jansenists and the Shakers (who spoke in tongues while dancing, um, naked). Not ONE single “mainline” Christian person (Catholic or protestant) since the Corinthians EVER claimed to speak in tongues UNTIL...

(this is not really a QUOTE, but I wanted to offset this brief history of the pentacostal/charismatic movement)

Charles Fox Parham (1987-1929), who was a Methodist minister of the Holiness tradition.  He became disenchanted as he saw the Methodist Church moving away from Holiness doctrines (read up on that doctrine sometime – it’s a hoot!), so he decided to establish his own church.  As part of his ministry, he founded Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas in 1900, with about 40 students.  He asked his students to study the Bible for the answer to this question:  How does one know if he has received the Holy Spirit?  The students concluded that speaking in tongues was the appropriate sign.  On New Years Day, 1901, one of his students, Agonies Oman, became the first person since the Corinthians to claim to speak in tongues.  This activity attracted considerable attention, but it was short lived, and the school closed in 1902 (after only two years).

In 1905, Parham established another college in Houston, Texas, and this school became the center of the Pentecostal “movement” (such as it was).  In 1907, Parham’s ministry was discredited owing to sex scandals and his espousal of British Israelism.  He lived out the rest of his life as head of a rather small group of Apostolic Faith churches headquartered in Baxter Springs, Kansas.

In 1906, in Los Angeles, William Joseph Seymour (1870-1922) held a revival at 312 Azusa Street, where the worldwide Pentecostal movement was launched.  Seymour, an African-American Holiness preacher, was trained by Parham at his school in Houston.  As in Topeka, the activity of this revival sparked considerable attention, but was short lived.  By 1913, the Pentecostal movement was widely scattered, incohesive, and on the brink of extinction.

The Assemblies of God churches (the “home” of Charismatic Christianity) were established by a committee.  A man named Eudorus N. Bell published a periodical from Malverm, Arkansas called the Word and Witness.  Bell and four other men (Howard Goss, Daniel Opperman, Archibald Collins, and Mack Pinson) had become concerned with the future of the Pentecostal movement, and they decided to organize a general-invitation convention in Hot Springs, Arkansas in April 1914.  This convention attracted about 300 persons (about 120 of whom were delegates of various scattered Pentecostal movements).  The Assemblies of God grew out of the resolutions of this convention, and was first headquartered in Findlay, Ohio (I used to live in Findlay!), but moved to Springfield, Missouri in 1915, where it is still housed today.

In 1960, an Episcopal pastor, Dennis Bennett of Saint Mark's Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California started a charismatic movement within his parish, and for the first time, Pentecostalism transcended its traditional denominational definitions and became a form of spirituality integrated into an otherwise “mainline” Christian framework. From there, it found its way into other faiths, including Catholicism.

As Catholics, we have a Faith that is nearly 2,000 years old. We call ourselves “Catholic” because our Faith is universal (that’s what “catholic” means) – for all people, in all places, at all times. Yet this “Catholic Charismatic” movement is scarcely 40 years old!  I have a vacuum cleaner that’s older than “Charismatic Catholicism!”

Occasionally, great Doctors of the Church reveal to us deeper insight into Catholic spirituality. But the whole Charismatic movement did not begin with any Catholic Doctor or Saint – it started with the students of a disenfranchised Holiness preacher with a lot of wacky ideas and who had a hard time keeping his pants buttoned, and who could not even muster credibility within the movement that he started. Not surprisingly, the movement found its way into Catholicism by way of the Episcopal Church, the very same church that was the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse birth control.

So, to me, the Charismatic movement has three fatal flaws: its origins are not Biblical (not one passage of Scripture encourages or promotes this form of worship), it is not historical (no Catholic in almost 2,000 years had ever practiced it) and its origins are not Catholic (it has never been promoted by any Catholic Saint nor by the Church Magnesium).

Charismatic spirituality is a very recent invention of fringe protestants. It has no Biblical, historical, or theological precedence or merit. I do not believe this form of spirituality has ANY legitimate place in Catholic worship.

I invite your comments.

[trmichels]

I'm going to have to disagree with you, depending on how you look at Catholicism.

First, do you speak with first hand knowledge of the Charismatic movement? Unless you have witnessed or participated in a Catholic Charismatic prayer meeting you may not understand how spirit filled it is. And, if you have done it, and were turned off by it, I would suggest it is deep skepticism or something else that turned you off. Very few Christians, including skeptical, stoic, dare I say stoggy (sp?) Catholics, are turned off by the presence of the Holy Spirt and the Charismatic gifts.      

According to the Charismatic Renewal one in every ten Catholics is a Charismatic. And, as a Charismatic for over 25 years, I can tell you that I have seen that it has been good for the church; it has in fact revitalized it. Why would you want to keep the Holy Spirit and his gifts out of the church?
 
The fact that the gifts are in the Bible, shows that they were a VITAL part of the early Christian (later Catholic) church. They are also necessary (and being used) now, in this day and age.

Charismatic does not equal "tongues". That is a very narrow view.

From what I have seen (in myself and others) Charismatic means a new found PERSONAL relationship with Jesus, our God, Lord and Savior; which leads to a greater understanding of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the Bible, and a greater commitment to Christianity. I'm a Christian by faith and Spiritual Predestination; a Catholic by birth, denomination and choice.

Many sketpics focus on "tongues" because of mistaken teaching or understanding of tongues. If you look closely at 1 Cor. 12:4-11 you will see that one of the gifts is "interpretation of tongues". This shows that, in fact, not all people at all times understood tongues, becasue they in some instances needed to be "interpreted". It is most probable that when tongues were spoken to the masses, the Holy spirit manifested the aility to interpret the tongues on those present. Because, if we look closely, there is no way that all those present could understand what was being said. There were simply not enough "speakers" to give tongues in all the languages of the countries of all those present. I can tell you that in fact, an interpretation of an uknown tongue often comes in the form of a "thought" in one's mind. So, I understand this concept.  

It is generallly accepted that there are THREE forms of tongues. I can't remember where the verses are, but I assure you they are there. When they deleted the Christianity forum on Hunting.net in favor of a Relgion forum I lost a lot of good posts.

There is "praying in tongues" which is for use by believers, in that it is (probably) praying for some unknown need. The fact that it is called a "tongue" suggests that it is not a "native" language, and most likely is a language "unknown" to the speaker. Otherwise it would not even be mentioned. This private prayer does not need interpretation.

There is "prophecy" in tongues. Prophecy generally comes to a person as a "thought" or "voice" in one's mind. It often is spoken in the "first person" as if one's voice were being used to speak God's thoughts. This type of "prophetic tongue" always needs interpretation. If a person continues to speak in a prophetic tongue, without interpretation, they are strongly admonished not to continue doing it, because it is not from God. In fact, they may be asked to leave the prayer meeting.

There is "singing in tongues" which is the same as praying in tongues, except that it is given in song, and is often giving glory to God. If you have ever heard 20-100 people singing in tongues, using different tunes, yet the effect is still harmonious and very uplifting, there can be no doubt that it is a Godly Gift.

As to the rest of the Charismatic Gifts, as I have said, I have used all of them but "Miracles". I may have misunderstood your intent, but for you to say that miracles do not persist, is to say that the "occurrences" of visions and healings at Lourdes and Medjagoria (sp?), and several other "unexplaned occurrences" believed in by a vast number of Catholics and other Christians are nothing more than a hoax or mass hysteria.

There are several Bible verses I could use to support my beliefs. But, it would do nothing but provoke a long un-win-able debate/discussion. I'll leave you to your beliefs, and I'll keep mine.

A good way to look at this is a vers from an old song: "They will know we are Christians by our love". I'll let the work of myself, and the works of countless other Catholic Charismatics, speak for their Christianity; and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.  

I suggest go to this link before you speak and deny further: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm


May God bless you, and enlighten you with the gifts of his Holy Spirit,

T.R.

[Mary Liz]

In my personal experience I have know a number of Charismatics  - both Protestant and Catholic.  I have found them on a whole to be divisive by the nature of their Charismatic beliefs.  I have seen them exhibit a spiritual “superiority” based on what they have assumed were gifts from the Holy Spirit.  
     True Gifts of the Holy Spirit should be uniting, kind and gentle; not inductive to pride and exclusionary sentiments.  I have wondered over the years if some of the gifts were indeed from God or maybe from the enemy.
     God leads us through trials so we will be strong in Faith and not need the flamboyantness that hold the senses captive (as in the Charismatic movement) and never allows a deep profound growth in Faith that is unadorned but by the profound love of God alone and not His gifts.

St. John of the Cross says in “The Sayings of Light and Love”,  # 54. Souls will be unable to reach perfection who do not strive to be content with having nothing, in such fashion that their natural and spiritual desire is satisfied with emptiness; for this is necessary in order to reach the highest tranquility and peace of spirit.  Hence the love of God in the pure and simple soul is almost continually in act.
 

In ‘The Ascent Of Mt. Carmel”, St John says , “Similarly, insofar as a person is subject to a sensory spirit, and entirely spiritual one cannot enter.”
Book One, Chapter 6, 2nd Paragraph
 

AMDG,
Mary Liz

[DavidFilmer]

First, do you speak with first hand knowledge of the Charismatic movement? etc, etc

It doesn't matter (and note that I am NOT answering that question)! Look, I live in the land of druids and earth-religion(and, trmichels, you've probably known some of these people yourself). There are Catholics who try to integrate these practices into Catholic worship. They claim it helps them feel closer to God through the wonders of His Creation, and they can feel the Spirit moving in the abundant life around them, and on and on, and on. And I have NO DOUBT they feel that way! But druidism has NO place in Catholic worship. I don't CARE how it makes them FEEL. Feelings can be (and often are) very misleading.  There are people in the Caribbean Islands (and elsewhere) who think that Catholicism can be improved by mixing ancient voodoo rights into it. I don’t CARE how it makes them FEEL.  Voodoo rites have no place in Catholic worship. And, believe it or not, there are some people who believe that Catholicism can be improved by mixing in the doctrines of a failed Holiness preacher. But Charismatic spirituality has NO more place in Catholic worship than druidism or voodooism.

And, if you have done it, and were turned off by it, I would suggest it is deep skepticism or something else that turned you off.

Oh, OK. So if I don’t like it, then obviously there’s something wrong with me. Got it.

According to the Charismatic Renewal one in every ten Catholics is a Charismatic

Does ANYONE really believe this??? Because, I'm sorry, that statistic is absurd. But it wouldn't matter if it were true! Historians say that, at one time, nearly HALF the Church was Arian (one in two). It doesn't give Aryanism any credibility just because a lot of people were misled by it. Besides, this “strength in numbers” approach is illogical. It’s silly to say “the movement is credible because 10% of the people accept it” when that admits that 90% do NOT. Sensus fidelium is clearly against you.

I may have misunderstood your intent, but for you to say that miracles do not persist, is to say that the "occurrences" of visions and healings at Lourdes and Medjugorje , and several other "unexplained occurrences" believed in by a vast number of Catholics and other Christians are nothing more than a hoax or mass hysteria.

Yes, you misunderstood me. I said that miracles often accompany new revelation, but those miracles do not persist. The Gospel message preached by the Disciples was new revelation (at the time). There was also new revelation at Lourdes, and miracles accompanied it. But nobody can deny that the miracles are diminishing, and I believe they will one day cease. (I’m not including Medjugorje, which has been categorically condemned by the Church, but which has mislead many of devout Faithful).

Charismatic does not equal "tongues". That is a very narrow view.

Yet the practice is always a part of any Charismatic worship service that I’ve ever heard of. Perhaps you'd like to cite me an example of a Charismatic Catholic group that discourages speaking in unknown tongues (I know that you cannot). I select this particular “charism” because it’s what launched the entire Charismatic movement (when Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues on New Year’s Day, 1901 in Topeka, Kansas). Speaking in tongues started the whole Charismatic movement.
 

The fact that the gifts are in the Bible, shows that they were a VITAL part of the early Christian (later Catholic) church. They are also necessary (and being used) now, in this day and age.

There is no reasonable doubt, historically speaking, that speaking in tongues was NOT practiced by one single credible Christian for nearly nineteen centuries. Not one single Catholic Saint since the Apostolic age (up until this day) ever did it. Even the protestants cannot point to any “great” figure who ever did. Martin Luther never spoke in tongues. John Calvin never spoke in tongues. Zwingli, Schleiermacher, Lessing, Ritschel, Harnack, Kierkengaard, Barth, or Wesley never spoke in tongues. Almost nineteen centuries have come and gone without Charismatic spirituality. I see no reason why it is suddenly so necessary now.

[ Many skeptics focus on "tongues" because of mistaken teaching or understanding of tongues. If you look closely at 1 Cor. 12:4-11 you will see that one of the gifts is "interpretation of tongues". This shows that, in fact, not all people at all times understood tongues, because they in some instances needed to be "interpreted". It is most probable that when tongues were spoken to the masses, the Holy spirit manifested the ability to interpret the tongues on those present. Because, if we look closely, there is no way that all those present could understand what was being said. There were simply not enough "speakers" to give tongues in all the languages of the countries of all those present. I can tell you that in fact, an interpretation of an unknown tongue often comes in the form of a "thought" in one's mind. So, I understand this concept.]

OK, let’s look at Acts Chapter Two, so that we CLEARLY understand what this is about:

And [the disciples] were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language? We are Parthians, Medes … [eleven other nationalities], both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God. They were astonished and bewildered [Acts 2:4-12a]

This is the real thing, people!  When someone talks about “speaking in tongues,” whip out your Bible and turn to Acts Chapter Two and see how their experience stacks up against this. These people in Jerusalem all heard the Disciples as if they were hearing their own countrymen speaking – it was perfectly natural to them. The only way they realized that something miraculous was going on was because everyone else (whom they knew to speak different languages) also appeared to understand. Had the entire crowd been Medes they wouldn’t have realized that a miracle was taking place (though they might have wondered where the Disciples learned Median). So, how did the people hear the Disciples in their own native language? Because they had the gift of interpretation of tongues. You see, this Grace wasn’t given only to the Disciples to speak this way, but also given to those people receptive to the Gospel message to hear it that way. But others were not receptive, and they did not receive the gift of interpretation of tongues:

But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.�

This authentic gift of speaking/interpreting tongues (where it seems to be natural speech to both the speaker and the hearer) bears no resemblance to what Paul tried to suppress at the Church at Corinth (and which what is practiced at Charismatic worship services today.)

From what I have seen (in myself and others) Charismatic means a new found PERSONAL relationship with Jesus, our God, Lord and Savior; which leads to a greater understanding of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and the Bible, and a greater commitment to Christianity.

Actually, that’s what “conversion” means.

Why would you want to keep the Holy Spirit and his gifts out of the church?

Because I’m an evil guy (can’t you tell? I’m not Charismatic! So I must be one of those stogy Catholics who just hate the Holy Spirit.). Or, just maybe, I believe the Charismatic movement is actually the prodigy of the Devil and ultimately destructive to the Church because its origins are deeply flawed and its fruits are sour.

[trmichels]

If you went to the link I provided you will see that your view does not agree with two Popes and the Vatican's views on the Chariamstic Renewal.

Your view also does not agree with the Catholic Catechism, which explains the central domga and belief of the Catholic church.

[768] So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her." ... 

[798]  The Holy Spirit is the "prinicple of every vital and truly saving actiion in part of the Body." He works in many ways to build up the Body in charity: ... finally, by the many special graces (called "charisms"), by which he makes the faithful "fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building of the Church"

[799] Whether extraoridary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Chruch, ordered as they are to her for building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world.

[800] Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms.

David. You should get a copy of the Catechism. It brings to light many aspects of Catholic dogma.
 
 
I believe the number cited by the Charismatic Renewal, I do not believe they would lie.  

For many Charismatics, becoming a "born again" Christian (which often occurs first, Charisms generally appear later) is a PERSONAL CONVERSION. In fact being "born again" is the personal conversion we are all prompted to seek/do.    

Just because tongues is part of many Charismatic groups does not mean it IS the Charismatic experinece. Flawed logic.  

There is no point in debaiting this with you. It leads to nothing.

May God bless you both David and Mary,

T.R.


Here are some Rhetorical Questions for those with open minds.

If Charismata, especially tongues, is not from God, or is not good, what does that make me?

Am I not a Christian, who chooses to stay Catholic (as the writings in the link suggest Catholic Charimatics should do) who's main purpose in life is to spread Yahweh's Good News, and bring others to Jesus?

If I lead others to Christ through my ministry, how do my Charismatic Gifts fit into the equation?

Do I not Glorify God?


Yahweh Sabaoth, thank you for the Charisms you have bestowed upon me through your Holy Spirit. Help me be your humble servant in my use of them, Lord. Amen.

[DavidFilmer]

What the ICCRS officially promotes and what happens at local Charismatic worship services are two very different things. It reminds me of the MANY abuses which happen “in the spirit of Vatican II,” such as rewording the Mass with ‘inclusive language’ – a clear abuse.  Likewise, the Charismatic movement is being clearly abused. The ICCRS statutes do not mention any particular charisms (and certainly not speaking in “unknown tongues”), nor can I find any reference to this practice anywhere on their website. Yet, speaking in “unknown tongues” is a fundamental aspect of every single Charismatic worship service that I’ve ever heard of. This is a liturgical ABUSE. Speaking in “unknown tongues” in the manner practiced at Charismatic worship services is NOT a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is NOT endorsed (or even mentioned) in the CCC. It is NOT endorsed by any Pope or any aspect of the Magisterium.  Of course, “charisms” (generally speaking) are welcome by the Pope, the CCC, the Church, and me - but speaking in “unknown tongues” as is practiced at Charismatic worship services is NOT - absolutely NOT - one of these charisms – it is an ABUSE – and one which pervades and corrupts the entire Charismatic movement.

Just because tongues is part of many Charismatic groups does not mean it IS the Charismatic experience. Flawed logic.

I didn’t say it was the Charismatic experience, but that it was a fundamental part of every single Charismatic worship service. When I see Charismatics disavowing this un-Biblical and un-Christian liturgical ABUSE then they will gain much more credibility.

I am not opposed to Charismatic Catholicism (as defined by ICCRS), but I am opposed to its ABUSE. And I see it abused everywhere it is practiced with this whole “speaking in tongues” thing which has absolutely no Biblical or historical merit.

If Charismata, especially tongues, is not from God, or is not good, what does that make me?

Vulnerable.

If I lead others to Christ through my ministry, how do my Charismatic Gifts fit into the equation? Do I not Glorify God?

To the extent that you glorify God and exercise His ministry (which I have no doubt that you do), you do so IN SPITE of the errors of the Charismatic movement, not BECAUSE of them. I believe you (and anyone else) could grow much more deeply in your faith and ministry by renouncing these errors. I have witnessed this many times in people who have left the errors of the Charismatic movement and who have seen their already strong spiritual life take on profound new dimensions.

trmichels, you have been active in this movement for a long time, so you probably have some recognition and influence within it. Please consider using this influence to help reform the Charismatic movement and purge it of its non-Spiritual influences and practices. Imagine how effective the movement could be if it could rid itself of these abuses and focus on the legitimate aspects of Charismatic spirituality!

[Mary Liz]

Prayer is our communication with God.  It is by the disposition of our hearts that it is ‘in His language’.  It doesn’t need to be English, French, Italian or any other language of man.
We have Old Testament prayers of Abraham, David, Elijah, Daniel, Isaiah, and so on.  I may be incorrect but I don’t remember ‘tongues’ being mentioned. But the state of their hearts is mentioned:  for example the faithful heart of Abraham and the contrite heart of David.

Even so we look to Christ as head of the Church and his Mother, Mary the perfect model in the Christian life.

Christ taught us how to pray the perfect prayer, the Our Father, and it wasn’t in toungues.  I would think if it had been it would have been mentioned that to pray to God speaking in tongues would come to us (or to even a few).  
Jesus showed us to pray in quiet and solitude.  Even public worship like Mass has the ability to draw you into a quietness within God.

Our Mother at prayer.
I’ll only draw upon the Magnificat.  Mary was completely, in good measure and overflowing-ly filled with God. (sorry rough paraphrase.)
You can’t get anymore filled with God than she was.  As she stood there praying this wondrous prayer for herself and us, she spoke in her own language and not in tongues.
All there heard her and had varying degrees of understanding from Elizabeth who understood everything to those who didn’t get anything at all. If anyone would have spoken in tongues it would have been the Blessed Mother.

In the July 10th post from trmichels, he states that, “Charismatic does not equal "tongues". That is a very narrow view. “ 

Well it is the emphasis that it receives from its own members.  What I’m I to a assume that the people who emphasis this are fringe members?

The Catechism has this to say about the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit.  
These are the ones that we know are from God.

The Catechism (#1831, p. 450)
The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord.  They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. (Isa 11: 1-2).  They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them.  They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspiration.

The Catechism (#1832, p.451)
The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory.  The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them:  “charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.”  (Gal 5:22-23)

These are the ones that I will welcome because they are the ones stated by The Church.

AMDG

[royston]

Well, I've spent quite some time reading the arguements for and against tongues made by all of you. I received the gift of tongues when I attended my first Jesus Encounter retreat around fifteen years ago. I am not a biblical scholar, but as far as I know, the gift of tongues is mentioned several times in the Acts and Letters of St Paul. And finally a tree is known by its fruit. There are times I pray the formal prayers of the church. There are times I pray and praise God in my own language, which is English. There are times when I just sit in His presence in silence. And there are times when I run out of words and pray in tongues. Each of these are different expressions of the same wonder and awe in the presence of God. Each of these is a beautiful gift from God for those who choose to spend time with Him. So I don't see the point in arguing about this. Just pray that God leads you ever closer to Him in whichever way He chooses.

In Christ,

Royston

[DavidFilmer]

Hi, roston, welcome to the Community.

I have not expressed any objections about any forms of private prayer (including tongues), which is what you seem to allude to in your reply here. I have reservations, but I have not said anything about it.

But I get very concerned when public worship slides into abuse and error (hey, that gives me an idea for a new thread!). The Charismatic movement in principle (as defined by ICCRS) is very good - focused on spiritual renewal and growth. But, in practice, it has a strong, universal emphasis on the practice of speaking in "unknown tongues," which is supported by NEITHER Scripture NOR Tradition (unlike the genuine miracle of "known tongues" described in Acts 2). And, actually, it's not supported by ICCRS, either. I believe the devil is rightly fearful of the Charismatic movement, and seeks to corrupt it with his own influences, including the practice of speaking in "unknown tongues," which the devil also used to undermine and disrupt worship at the early Chruch at Corinth (and which Paul strongly discouraged in his First Epistle).

The practice of speaking in "unknown tongues" in communal worhsip is a corruption of authentic spirituality and is an attack on the Body of Christ, and has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. Those who participare are, no doubt, sincerely seeking deeper communion wth God, but are sadly being misled by (and are unwittingly propegating) a deeply flawed form of spiritual expression. It is a right and proper thing to oppose and speak out against these abuses whenever the opportunity presents itself. Should any Christian watch a brother or sister fall into grevous error and remain silent? That's not love - that's apathy! I give the Holy Spirit wide latitude, but I give the devil no quarter, especially when he messes with my Christian Family!

I hope and pray that the Charismatic Catholic movement will one day renounce these abuses.

[DavidFilmer]

Hi, MaryLiz – welcome to the Community.

Thanks for your comments. Not many people can quote St. John of the Cross (that’s some heavy stuff). I have no doubt that this great and profound Doctor of the Church (called "the greatest of all mystical theologians" - if you doubt it, Google the phrase) would be absolutely aghast at what often passes for Charismatic Catholicism.

In re-reading this thread, however, one quote that you cited from St. John strikes me in particular:

insofar as a person is subject to a sensory spirit, an entirely spiritual one cannot enter.
St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book 1, Chapter 6

And the Doctor goes on to say,

Therefore, like dogs, they [who are subject to a sensory spirit] are ever hungering, and justly so, because the crumbs serve to whet their appetite rather than to satisfy their hunger

I have seen this myself. People who were involved in the abuses of Charismatic Catholicism (a very “sensory spirit”), who were for a long time satisfied with a spirituality which simply slaked their appetites, but who were finally inspired to renounce these errors, and they saw an explosion of spiritual growth and depth (because an “entirely spiritual spirit” could now enter). I pray that all who are misled by the abuses (crumbs) of this movement will do likewise and experience such an exponential spiritual growth (a true satisfaction of hunger, as opposed to a slaking of the appetite which they settle for now and call "good fruits").

[trmichels]

I dont know where anyone gets the idea that tongues is such an important part of a Charismatic prayer service. While it is something that occurs, it certainly is not the focus or central issue of Charimatics. I know of no Charismatic who puts tongues at the center of their peronal Christian life, or Charismatic experience.

Mary Liz is defining the "gifts" as defined by Catholicism. The Spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit we are talking about are those defined by the Bible in 1 Cor. 12:4-11. I propose that the spirit and essence of the Bible is always right, because it is the WORD of God. Therefore, those of us who are Christian first, and not some denominational designation, believe in / and refer to the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as those listed in God's Word.

Interestingly, the foot note in my New Jerusalem Bible states. "The gift of tongues or glossollalia, is the power of praying, especially praising God, under the action of the pressure of ecstasy, by making sounds which, though though continuous and syllabeled, are not intelligible as language.This is what Paul is calls "speaking in tongues" or "speaking in a tongue". This gift was one of the first visible effects of the outpouring of the Spirit in the primitive church." Why should it be any different now? Tongues is often the first visible effect of the outpouring of the Holy Spirt when a person wishes to establish a "close personal relationship" with Jesus, which as we know it is being "born again". (pg. 1995 Chpt. 12 h.)

It is no different now than then, and no less relevant. I'm not stopping, unless God tells me to. I'm certainly not going to stop because some people are skeptics, or becaue they think it is wrong. God will convict me if it is wrong. I pray (and therefore I know) that he will, if it is wrong.

David, your interpretation/assessment of Chapter 14 is wrong. This discourse is NOt about NOT praying in tongues, it is rather urging Charismatics to seek the greater gift of prophesy, and about the regulation of the gifts. 1 Cor. 14:5 the Bible and Paul state, " While I should like you all to speak in tongues, I would much rather you could prophesy." For "those who prophesy are of greater importance than those who speak in tongues, unless they can interpret what they say so that the church will be built up." (v. 5) This implies that one who prophesies in a tongue and interprets tongues, is greater than one who prophesies in their native language. Quite the endorsement of "tongues" isn't it?  

Clearly there are three different uses of "tongues".

       
As to "praying in tongues", 1 Cor. 14:2 it states, "Those who speak in a tongue speak to God, but not to other people, because nobody understands them, they are speaking in the Spirit, and the meaning is hidden." Clearly this refers to what has been definded as "praying in tongues" and "singing in tongues". It is speaking to God.  

In 1 cor. 14:6 it states, "Now suppose brothers, I come to you and speak in tongues, what good shall I do you if my speaking provides no revelation or knowledge, or prophecy or insturction." First note that the word speak used here is an obsolete Greek word la-leh interpreted as talk, as in to utter words. Also note that the plural "tongues" is used here, as the "gift of tongues". Clearly this refers to what has been defined as "speaking in tongues" as a "revelation, knowledge or prophesy", which can only come from a Spiritual indulgnce or Charism, from God/the Holy Spirit. This is refering to using tongues as a prophetic (from God) teaching tool. In this case it needs to be "interpreted" or understood to be of use (which is why we have the gift of "interepretation of tongues"). This "prophecy in tongues" is different from "speaking in a tongue" (singular, not plural) which is clearly defined by the Bible and used to speak to God, not to brothers.

1 Cor. 14:13 clearly explains that "anybody who speaks in a tongue must pray that he may be given the interpretaion." Thus we have prophesying in a tongue, wiht qa need for interpretation. The next verses state "sing praises with the spirit." This is "singing in tongues". Three different uses of 'tongues".  

Paul goes on to say that he thanks God for speaking in tongues "more than any of you". ( v. 18) Clearly tongues were a large part of Paul' personal life and ministry.  

We must also note that this "skepticism" and denial of "'tongues" as a Gift of the Spirit, and of the "signicance" of it, is spoken of in 1 Cor. 14:22, where it states,
"So, then strange languages are significant not for the believer, but for the unbeliever;" Here the Bible states/predicts that these tongues will be/are "strange languages"; it does not say "'known languages". It also says "tongues" will be (a) sgnificant (issue) for unbelievers, because they are unbelievers. YOu make a big issue of it. "Tongues" are NOT all that significant/important to believers. The Bible has clearly predicted your stance on "'tongues."

The following verses explain your skepticism and views, "they would say that you are all raving."      
 
The next to the last verse of 1 Cor. 14 is an exhortation, that is as good now as it was when it was written. "So, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not suppress the gift of tongues."


Having attended many different Charismatic prayer services over the years, I have found that the focus, the central part of the meeting, revolves around the Biblical teaching given during the meeting. Other important parts, to individuals and all alike, are the sharing of what has happened in our lives (testimony of Gods love to us), and the prayers for others.  

What one gets from a prayer service is a feeling of the love of God, a presence of the Holy Spirit, the communal feeling of love of the others in the group. In essence what you get is Christianity. It is a feeling of Christianity that is seldom felt as you attend or leave church. Time spent in or with the presence of the Holy Spirit, whether at a prayer meeting, or as an individual, is unlike any church service I hav ever attended, unless it was a Charismatic Mass.

In the end, what you see from Christians who are Charismatics, and in Charismatic prayer meetings (where tongues are used), are the fruits of the Spirit: “charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.”  (Gal 5:22-23)
 
I, as a result of being a "born again" Charismatic, am a far better, more informed Christian, who is closer to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, than I was before I became Charismatic.  And yes, it is partially as a result of my use of tongues (me speaking and singing to God, and my prophecies in a tongue), but more so because of my personal conversion which occurred when I was "born again".    

May God open your mind and remove your skepticism (provided tongues are from the Holy Spirit, and that YOU personally are meant to not be skeptical), may he also bless all of you and yours,

T.R.

Interesting links:

http://tbm.org/tongues.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues.htm

http://www.geocities.com/ian4christ41/altindex.html

... that in the United States alone, 200,000-300,000 Catholics have become ... pentecostal movement is its belief in miracles and speaking in "tongues".


By the way, I hope I am vulnerable, to the Holy Spirit. Tongues are the least important gift to me, unless I use it for prophecy. It has never led me anywhere I shouldn't go. And I've been using tongues on a daily basis (to speak to Yahweh) since 1974. It has helped and enriched my personal prayer life. I am a product of my Charismatic experinece/way of life, which includes tongues.

"Whatever gives glory to God is from God." Singing in tongues is giving glory to God, and I give all the glory to God. Amen.

[DavidFilmer]

Hello, trmichels – thank you for your thoughtful reply. I found your reply most interesting and a delight to read.  However, as you probably expect, I take issue with a number of the points you raise. I hope that you do not take my exceptions personally; I hope that both of us are striving to find Truth, and I have some questions about your response that I hope you will further enlighten our Community on. For convenience, I have arranged my questions using the LIST functionality of this board (which I’ve just now discovered) so my questions will appear in boldface in a format like this:

• Question (in a format such as this) to trmichels, a resident expert in Charismatic Catholicism (cool, huh?)

OK, the first bit is rather unpleasant to me, because I think you’re a really great guy, but we really need to clear the air about this:

God will convict me if it is wrong. I pray (and therefore I know) that he will, if it is wrong.

I mention this first to get it out of the way, because I sincerely doubt you meant to say this (or I suspect you inadvertently worded it very badly). Because it looks like you’re claiming for yourself personal infallibility – an assurance that the Holy Spirit will not allow you to fall into error. I can’t imagine that’s what you really mean! (and, if it is, God forbid, maybe we should open a different thread on this – because not even the Pope or the greatest Saint who ever lived is personally infallible!) So, question #1 (hopefully an easy one):

[/li][li]Did you really mean to claim for yourself personal infallibility?

[/li][/list]

This gift [of tongues] was one of the first visible effects of the outpouring of the Spirit in the primitive church." Why should it be any different now?

We’ve been over this. Because miraculous signs (and I’m talking about speaking in “known tongues” as described in Acts) often accompany NEW revelation to testify to its validity, but those signs do not persist. Not one single credible Christian since the Corinthians ever spoke in tongues until 1901. Not one single Catholic Saint has ever practiced it. So I turn your question around and ask you two questions:

[/li]
• After nearly nineteen centuries of unbroken silence of tongues, why is tongues such a ‘necessary’ thing today? (you called it “necessary” in your earlier posting).
  
  
  
• Why is the authentic and genuine miracle of speaking in “known tongues” (as described in Acts 2) not ever seen today? I’ve never heard of a modern occurrence of this miracle. But, by your own logic, “why should it be any different now?”
  
  
  

OK, let’s talk about the Corinthians, since you so kindly provided a number of citations from Paul’s first Epistle to them. This is the only book in the Bible that mentions the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues” (ie, speaking in a language which cannot be understood by the general audience).

First of all, the First Epistle to the Corinthians is somewhat unique in Scripture. It is the most condemning letter in the Bible. Whereas other epistles were predominately instructive or pastoral, this particular epistle was overwhelmingly condemnatory against multiple abuses which were occurring in this particular young church. Nowhere else does any Bishop say anything even approaching, “I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good.” (1Cor 11:17). Paul accuses the Corinthians of “immorality not found even among the pagans” (1Cor 5:1). Paul is absolutely scathing in his assessment of the Corinthians: “My brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh.” (1Cor 3:1-3a). According to Holy Scripture, these “fleshly people,” who were even more immoral than the pagans,  and whose worship services were “doing more harm than good,” and whose bishop heaped upon them criticism not found anywhere else in Scripture, just happen to be the ONLY people who ever spoke in “unknown tongues.” So I ask trmichels:

[/li]
• Why were these spiritually immature, shockingly sinful, and spiritually counterproductive early Corinthians - the most troubled Church in Scripture (by far!) - the only parish that spoke in “unknown tongues?” It was apparently not practiced by the Romans, nor the Hebrews, nor the Ephesians, nor the Galatians, nor the Philippians, nor the Thessalonians. It was not mentioned in the Epistles of James, nor in the three Epistles of John, nor in  either Epistle to Timothy, nor in either epistle to Peter, nor in Titus, Philemon, James, or Jude, or even in Revelation. And, according to the unanimous testimony of the Early Fathers, was not practiced anywhere in the pre-Nicene Church. Why was it mentioned as practiced by the one congregation who we would LEAST wish to emulate today?
  
  
  

"While I should like you all to speak in tongues, I would much rather you could prophesy." For "those who prophesy are of greater importance than those who speak in tongues, unless they can interpret what they say so that the church will be built up." (1Cor 14:5) This implies that one who prophesies in a tongue and interprets tongues, is greater than one who prophesies in their native language. Quite the endorsement of "tongues" isn't it?

[/li]
• trmichels, how do you read that passage and get the idea one is “greater?” Because , actually, it says the two are equal, provided the guy speaking in tongues can interpret HIS OWN SPEECH and subsequentially communicate the message to the audience in their own language.
  
  
  

This passage has NOTHING to do with the practice of one person speaking in some unknown tongue and someone ELSE telling what it means. In this passage, the same person must do BOTH (compare to 1Cor 14:13), and, by doing so, places himself on the SAME level as the “other person” that skips tongues altogether. I hope THIS passage isn’t what you consider an “quite the endorsement” of tongues, because it clearly renders tongues utterly superfluous. If you want some idea of exactly how superfluous Paul thinks it is, read the next dozen verses (1Cor 4:6-18) where Paul speaks some of his harshest words against the practice and which practically destroys the notion of speaking in “unknown tongues” within the Assembly. Paul concludes this condemnation with the stinging

but in the Church I would rather speak five words with my mind than ten thousand words in some unknown tongue. [1Cor 14:19]

Egads, did St. Paul really say that??? He absolutely did! Now, assuming Paul was not bad at math, and estimating that it takes an average of about one second to say one word, we conclude that Scripture insists that five SECONDS of speaking in KNOWN tongues (your own natural language) is superior to more than a HALF HOUR of speaking in “unknown tongues.” But I don’t think Paul was literally trying to describe mathematical equations – I think he was trying to point out in clear terms that speaking in “unknown tongues” in the Assembly was practically WORTHLESS unless the person doing the speaking can clearly explain what it means – right then and there. Is this what happens in Charismatic Catholic worship services? Let’s ask trmichels:

[/li]
• When Catholic Charismatics prophesy in unknown tongues, do they themselves immediately provide the interpretation of their own utterances, as Paul twice insisted upon? Because I thought someone else did the interpretation – even when the ‘tongue’ was a prophecy!
  
  
  

"Tongues" are NOT all that significant/important to believers. The Bible has clearly predicted your stance on "'tongues."

 I think you’re taking that passage out of context. Read the very next verse: “So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say you are out of your minds?” [1Cor 14:23] Tongues are NOT a sign for THOSE unbelievers – Paul didn’t want THOSE unbelievers to even be exposed to it, because it would be a sign, all right – a sign of madness! So which “unbelievers” is Paul talking about??? Why, the Christians at Corinth who were practicing  this whole tongues thing, of course! THOSE are the people whom Paul calls “unbelievers.” He’s not too impressed with this bunch of “spiritual infants,” as we’ve already seen.

Finally, we come to the latter part of Chapter 14, where Paul says:

If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two, or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret. But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God [1Cor 14:26]

This is the only passage in Scripture that seems to mention the possibility that the person speaking in tongues and the person doing the interpretation might not be the same (though NOT for prophetic messages, where Paul clearly insists that the speaker also interpret). And, of course, it wouldn’t be possible to follow this instruction unless someone was “pre-designated” as an interpreter. Because if there’s not an interpreter, the person should keep silent (according to the Bible), and never speak aloud in the first place. So, naturally, the person who is doing the interpreting should be known to the person doing the speaking BEFORE anything is ever spoken. This all seems very odd to me, and I will admit that I really don’t understand it. But, regardless, it’s NOT what I’ve seen practiced at Charismatic worship services. The person doing the speaking gets up and speaks in some “unknown tongue” (even in prophesy, which Paul forbids), and THEN somebody else interprets. This interpreter was not pre-designated (and might not even be (and often is not) the same person from time to time). So how is the speaker to know if there is or is not an interpreter present for his message? Let’s ask our resident expert: ?

• When a Catholic Charismatic speaks in an unknown tongue in the assembly, does he (or she, despite 1Cor 14:34)  know in advance who is present to interpret the message, as Paul instructs? Because I thought the person might speak in tongues and have no idea if someone will interpret – and I believe you said this actually happens sometimes, which is incompatible with Paul’s instruction.

Also, I’m curious as to why Paul would feel it necessary to impose strict limitations on this whole practice of “unknown tongues.” He says “two, or at most three” may practice it in the Assembly. He also speaks of prophesy shortly afterwards, saying, “Two or three prophets should speak…” (v29) but then clarifies that this is a MINIMUM, for he says “For all of you can prophecy, one by one, so that all may learn and be encouraged. Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are under the prophets’ control, since he is not the God of disorder, but of peace.” (v31-33). When it comes to tongues, two or three is the MAXIMUM, but when it comes to prophecy (which cannot be done in an unknown tongue, unless the speaker promptly explain his own words) it is two or three MINIMUM. This whole maximum/minimum thing intrigues me (I’m a mathematician).

If speaking in “unknown tongues” was really a gift of the Holy Spirit, why does Paul feel it necessary to strictly limit it? He doesn’t limit prophecy – indeed, everyone can do that! (and, by “prophecy,” Paul simply means to proclaim the Truth of God, not necessarily to foretell some future event, as this word is commonly used today). Did Paul ever limit healings? Did he ever say, “you can only heal two, or at most three, people?” Did he limit miracles? Did he limit discernment of spirits? If Our Lord is “not the God of disorder, but of peace” then why would Paul feel it necessary to LIMIT and RESTRICT the practice of speaking in unknown tongues??? If it were really from the Spirit of the God of order and peace, why would these restrictions be necessary? Let’s ask an expert:

[/li][li]Why did Paul feel it necessary to impose strict limitations and restrictions on the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues” when he did not impose any such limitations on any other “charism” (and considering that God is a “not a God of disorder, but of peace?[/li][/list]I maintain my position that not one single word of Scripture ever promotes or encourages the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues.”  Everything that Paul ever wrote to the early Corinthians (the ONLY Biblical people to ever do this) was CLEARLY meant to discourage and restrict this practice. Paul never promotes this practice in any way; at BEST he begrudgingly tolerates the practice among these “spiritual infants” whose worship services (which resembled modern Charismatic services) were “doing more harm than good.” So I ask an expert, :

[/li][li]Can you cite any Biblical source that encourages or promotes the practice of speaking in unknown tongues in the Assembly? And, if not, why is this practice ALWAYS a part of every single Charismatic worship service that I’ve ever heard of? Can you cite an example of a Charismatic group who disavows this abuse?[/li][/list]The practice of speaking in “unknown tongues” has absolutely no Biblical or historical merit, and yet it is part of EVERY Charismatic worship service. Why is that???

I maintain my position that the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues” has no Biblical or historical merit. It is an ABUSE which the devil encourages and promotes to DISRUPT and CORRUPT authentic Christian worship (as he did to the early Corinthians). I continue to hope and pray that Charismatics will come to disavow and reject this demonic practice, and will thus see their own spiritual life soar to the “God not of disorder, but of peace.”

But I would REALLY, REALLY prefer to be wrong about this! I see so many of my Christian brothers and sisters (especially in my area of the country) who are caught up in this practice, and it deeply saddens me for their sake because of my strong conviction that this whole "tongues" thing is a demonic influence that is gnawing away at their spirits in the same way that it corrupted the worship offerings of those early Corinthians (to the point that their worship was doing "more harm than good," in St. Paul's opinion).  I hope that trmichels (or somebody else) can provide additional insight into this practice that might ease my troubled spirit.

[DavidFilmer]

While doing a bit of reading on our Mormon friends, I was reminded of their peculiar practice of "proxy baptism of the dead." A "proxy baptism" is where someone is baptized in the place of someone else (ie, Fred gets baptized, but Fred is really just "standing in" for someone else – ie, Jane. It’s not really Fred, but Jane, who is really being baptized).

Mormons (members of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” often abbreviated LDS) believe that nobody can enjoy the benefits of the LDS heaven unless s/he undergoes Mormon baptism. But, the problem is, Mormonism is a rather new religion – it was invented by Joseph Smith in 1830. What about the ancestors of good Mormons who never heard the Mormon gospel (it’s NOT the same as ours) or had an opportunity to undergo Mormon baptism?

Well, Mormons have an answer to that – they can be “proxy baptized” in place of their dead ancestors. Mormon scholars have contributed enormously to the science of genealogy (and the world is truly indebted to them) because they seek to discover and “proxy baptize” all of their dead ancestors. A practicing Mormon might undergo dozens (or hundreds) of such “proxy baptisms.”

Now, the Catholic Church, and every single Christian denomination that I know of (and I’m not considering Mormons to be “Christians” here) absolutely disavows any such practice as “proxy baptism.” So where do these Mormons find precedence for such a practice?

Who else, but those wicked and spiritually counterproductive early Corinthians, of course! Indeed, St. Paul acknowledges (but does not endorse, promote, or encourage) the fact that these WACKY Corinthians did, indeed, practice proxy baptism of the dead (1Cor 15:29).

However, when it comes to proxy baptism of the dead, St. Paul simply mentions it in passing. But when it comes to the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues,” St. Paul invests quite a lot of ink to limit, restrict, and discourage the practice.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians is the ONLY book in the Bible to mention either the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues” or “proxy baptism of the dead,” and St Paul never said ONE WORD that promoted, encouraged, or endorsed EITHER practice, yet he specifically condemned "speaking in unknown tongues."

From a Biblical perspective, there is far more reason to endorse the Mormon practice of baptism of the dead than there is to endorse the Charismatic practice of speaking in “unknown tongues.” After all, St. Paul never ENCOURAGES either practice, but, while he simply MENTIONS baptism of the dead, he CONDEMNS, LIMITS, and RESTRICTS speaking in unknown tongues!

(I’m not saying that baptism of the dead is somehow valid; I’m simply pointing out that NEITHER “baptism of the dead” nor speaking in “unknown tongues” is endorsed, encouraged, or promoted by Scripture, but, of the two, speaking in “unknown tongues” is treated FAR more harshly in Scripture, and has FAR less merit.)

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

Let us invite views from Father Eric Filmer on this subject.


Love

Ayodhya

[Matthias]

I cannot believe what I am reading here.  davidfilmer you say that speaking in tongues is of the DEVIL?? Then how do you consider for the fact that MILLIONS of Christians does this thing? Are they all evil???  

I myself am often speaking in tongues. I was raised as a Lutheran (and I still have much love for Lutherans) but I have been spirit baptized in the spirit and now I speak in tongues all the time. I am now part of a church that does this and is not ashamed! It is not usual to speak in tongues in the Lutheran churches.

How can you davidfilmer say that I am evil? I know that this tongues is true - the Sprit of God tells me it is true, and MILLIONS of others also.

[Mary Liz]

Why can’t you believe that many don’t share your views on speaking in tongues?  I know a number of charismatic and the only legitimate case of speaking in tongues that I am familiar with was gifted to a non-Charismatic priest.  This priest’s congregation was growing in Latin Americans.  He was very troubled that he couldn’t minister to them properly.  He prayed feverantly for guidance and also picked up a Spanish language book.  Within a week he was praying the mass in Spanish within a month, I believe he said that he was able to hear confession.  He spoke to us during a homily on how God answers prayers and what a great gift this was to him.  He never once referred to it as speaking in tongues but this is what Act describes.  This speaking in tongues enriches the Church  and brings about the Kingdom of God.  It isn’t for self edification.  Why do none of the GREAT Saints of the Catholic Church prompt this practice?  Why do charismatics never pass through this stage to greater holiness?

Matthias States:
“the Spirit of God tells me it is true,…”

That is a scary statement.  What if I feel that Spirit of God tells me Russians are bad people and should be destroyed.  Or maybe that  holy people only wear white.  These are ludicrous and know one, I hope, would take them seriously but you can’t put your belief in yourself –good  people can be fooled.

Matthias states
Paraphrased- millions of people do this and believe in it

So.  Why does that lend any credibility to the argument at all.  If one person spoke out against abortion and for the sacredness of life and millions of others (so  they do today) say that killing and unborn child in its mother is fine -- does that make it alright because the majority says so?  
Truth is truth and the number of people that believe is irrelevant

[Matthias]

If one person spoke out against abortion and for the sacredness of life and millions of others (so they do today) say that killing and unborn child in its mother is fine -- does that make it alright because the majority says so?

But your catholic church, yes, says that abortion is wrong? correct? but does it say that speaking in tongues is wrong? I do not think so. If millions of Catholics do this thing and it is wrong, why is not the catholic church doing something about it?

I am speaking in tongues every day! Praise God!

Why can’t you believe that many don’t share your views on speaking in tongues?

I understand that maybe not everyone agrees, but davidfilmer says this is of the DEVIL. So, as he says, if I do this thing then I am doing the work of the DEVIL. That is an amazing thing to say about me and millions of others.

[DavidFilmer]

Matthias, there is a big difference between abortion and speaking in tongues. Abortion has been around a LONG time (the ancient Greeks did it). And the magnitude of the act is very great. The Church has condemned abortion from the earliest days. Tongues, on the other hand, is brand new within the Catholic Church (only about 30 years old). It is a form of liturgical abuse, and we all know that the Church can be very slow to respond and correct such abuses. In my opinion, the Church will someday prohibit these abuses, including tongues.

davidfilmer says this is of the DEVIL. So, as he says, if I do this thing then I am doing the work of the DEVIL.

Yes, I strongly believe that speaking in unknown tongues as practiced in the Charismatic Catholic movement is of 100% demonic origin. I do not believe that there is EVER a case when this is actually the work of the Holy Spirit.

But understand this: The devil is very clever and can fool many good people (this is why he is often called “the Great Deceiver”). Those who are tricked by the Devil and are unaware of the true nature of their actions are not evil – they are simply misled.

The Catholic Charismatic movement started because many people felt the Faithful had become spiritually complacent (and they were right!), and they sought renewal of their faith. The devil, fearful of this development, sought to undermine it (as he seeks to corrupt all good things). Speaking in unknown tongues is a great way to undermine authentic spirituality – it has no spiritual merit, it leads to disorder, it promotes sensationalism, and it distracts from authentic prayer and prophecy. It corrupted the worship offerings of the early Corinthians, and it corrupts the worship offerings of many good Catholics today. The devil has been very successful in undermining the Catholic Charismatic movement, and as long as the practice of tongues continues to play a prominent role in Charismatic worship then the devil will continue to be victorious. Only by abandoning this practice (like the early Corinthians did!) can we reclaim the true spirit of the Charismatic movement.

I pray for the day that the Charismatic movement will abandon the practice of speaking in unknown tongues, just as the Corinthians abandoned it.

Hey, I just noticed this: the last four letters of the word “devil” are “evil” I had never realized that!

[Matthias]

So davidfilmer let me ask you question please. You say "speaking in unknown tongues as practiced in the Charismatic Catholic movement is of 100% demonic origin" but you also say, "Those who are tricked by the Devil and are unaware of the true nature of their actions are not evil"

I am not catholic, but I think maybe this is for me also. So I ask you this: If I speak in tongues (which I do every day, praise God), you maybe say that it is not evil. But you do say it is "demonic." So when I do this thing, am I being sinful?  It IS a sin to do demonic things, yes? So Is it a sin for me to do this thing of speaking in tongues?

If it is "demonic" then it must be sinful, yes? Do you say this is sinful for me to do this thing every day, which I do? Am I being sinful in your opinion???

[DavidFilmer]

Do you say this is sinful for me to do this thing every day, which I do? Am I being sinful in your opinion???

No, Matthias, it is not sinful for you to speak in tongues, because you are unaware of the true nature of the act. In order to be accountable for sin, you must realize the nature of the act.

However, it would be sinful for ME to speak in unknown tongues, because I know better. I am therefore fully accountable. Once someone becomes aware of the true nature of speaking in unknown tongues, s/he must never do it again. They must abandon the practice, as the Corinthians did.

I believe this is why many Charismatics avoid forums where the practice is criticized. They enjoy speaking in tongues (who wouldn't?), but deep down inside I think they realize that the rationale for it is very shaky. So they avoid hearing criticism of the subject.  They will often say, "well, obviously your mind is made up so I'm not gonna waste time debating the subject," whereas they would gladly engage in long apologetical discussions on other subjects.

My usual apologetical style is to begin with general comments or questions, let the other person have his/her say, and then start getting specific about the points the person raises and really challenge them to defend their position (or prove mine wrong). I find this to be a more effective style than trying to control the direction of the discussion from the beginning. I think it's more polite that way, and I think it serves to draw others into the conversation. I used this style in this thread

I have been critical of the practice of tongues in this and other forums, but I've never seen a Charismatic attempt a reasoned response to the points I raise once I start getting specific and asking the "hard questions." They quit the field. This is not normally something you see a Catholic apologist do, because Catholics have an advantage in religious discussions (because our viewpoint is true - heh, heh), but Catholic Charismatics are quick to quit the field when discussing tongues, whereas they may vigorously defend other (legatimate) aspects of ther Faith.

Matthias, if you were to carefully read and consider the contents of the post and Acts2 and 1Cor, and conclude, "hmm, DavidFilmer is right - unknown tongues really has no credible basis in Christian spirituality" but then say "BUT I really like doing it, so I'm gonna do it anyway" then, yes, it would become sinful for you to do this.

If you wish to mount a reasoned defense of speaking in tongues then I encourage you to do so. You do not seem to be coming from a Catholic perspective, but that's OK - I'm happy to discuss the merits of tongues from a protestant perspective as well. I believe if you persist then the truth of the matter will become clear to you, and you will actually convince yourself that tongues is not credible and should be avoided. But you would be the first Charismatic that I've seen who actually attempts such a defense.

[Matthias]

davidfilmer I have been in much apologetics and I have NEVER heard one Christian say to another Christian that tongues is wrong. So I will accept the challenge of you, but this is a new thing for me to do.

Also, my English it is not so good as yours (of course you are American). Actual I think it is very good to be here also to practice my English, but this messages is very long and sometime confusing for me to understand.

Sometime when I do apologetics someone say to me “there are many reasons why you are wrong.” But I maybe cannot answer about many reasons, so I ask that person that he pick the two or three MAIN reason why he think I am wrong. So if I can respond good to these MAIN reason then maybe my reasons is good to believe what I believe.

So I tell you that I think it is good that I pray in tongues and I ask you please that you tell me the MAIN two or three reason that you think this is not OK for me to do this thing. Then I answer these reasons, yes? Is this OK for you?

[DavidFilmer]

OK, Matthias, I would like to discuss this with you, but I think it is better to do so in a new thread (for reasons I explain there). Please see This Thread to continue this discussion.