What the speakers says at 3:30 about the lack of fulfillment from denying the sacraments and trying to replace or refill it with the “gift” of tongues. I think he hit the nail on the head. I’m blown away that he solved where it stems from. 🤯
That’s why one needs to research it on both sides and if any names come up, dig into their bio on their beliefs, intentions. You’ll uncover more to be able to discern. Plus, this protestantization is a new “thing”. So, the Church got the Holy Spirit wrong after almost 2000 yrs?! It plainly states in scripture the “heard/understood”in their native tongue. It I remember correctly it was Scoffield and Parnum, Protestant pastors and others who propagated it. Then after the debacle of Vat II Catholic people adopted it🤦🏻♀️ Vat II was a valid council, but elements, such as the liturgy, were hijacked by Bugnini (who fraternized with Freemasons and Baggio(If I remember correctly, he was one), and invited Protestant pastors to give input in OUR liturgy. They submitted to Pope Paul VI that the changes were what the laity wanted. Why Novus Order is like a Protestant service and meal; rather than a heavenly experience and worship of the sacrifice. Huge difference with the NO and Latin liturgies. The preparation of the priest to offer Mass and the servers to assist before the Mass begins, if a high Mass, is beautiful. The prayers throughout are more sublime and beautiful and is a process of repentance, denial of self, making one worthy, etc. to receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty! I always recommend first timers to investigate before going how it’s laid out. I’m sure there’s articles and videos online. At the church there are little red books that have the prayers, when to sit, kneel, stand, and explanation of what the priest is doing as well as pictures of the priest bowing or changing sides of the altar to identify what he’s doing next. His back is toward the congregation, is not the propaganda of the priest “turning his back to you”, but offering the sacrifice for and with you as part of the body-one community priest and parishioners. If anything it’s satanic as the devil is opposite of God: priest looking at us during the sacrifice-is a distraction, takes focus from God alone, and the priest’s back is to the Tabernacle. In book of Revelation a depiction of the Mass, the angels knelt during the Sanctus and Agnus Dei. When we are in the presence of God when we can see Him and receive him should be in the utmost humility, respect and sacrifice to Him, on our knees; and kneel before and after reception of Holy Communion, in the pew-no standing until your pew is next. NO so much distraction and noisy. Latin is sublime, quiet and the Gregorian Chant is heavenly-if you have a good schola/“choir”. So beautiful for contemplation. The priest always read the Epistle and Gospel in English along with the homily. You can find a Latin Mass in you state by going to latin mass.com Tap to your country and state and enlarge map.
As a protestant myself, I always felt uneasy about all this tongues thing. Some people went so far that they told me I don't have the Holy Spirit when I don't talk this gibberish. Now Im home in RCC and feel at peace. I think it can be a gift from God, but it's not always the case, and it's not for me.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph 2003 : Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 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. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
I somehow didn’t get that gift, nor the one to pray in tongues, but I did get the gifts of healing and of prophecy(being able to talk about Jesus and our rich faith). There is nothing wrong with the charismatic movement, but like anything there are exaggerations which do not come from the Holy Spirit. This was present in the time of the apostles. Tongues have always continued over the centuries, but it is a gift. To deny the actuality of the gift is to deny the Holy Spirit. Just because our Church tried to bury tongues for many centuries, does not mean the Holy Spirit is not still at work. Rather than condemning, we should be welcoming them and working with. Your attitude has lost us many truly wonderful people filled with FAITH. For many years already a New Pentecost has been foretold. Let’s not reject it.
@koolguy5344 Prophecy is not foretelling the future. It is the grace hear the spirit tell us to talk openly to whomever He has chosen about our Saviour God. It is the grace that gives the courage to pray for a stranger in need. It's about making one's life a testimony for Jesus. This is not an easy task.
@koolguy5344 I don’t heal, only God heals. I only respond to his call. It is un-nerving as you never know what kind of healing He is going to help with. We need to remember, a healing usually has to be received by the sick (spiritual or physical). However, there are times where it is God’s will, period. But He still wants our participation.
I tried to tell charismatic catholics, who would start praying in tongues like shabala hababa lalalalalalalala, that this could be wrong. I also wondered how can every one in their group can talk in tongues because this is a gift. But they got angry. I was told that those with this "gift" felt offended! They felt their kids would get confused by my questioning their gifts and might stray away from the path! They started accusing priests such as Fr. Ripperger as anti-charismatic. I could feel they were annoyed and their egos hurt. That's when I knew charismatic catholics. Most of them are very good people though.
You were generous, IMO. I think charismatics are protestant in spirit, resistant to correction, arrogant and self-promoting. EX: Scott Hahn, Matt Fradd, Johnette Williams, Ralph Martin, Fr. Mark Goring. All suffer from this heresy and are blinded by it. I reject the idea that most of them are 'good' people, rather I think that most of them are smarmy, smiling egotists.
They might be good people but being good but being ignorant of the Faith and having their egos placed on nr. 1 is not being that good unfortunately This is why the EVIL ONE has such a wonderful time.
@Margaret Boyle I was not aware that Scott Hahn and Matt Fradd are “charismatics” or that they speak in tongues. Over the years I have seen Fradd grow and grow in humility - almost as if his growth in tradition had something to do with it!
@@IpCrackle You respond with your feelings, not facts which is what typical Novus Ordo Catholics do. Both Fradd and Hahn are associated with Steubenville, the home turf of charismatic crazies. Both make $$, selling their heterodox opinions; Hahn has been selling his conversion story, written to a sixth grade comprehension level for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS. His wife and children are in on the family business; they make money from lectures and one of the sons works for "Catholic" Answers, a totally heretical forum established by Modernist heretic: Karl Keating. Pope Paul VI, destroyer of liturgy and manifest heretic, allowed the charismatic heresy to infest the Church in 1967. All of the charismatics write books written to a sixth grade comprehension level, encourage undignified emotionalism and GUSH repeatedly over each other. Hahn described himself as a "glad Trad Pentacostal Catholic" on the Matt Fradd show. To anyone with sense and true faith, this is a contradiction in terms. Fradd's followers and this is how they describe themselves, refer to themselves as "Fraddismatics." There is a lot you don't know, apparently. John Vennari did an excellent talk on the heretical errors of charismatics which is posted on the Defeat Modernism channel. I challenge you to listen to it and draw your own conclusions.
This evil generation always seeks a sign. And they emphasize the experiential dimension of religion. Consolations are few and far between. Worship God the way HE wants to be worshipped.
It is only "absolutely shocking" to those unaware of the fact that the institutional Church was overtaken by Modernists at Vatican II. Pope Paul VI allowed the infestation of the charismatic cult into the Church and since he was a Modernist heretic, it is hardly surprising. If you want an overview of what really happened at Vatican II, I suggest you listen to the Defeat Modernism channel.
From an intellectual perspective let me simplify: -To speak in tongues you have never learned is demonic -To be understood by people who who do know you're language is from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, do not seek to "speak in tongues." Under the first example you have power, but under the second example the Lord has power, and this is the source of the conflict. Those who want to "speak in tongues" want to use the Holy Spirit for their own agenda, while those who want to obey the Holy Spirit do not demand that it perform for them. Does this make sense to you?
I was invited to a group two nights ago by charismatic leader he's also a Catholic and I almost started to laugh when these women around me started rolling their tongues around and some of them selling like a little baby crying it was silly. And then I felt like I'm being looked down upon because I'm just sitting there staring and listening to their incoherent rambling jumbo Mumbo stuff. If it is from God I asked him to forgive me but how in the world is anyone supposed to know if this is from God? And I speak about God in heaven.
Mr. Vennari has written extensively about the history and dangers of the charismatic movement. See his articles "‘Catholic' Pentecostalism: Grown in the Garden of Protestantism" (www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2013/5/10/catholic-pentecostalism-grown-in-the-garden-of-protestantism) and "From Pentecostalism to Apostasy" (www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm) and his (now rare and expensive) book "Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement" (www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&ref=bf_s2_a1_t1_1&qi=2QAm5LBOXSwpHEvJhr5uYCwjFI0_1478281349_1:322:507&bq=author%3Djohn%2520vennari%26title%3Dclose%2520ups%2520of%2520the%2520charismatic%2520movement)
Exactly the same thing that happened to me, and I was 11 years old. I guess the 'Holy Spirit' thought I was the only one there who did not deserve the 'gift'.
Paradise for the Hellbound Author/Designer In one of my visions. Jesus spoke to me of five crucial things that will allow your connection with God to grow stronger, deeper and more genuine and passionate... that is, if you truly want to see, feel, hear or be in the presence of our heavenly father. You must have... (in order) FAITH LOVE PASSION COMMITMENT GENUINENESS One cannot go missing, all 5 must be at PEAK LEVEL. If you try to take out one thing, the other 4 will not prove sufficient.
This reminds of the time when my mother and I went to visit her brother who was a Presbyterian. Went to their Sunday worship and they all started bawling their out shouting Amen and some of them babbling in tongues. My mom and I, not used to such scenes in a Catholic mass, just looked at each other in a silent, "What in the world....?" Then a couple of minutes later, everyone was back in their seats, straightening their clothes and sitting proper for another round of 40 minute sermon (it seemed like to me at the time - being a teenager).
PART 1 A few thoughts on “tongues” - due to length, presented in two parts. Let me first preface this post by making it clear that it is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’). As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of glossolalia from both a linguistic and cultural point of view. My primary concentration was on the linguistic aspect of this phenomenon. What follows is extracted from what was a considerably longer post - I have tried to edit it to be as brief as possible, but it’s still a bit long….presented in two parts. The results of my study (as well as many I’ve read) can be summed up as follows: Results were rather straightforward from which only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn: glossolalia in and of itself is simply an advanced form of subconscious word-play or "free-vocalization", consisting of *only* those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to); anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in their glossolalia. American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” - it makes the glossic utterance sound more foreign. Glossolalia only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system’s practice. In these instances, with the possible exception of Christian glossolalia, it is viewed as a *tool* (with which to connect to the deity) rather than a means (by which the deity communicates to man, and visa versa). It must also be noted that certain forms of schizophrenia will present with glossolalia - this is an example glossolalia in a non-cultural/religious context. Ermaneglossia (a/k/a “interpretation of tongues”), which in most cases goes hand in hand with glossolalia, can be viewed as nothing more than a Christian form of what is known as ‘direct spirit channeling’. Practitioners are simply channeling the Holy Spirit (sometimes via the tool of glossolalia, sometimes not). It can be done instantly by the practitioner - i.e. there’s no ‘preparation’ that needs to be done beforehand. As in other traditions that practice channeling, the method/tool used to initiate the process is not necessarily related to the actual ‘message’(the glossa). Practitioners will argue that channeling and what happens when one is speaking in tongues are two very different things; however, it really boils down to semantics - from every description given by Christian practitioners I have read or been told - both Christian and non-Christian practitioners describe essentially the same thing. The above said however, it can be argued (and frankly comes across to me as such more often than not) that in the modern Christian tradition, interpretation of glossolalia are nothing more than random spontaneous generic praise or message phrases, typically inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance itself. In this respect it has really nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed corresponding glossic utterance. The results of the many studies done regarding interpretation were very non-inspiring: Yes, there are people who can supposedly interpret a glossic string; however, if one were to record said string and play it to ten different people who are said to have the ability to interpret; you essentially get ten totally different answers. The all too common come-back to the issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.” A very strong argument for tongues as being divine in nature frequently referred to by proponents is a study done by the University of Pennsylvania on the phenomenon of glossolalia. In a nutshell, the study determined via SPECT imaging that when a person exhibits glossolalia, the language producing areas of the brain are not really engaged; i.e. ‘tongues’ do not originate in the speech center of the brain. These results have been used to support its supposed divine origins or that a person is not in control of what s/he is saying. After reading the study, I would argue the results are exactly as what one would expect; it stands to reason the brain’s language producing center is not really being engaged simply because glossolalia is not language. It’s just free vocalization -simply playing with sounds does not require the language producing centers in the brain to be overly engaged. The results of the UP study are inconclusive at best in that they can be skewed to equally support either argument. What I have also noticed is that any glossolalia that is non-Christian is automatically deemed “demonic” in origin by Christian practitioners despite the fact it’s produced the exact same way. Non-Christian practitioners of glossolalia (and schizophrenic glossolalics for that matter) are speaking and producing their glossolalia in the EXACT same way Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are - it can’t be stressed enough that there is absolutely ZERO difference between what they are doing and what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are doing. For any Christian practitioner to think that simply because they are Christian and these other practitioners are not, that what these others are doing is somehow “Satanic”, “demonic”, or “false” in nature (even though you’re both doing the exact same thing in the exact same way), is utter nonsense and religiocentric in the absolute extreme. Biblical “tongues” (in Greek - ‘glossa’, but also ‘dialektos’) as referenced particularly in Acts and Corinthians is to always be translated and understood as real language(s), not ecstatic utterances. The only ecstatic utterances may have been those imported into the church in Corinth by converts who came from non-Christian traditions where glossolalia was quite common (e.g. Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth).
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 brilliantly laid out. Thx. I always used common sense thinking that if Our Blessed Lord wanted to make a miracle, He'd never lower Himself to make people look like retards. Don't you think that He would do something like have a guy with one leg grow a new one or raise the dead or the Miracle of the sun at Fatima, etc. Why would He have people doing something that anybody can fake. When God performs a PUBLIC Miracle, He's going to make sure that whoever sees it, objectively could never deny it. The main reason for Miracles is conversion from sin not to " justify" the heretic so he wallows in his heresy. God don't do carney parlor tricks. Think about it.
@@michellem6201 Amusing how you denounce rationality and logic because they NEVER confirm your faith claims. If science did, you'd be on your knees praising Jesus for the glories of science.
Part 2 - With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition I mentioned earlier, the best two examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself. “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech. The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit - “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”. One of the most mindboggling responses I ever received in reference to the above is “They would not be called ‘tongues’ if they were languages.” - it’s honestly difficult to know where to even begin to go with that type of “thought process”, to put it nicely! The popular modern typical, almost ‘standard’ distinction/classification of ‘four types of tongues’, two public and two private, is also the direct result of the Pentecostal redefinition of ‘tongues’ in order to fit the modern phenomenon/understanding. The most damning result of this re-definition is the reading into scriptural texts of things that are simply just not there. Another aspect of the modern tongues phenomenon is, of course, the concept of ‘interpretation’. “Interpretation of tongues”, which goes hand-in-hand with ‘speaking in tongues’, may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs. What do I mean by this? Well…. Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics (‘generic-ness’ and multiple interpretations) do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself. A common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer put it rather succinctly, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying what is an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place”. So, what are modern tongues, then? Modern tongues is a _tool_ , remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the _tool_ it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it as a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was. Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release and inner peace, in that virtually all stress can be gone after the experience. People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience, and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs - this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to what they’re doing. Mind you, and a point I wish to stress is that, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any other culture that practices glossolalia_ . Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”. Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia” or non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it. As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, not a Theologian and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak. I would recommend the following video - skip over the above and go right to about 18:35 and take part in the “tongues-speech” exercise presented: ua-cam.com/video/zuPa6O8RG-c/v-deo.html For a further discussion on why modern tongues cannot be considered language, I refer the reader to: ua-cam.com/video/eqHLM94w_bU/v-deo.html For an in-depth discussion of the ‘tongues’ at Pentecost, see: ua-cam.com/video/B7Vg6JRml5Q/v-deo.html There was indeed a miracle concerning language, but not the one you think.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph 2003 : Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 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. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
Thank you for your comment. Possibly this citation tells us more about the trustworthiness of the New Catechism than about the subject under consideration. As even Pope John Paul II admitted, the publication of the New Catechism was essentially an attempt to further propagate the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, so it is no surprise that there are more than 800 citations from the Council in this catechism -- roughly one in every third paragraph! God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Anyone being Anti-Vatican II is the absolute work of satan among weak-minded & faith lacking "catholics". Our Lady of Fatima would never reject the teaching authority of the Church nor reject the charisms of the Holy Spirit. Your channel & association are in grave error & completely ignorant to the charisms of the Holy Spirit.
The topic or teaching that deals directly with the scripture was very well done. It would do best to keep to scripture and avoid discredit/attack of other's religion. (As in confession we announce our sin, and only "our" sin.) This way others hearing do not become offensive and let the Holy Spirit do His job at bringing light to the Truth. What is the core here is the Love and Heart to draw close to our Lord, and Savior. We are seeking a deeper relationship with our Lord. Holy Spirit bring truth to those who hear. Amen
PART 2 - In the Pentecost narrative of Acts - tongues and “other tongues” are simply nothing more than Aramaic and Greek - the two mother tongues spoken by the Jews of the Diaspora who were in Jerusalem for the feast of Shavuot (as well as the mother tongues of all the “locals” in attendance). The disciples spoke both languages; however, religious teaching (as well as worship and praying) in the Jewish world had to be done in a specifically prescribed language - Hebrew. This is the concept of ecclesiastical diglossia - very simply put; the use of a specific language over all others with respect to liturgical use as well as teaching/preaching, etc. People were “amazed, astounded and bewildered” to hear the disciples speaking to them in their mother tongues of Greek and/or Aramaic rather than the expected (and, in this instance, culturally/socially correct) Hebrew - no language or hearing miracle, no xenoglossy, and no ecstatic utterances were necessary. The ‘list’, in Acts by the way is not a list of languages; it is a list of lands/countries the Jews of the Diaspora were from along with a few ethnic groups - not one place in the Pentecostal narrative is ANY language mentioned by name….not one. In fact, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest there was any type of a communication problem to begin with! Corinthians also describes real languages - in this passage, Paul frequently uses the literary device of hyperbole which by many has been misinterpreted and taken literally; something it was never intended to do. To paraphrase a bit from an article written about the ‘tongues’ described in Paul’s letter: “Paul is not a proponent of speech that is not understandable (1 Cor. 14:9) and in 1 Cor.14:10 states that no language is without meaning. Glossolalia does not fit his definition of language. He insists that whenever foreign languages are spoken in prayer, they should be translated. Throughout the whole, he is talking about real languages with real meaning. Paul’s overriding message throughout this whole chapter is that everything done in the public worship service is supposed to be edifying to the hearers. That is his key point. He is calling for intelligibility. He is appealing for clarity. When we say something in public worship, the people in the congregation need to understand the message.” Many will use Cor. 14:4 as “proof” of tongues not being spiritual language(s) - it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearer”. As one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship. Another way of looking at it is that, for example, I could teach you a poem or perhaps even a short song (or both) in say, Welsh, and you could learn them and recite/sing them perfectly well, even to near native fluency with enough practice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you understand Welsh or even exactly one word of what you’re actually saying/singing. As Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:14, “your spirit is praying/singing, but your understanding is unfruitful”. So, yes, “tongues” certainly can, and did, refer to real languages. A few further thoughts on the “tongues” in Corinth paraphrased from a paper by Robert Zerhusen: “In 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul says some have ability in "kinds [Gk. ‘gene’] of tongues." If non-cognitive non-language-utterances (“NC-NLU” - ‘tongues’) are not languages of any kind and have no cognitive structure, how can they be differentiated into "kinds" or "classes" (read ‘language families’ here)? Differentiation into individual, particular tongues types/classes seems to imply various real languages. Sometimes tongue is singular, and sometimes plural: tongues. Can there be singular or plural NC-NLU's? Did Paul engage in multiple NC-NLU's (1 Cor. 14:18)? References to singular ("tongue") and plural ("tongues") fit the hypothesis of language (singular) versus languages (plural) much better. NC-NLU's cannot, by their very nature, be interpreted or translated. As W. F. Orr and J. A. Walther observed regarding the interpretation of tongues: "If the reference is to 'languages,' this (the word “interpretation”) should be rendered 'translation'". If the reference is to genuine NC-NLU's, then interpretation or translation cannot take place.” And finally, he states: “Careful examination of the text of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that Paul never explicitly states whether or not the language-speaker knew or understood the language that he was using. In fact, Paul's emphasis throughout the chapter is, as Antoinette C. Wire observes, on the hearer of the problem languages, not the speakers: "He takes the hearer rather than the speaker as his touchstone, rejecting tongues (i.e. foreign languages) because the hearers do not understand them". Some practitioners will argue that there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” Yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today - unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues. As Linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with." Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it." As a Linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia. Xenoglossia must also be discounted in reference to ‘tongues’ - as demonstrated above, ‘tongues’ at Pentecost was clearly not xenoglossy. There are in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy…..anywhere. Despite this however, Pentecostal and Charismatic communities are rife with reported examples. Unfortunately, none are backed by any substantial proof; it amounts to essentially hearsay whereby virtually nothing is known of the speaker, his/her background, possible exposure to the purported languages, or the linguistic background of many the ‘hearers’. Are they hearing actual language or something that just “sounds” like ‘language X’? I have to discount reports of non-English speakers speaking in English - it’s just too common a language for people, even in remote areas of the world, not to pick up either consciously or subconsciously. The subconscious mind can do some incredible things - who hasn’t struggled with learning a foreign language (the conscious mind at work) only to find that they are able to dream in the language….and, in the dream, speak it flawlessly (the subconscious mind at work). As one internet writer put it (rather bluntly) “People who claim to speak in tongues need to understand that they are making a testable claim. The claim has been tested, numerous times. And the tongues speakers have failed the test, every single time.” This writer further goes on to say: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not.” The above is admittedly a somewhat harsh statement from a former tongues speaker, but it begs the question of just how accurate those three sentences really are. I suspect more than most practitioners would care to admit. For most Christians, glossolalia is a way for that person to become closer to God (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). Many are taught from a young age to believe that the tool (i.e. ‘tongues’) is the actual medium by which one speaks to God or God speaks/reveals to man. From the many examples I have seen however, it is absolutely no different than how other faith traditions that practice glossolalia connect to their deities. Tongues/Glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful phenomenon, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In the extreme, to some it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.
Hi I am 20 years old and This was very informative. So to my understanding, does that mean St Paul is actually referring to a real language they spoke in Pentecost? And that language is specifically designed for pray/worship? So is that the reason why St Paul said it can translated for people who dont understand. Can I e-mail you i got question about the topic and your expertise would help. Thanks very much and God Bless You.
@@Michael-xn6tv Hi, Not sure if this will answer your questions or not, but the “tongues” at Pentecost were indeed real, rational languages; not modern tongues-speech. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, all references to “tongues” refer to real, rational language(s), perhaps not always understood by those hearing it, but always understood by the speaker; it’s his native language. Throughout his letter, Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship. Therefore, if someone chooses to pray in his/her native language (which the other people at that worship do not understand), Paul admonishes them to pray that they may be able to have someone translate it into the local language so that ALL may benefit. If it’s just the speaker who understands what he’s saying, nobody else can benefit. This is in strong contrast to how Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians view “tongues” in Paul’s letter. They hold that the speaker does not understand what he is saying and thus, needs someone to “interpret” his tongues-speech. It’s been a long time since I posted this comment - I might recommend the following videos which explain my views on modern tongues and the languages at Pentecost - they may answer many of your questions. Keep in mind though that I am a Linguist, not a Theologian. I am not a so-called cessationist or continuationist - do not identify with either term and in fact had never heard either term until just a few years ago. For a more in-depth overview on ‘tongues’. Take part in the “tongues-speech” exercise presented at the end and leave your comments and answers: ua-cam.com/video/zuPa6O8RG-c/v-deo.html For a further discussion on why modern tongues cannot be considered language, I refer the reader to: ua-cam.com/video/eqHLM94w_bU/v-deo.html For an in-depth discussion of the ‘tongues’ at Pentecost, see: ua-cam.com/video/B7Vg6JRml5Q/v-deo.html
It's funny how a lot of the people in the comments here think their own personal interpretation of the Bible is more accurate than the priest's interpretation. Catholic Charismatics are really not much different from Protestants. The charismatic nonsense is a good example of why we don't believe in sola scriptura.
I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Another human being cannot teach you how to speak in tongues. Nor coach you how to speak in tongues. That is a gift from God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Anyone who says that they can teach you how to speak in tongues that is any human being into service, Or revival meeting so called, his faults only God gives the gift of speaking in other tongues whether it is a prayer language, or tongues and interpretation and giving a message or exhorting.
The true speak in tongues is if I speak in my language (I'm not american) and you speak in your own language and we understand each other as we would speak in the other's own language. Think about it a little. When did the different languages appear? When God punished the people who were trying to build the Tower of Babylon. The idea of adding more foreign languages to His own Church is like He would punish again but this time He would punish His own servants. Holy Spirit is not the spirit of division but the spirit of unity. Where does division appear? When people don't understand each other. When there is unity? When people understand each other. Now the idea that the Holy Spirit would encourage people to speak languages that nobody understands contradicts everything we know about God.
Yes but for what purpose? If you do not understand what you are saying, then you are not praying. When I see pentecostals, they speak in tongues (supposedly full of the Holy Spirit), yet they follow and listen to so called men of God who build mansions and ride in private jets while their flock (who financed them) beg for money on the streets. I suppose the Holy Spirit bothered to give these people such great gifts but cannot be bothered that they do not follow all the other teachings of Christ: a) they are not humble, and b) they are unnecessarily loud when praying (pharisees anyone). Furthermore, when you pass a pentecostal 'church' in the middle of this 'tongues' babble it can sound like a scene from an actual exorcism - with the demon shouting. That should kinda give a clue as to what it is.
1st. What he said about padre pio and the confessional , is the gift of interpretation of tongues “But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God (1 Corinthians 14:28” Also If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret (1 Corinthians 14:27 ESV). As well as the mention of the gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in 1Cor 12. 2nd. What takes place at Pentecost is the actual speaking of different kinds of tongues (Languages) Acts 2:4 “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Act 2:5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing(F) Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard THEIR OWN LANGUAGE BEING SPOKEN. 7 Utterly amazed,(G) they asked: “Aren’t all these WHO ARE SPEAKING Galileans ?(H) 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in OUR NATIVE LANGUAGE ? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,(I) Pontus(J) and Asia,[b](K) 10 Phrygia(L) and Pamphylia,(M) Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene;(N) visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in OUR OWN TONGUES!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” Also Mark 16:17 “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues”
Tongues were meant to preach the Gospel. What are the tongues doing today? I once saw a lady say she had the gift of prophecy. In the middle of praying she would open her bible and read her own hand written notes . Pre written notes were her prophecy !!!
@@markferguson6194 A fabrication is a fraud, not a gift. Useless babble has no purpose and bears no fruit. Missionary priests and nuns may be given the authentic gift of tongues in order to preach and teach to cultures with obscure language, that is a genuine example. I don't understand why making a fool of yourself mouthing drivel could be appealing to the ego, either. It's pathetic and puts on a show of piety and fervor. "There's a sucker born every minute." Don't be one.
I unfortunately don't think the premises of the conclusion of the argument hold. I agree with the conclusion, however, to say that God could not or would not bestow the gift of tongues 1900 years later is to know the mind of God comprehensively, which no human being can claim. Who is to say what God would or would not do? The reality is that certain saints such as St. Hyacynth and St. Clement and St. Francis Xavier had the gift of tongues, but undestood properly. Similarly, St. John Bosco was able to raise someone from the dead.
A very big like for this video especially as charismatic movement is part of the Catholic Church. I was really shocked that this movement is not just something protestant mumbo-jumbo, but part of the Catholic Church and recognized by the Catholic Church.
@@markferguson6194 Those gifts were given for a certain period of time (the beginning of Christianity) for a certain purpose (preach the Gospel to the world). I would believe that what Charismatics have is what Apostles got on Pentecost when these people will start talking Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, etc. without previous knowledge of these languages.
The problem with "tongues"..(really spiritual babbling)...is that it is fleshly. It is prideful and ego driven. There are only 7 sacraments. This so called "baptism in the spirit" would be 8.
@Colin Sheehan you may be right. It seems to have driven me into complete love for Jesus. Transformed my life . Changed my anxiety and fear to love joy and peace and brought me into an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit and given me a profound sense of eternal life and eternity. And that's without the other benefits of seeing people healed and inspired to serve God. We need to live Gods word...1cor14v4 jude 20
@Colin Sheehan I dont argue with people Colin. U dont need to speak in tongues to be a Christian but it sure helps. Jesus was accused of having demons as well so I'm in good company
@Colin Sheehan Colin.i dont argue with people do this is the last ispeak on the matter. You need to read your bible and start to live it. Read and meditate on 1 Corinthians. Read and meditate on song of solomon. The gift of tongues given by the Holy Spirit is a gateway gift to a supernatural life and a close intimate relationship with God. 1 cor14v4 and jude20 is about building up our inner spirit man and paying in tongues does exactly that. Accusing me of being demonised or living some emotional delusion does not change what's Gods written and how I live it. I dont accuse u of anything but pray that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to this wonderful gift so that you can come into a much richer relationship with him. Gods will be done and not mine
He also kissed the Koran, took on the red dot from one of India's pagan religions, had said pagan religions do their religious practices in one of OUR parishes (Assisi)--not everything a Pope approves is right or good. This from a "JP2 convert" who loves and respects him in totality--ME.
@@stevenfarley5161 "loves and respects him" is a problem, to put it mildly. The multitudinous heresies of JPII were to be found not simply in those few acts of sacrilege and blasphemy that you listed but in his horrid books. I knew he was suspect soon after converting and found him to be a complete, Modernist heretic after listening to REAL traditional priests like the late Fr. Gregory Hesse, Fr. Malachi Martin and the SSPX priests of the resistance. I suggest you do some homework: start with the Defeat Modernism channel which has a three-part series on the heresies of JPII. It is the TRUTH that sets us free, not sentiment and certainly not cults of personality which the late JPII deliberately fostered and encouraged.
Research what is called the Azuza street revival him. In the early 1900s it broke out in the United States. I believe somewhere in the state of California, in Los Angeles, or one of the suburbs of California. It was called the Azuza street revival's.
Which led to the highly disturbing Assembly of God church. I happened to have the misfortune of spending 5 yrs in it as a child. Every service seriously felt like being locked in an asylum of the mad.
I have listened to Fr. Ripperger on this. He said we must be very careful if we speak in tongues as it could be a demon and not the Holy Spirit speaking through the person. On the other side then Saint Paul said in 1Corinthians 14 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you." He also said it edifies the person only unlike prohecy. Does it follow that only those who are sanctified like St Paul and so can recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit should be speaking in tongues?
@@TheFatimaCenter Wouldn't it be better to say to have nothing to do with this practice unless you're working closely with an excellent priestly spiritual director, who is a traditional Catholic? Fr. Ripperger says be very careful; not have nothing to do with it whatsoever, under any circumstances.
@@amg2598 Possibly, but who is to be the judge of this "excellent priestly spiritual director"? At this advanced point in the dissolution of both our society and the Church, the claim or appearance of being traditional is no guarantee of anything.
@@TheFatimaCenter That's a valid concern. I understand now why you have to make that general caution. Despite the times, however, a lay person can still be the judge of an excellent spiritual director for himself. But he has to be far enough in the spiritual life as well as very well educated in the traditional faith *as well as* spiritual direction in general (John of the Cross, etc.) in order to recognize one. It's true that there are not many of us out there. So, would you accept the qualification: "We caution you to totally stay away from tongues unless you are working closely with a qualified priestly spiritual director; however, unfortunately, in these times, even most priests who are otherwise good and holy directors do not have the education or capability of discerning this charism properly. So, unfortunately, it remains our general recommendation to have nothing to do with this practice."
@@TheFatimaCenter That's a valid concern. I understand now why you have to make that general caution. Despite the times, however, a lay person can still be the judge of an excellent spiritual director for himself. But he has to be far enough in the spiritual life as well as very well educated in the traditional faith *as well as* spiritual direction in general (John of the Cross, etc.) in order to recognize one. It's true that there are not many of us out there... it's so bad that you almost have to have the special charism of knowledge from the Holy Spirit. So, would you accept the qualification: "We caution you to totally stay away from tongues unless you are working closely with a qualified priestly spiritual director; however, unfortunately, in these times, even most priests who are otherwise good and holy directors do not have the education or capability of discerning this charism properly. So, unfortunately, it remains our general recommendation to have nothing to do with this practice." Obviously, not all have the education making them capable of understanding the sophistication of this viewpoint, so I can see why you might give a blanket recommendation cautioning against it. I do think it's an important qualification to make sometimes because we don't want to seem like we are "forbidding" tongues---St. Paul says we must not forbid them. Yet, we have to protect others from the demonic and recognize the times we are in. I suspect that is why Fr. Ripperger takes the approach that he does. On top of all this, it's good to note that unlike the other charisms, tongues are primarily for one's own edification. So, if one can help it, it's usually best in these times to seek other forms of edification.
Didn't they (Apostles) receive tongues SO THAT others could understand them and thus spread the Gospel message? Why would these people have tongues that nobody can understand, especially when "every idle word will be accounted for"??
Thank you for your observation, which is in line with the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm), correcting the assumption that the gift of tongues manifested in early Christian communities was fundamentally different from its first expression on Pentecost, except insofar as abuses had already begun to accrue to the practice. God bless you.
What is worse is that the vast majority of the antics are fabrications that are often used to induce enthusiasm in audiences, who are often coaxed into donating to the false preachers, who often live in luxury and spend almost nothing on authentic charity.
To know thyself is to know thy fear. Confront fear and live. Fear is not something to hide away in shame. But rather to strip it away by humility and expose fear to the light. Confronting fear expels false pride that it not take us down. Fear is part of the human condition but indoctrination into the shame of fear teaches us to hide it. It is this problem that causes self deception. My people perish for lack of knowledge.
so I'm trying to learn Latin and have been reading out loud the bible verses from the Vulgate, looking online how to pronounce the words in the ecclesial pronunciation. I even found many Catholic prayers online in Latin and again read it out loud because it's fun speaking another language but I think my neighbors hear me and wonder what the heck is he talking about, and does he even know what he's saying. Is this bad? I heard father Ripperger say speaking in charismatic tongues could be channeling demons.
You do well as a Catholic to learn the Church's chosen language in which She prays and in which She offers to us the most reliable translation of Sacred Scripture. Learning it from an interlinear Bible is also a beautiful method. (The famous American navigator Nathaniel Bowditch learned many languages in just this way.) A classic Latin text from The Nature-Method Language Institute by Dr. Hans Oerberg titled Lingua Latina uses this same principle of learning from direct experience of the language in use. A dictionary and an associated text, the "College Companion," utilize English explanations to fully clarify the Oerberg text. God bless you. chaharrah.tv/chaharrah-depot/arthouse/latin-attachments/latin-book.pdf www.hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/Familia_Romana_Latin-English_Vocabulary.pdf kupdf.net/download/a-companion-to-familia-romana-2nd-editionpdf_5a00e144e2b6f5351c8d36d3_pdf
@@TheFatimaCenter thank you, one more thing though. I've been having feeds since the ending of 2019 from this group called Grace Mercy Order, that claims to be having locutions from the holy family, they are saying we're in end times can you please give me your opinion on them. They have many videos on the messages on UA-cam.
@@theFormidable1 The Grace Mercy Order is described online as an autonomous Christian and ecumenical religious organization, without formal ties to any institutionalized religion. We urge you to have no part in it. God bless you.
As a Charismatic Catholic, this has been the best explanation I have ever heard on tongues. No, our tongues is not Acts 2. Yes, tongues exploded especially from Azusa Street in Protestantism in the early 1900s. But us “Cradle Protestants” had zero tangible signs. Zero tangible sacraments. Everything was “symbolic”. Now, we have something tangible, what do we do with a tangible sign from God? I hunger, I thirst, and that drove me to the Catholic Church.
I am trying to understand, can someone explain me this? 1 Corinthians 14:2 2For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Thank you for your question. The meaning of the passage seems to be clarified by the following verses in which St. Paul elaborates on the point that those who speak in tongues do not speak in a manner that is understood by others present. He writes: "But he that prophesieth, speaketh to men unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in a tongue, edifieth himself: but he that prophesieth, edifieth the church. And I would have you all to speak with tongues, but rather to prophesy. For greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification." Cornelius a Lapide notes that some have proposed another way of reading the text which he does not find convincing: "S. Augustine (de Gen. ad Litt. lib. 12.), Primasius, and Cajetan read the nominative in the last clause of this verse, 'Howbeit the Spirit speaketh mysteries.' The meaning then would be: The Holy Spirit speaks of hidden mysteries in the Holy Scriptures, which cannot be understood, stood, except some prophet or doctor interpret them. But this meaning is foreign to the context, and this reading is not supported by the Greek or Latin copies." God bless you.
Sad that these people praise the garbage these men are spewing!! The ignorance spoken in this video & the multitue of asinine comments that are viciously anti-VaticanII\anti-Christian sicken me. So much childishness among these so called "catholics" fearing what cannot understand due to their own lack of faith.
St. Paul said: "I speak in tongues more than you all" to the Corinthian Church (which spoke in tongues alot). So I would disagree with John on this point.
Thank you for your comment. In the Vulgate, the passage reads: “I speak with the tongues of you all,” which (as Cornelius a Lapide informs us) Sts. Ephrem, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others understand to mean, "All the tongues that you speak and more I speak: I do not extol, I do not condemn the gift of tongues, for I use it myself, but I do not use it, as you do, for ostentation, but to edification." God bless you.
So is the Charismatic movement Protestant? Do you recommend staying away? I've gone, but was kicked out because I wasn't "happy" enough. What can I say?
Yes, we recommend staying away. Mr. Vennari wrote extensively about the history and dangers of the charismatic movement. See his articles "‘Catholic' Pentecostalism: Grown in the Garden of Protestantism" (www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2013/5/10/catholic-pentecostalism-grown-in-the-garden-of-protestantism) and "From Pentecostalism to Apostasy" (www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm) and his (now rare and expensive) book "Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement" (www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=john+vennari&title=close+ups+of+the+charismatic+movement&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr)
And please check Charisms and Charismatic Renewal by Father Sullivan SJ for a Biblical and theological analysis of the movement and writings of Cardinal Suenens and check the Charis website and what Saint John Paul II said about and of course Pope Francis in the recent 50th birthday jubilee of the movement that now has almost 150 million people in 120 countries and that has been called "a current of grace" by Popes. You can also refer to the writings and talks of Father Raniero Cantalamessa preacher to the papal household and appointed cardinal very recently by Pope Francis.
@@TheFatimaCenter Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph 2003 : Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 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. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
@@ShummyAntony Thank you for your comment. Possibly this citation tells us more about the trustworthiness of the New Catechism than about the subject under consideration. As even Pope John Paul II admitted, the publication of the New Catechism was essentially an attempt to further propagate the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, so it is no surprise that there are more than 800 citations from the Council in this catechism -- roughly one in every third paragraph! God bless you.
please check Charisms and Charismatic Renewal by Father Sullivan SJ for a Biblical and theological analysis of the movement and writings of Cardinal Suenens and check the Charis website and what Saint John Paul II said about and of course Pope Francis in the recent 50th birthday jubilee of the movement that now has almost 150 million people in 120 countries and that has been called "a current of grace" by Popes. You can also refer to the writings and talks of Father Raniero Cantalamessa preacher to the papal household and appointed cardinal very recently by Pope Francis.
I dont get it. The bible says we will speak in tongues and we will have gifts. There are christians who speak in tongues and have the same gifts the bible speaks of. What's so hard to understand?
A sermon on this subject is included within the attached article. onepeterfive.com/confusion-about-graces-a-catholic-critique-of-the-charismatic-movement/
@@TheFatimaCenter how about approvals from St. John Paul II and the remaining popes and the words and experiences of laymen and clergy against the point of view of one person and also opposed to several theological and biblical analysis. Not sure of the health of presenting one article to refute a 50 plus years movement that was heavily scrutinized by the Church's highest authorities including Popes.
How would you explain a group of people kneeling in prayer in front of the Holy Sacrament and all of a sudden all at once they start speaking this way? These are faithful Catholics in the state of grace that never asked for this gift but were humbly praying before the sacrament.
I wish someone could track down that mission priest from Africa who walked out of a charismatic meeting because he could understand the language that someone was speaking in, and get his testimony on video...
11.2. It must be known that even though these apprehensions can come to the bodily senses from God, one must never rely on them or accept them. A person should rather flee from them completely and have no desire to examine whether they be good or bad. ‼️The more exterior and corporeal these things are, the less certain is their divine origin‼️. God's self- communication is more commonly and appropriately given to the spirit, in which there is greater security and profit for the soul, than to the senses, where ordinarily there is extreme danger and room for deception. Thinking that spiritual things are identical with what is felt, the bodily sense usually sets itself up as arbiter and judge over them. But spiritual things are as different from what is sensed as is the body from the soul and sensibility from reason. The bodily sense is as ignorant of spiritual matters as a beast is of rational matters, and even more. -St. John of The Cross, Ascent to Mount Carmel, Chapter 11
11.3. *Individuals who esteem these apprehensions are in serious error and extreme danger of being deceived.* Or at least they will hinder their spiritual growth because, as we mentioned,2 these corporeal perceptions bear no proportion to what is spiritual. *Such manifestations ought always to be considered as more surely from the devil than from God,* for the devil possesses greater leeway in influencing the exterior and corporeal part of human nature. He can deceive the soul more readily through this action than through a more interior and spiritual kind. 11.4. *The more exterior these corporeal objects and forms, the less profitable they are to the interior and spiritual part of the soul.* This is due to the extreme distance and the lack of proportion between the corporeal and the spiritual. Even though some spirituality results from these corporeal communications -- which is always the case when they are from God -- it is far less than when the communications are more spiritual and interior. As a result they are a ready occasion for the breeding of error, presumption, and vanity in the soul. Palpable, tangible, and material as they are, they strongly affect the senses so that in one's judgment they seem more worthwhile on account of their being more sensible. A person, then, forsaking faith, will follow after these communications, believing that their light is the guide and means to the goal, which is union with God. But the more importance one gives to these communications the further one strays from faith, the way and means. 11.5. Furthermore, persons receiving these apprehensions often develop secretly a special opinion of themselves -- that now they are important in God's eyes. Such a view is *contrary to humility.* 11.5.(2). The devil too is adept at suggesting to individuals a secret self-satisfaction that becomes truly obvious at times. *He often purveys objects to the senses, presenting to the sense* of sight images of saints and most beautiful lights, and to the hearing, dissembled words, and to the sense of smell, fragrant odors; in the mouth, sweetness, and in the sense of touch, delight. He does all of this so that by enticing persons through these sensory objects he may induce them into many evils. 11.5.(3). Such representations and feelings, consequently, *must always be rejected* . Even though some may be from God, this rejection is no affront to him. Nor will one, by rejecting and not wanting them, fail to receive the effect and fruit God wishes to produce through them.
Father Gruner makes serious assumptions about the gift of tongues as later experienced in the early church. Just the speaking in tongues he has chosen to concentrate on found in Acts 2, he has chosen to ignore that the fact that even though were not learnt languages since they were divinely given by the Holy Spirit as He so desired. If the Church began and later evolved with sacraments why were early Christians including Mary speaking in tongues, also found in 1 Corinthians 14. May the gracious Lord grant you grace to experience this life. Of course abuses are there but the Lord promised. Quoting St Augustine and his views does not negate God's outpouring of gifts.
So 1st Corinthians chapters 12 and 14 are meaningless? St Paul spoke of praying in tongues and praying with reason. That is not the same as what Peter was doing
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm) corrects the assumption that the gift of tongues manifested in early Christian communities was fundamentally different from its first expression on Pentecost, except insofar as abuses had already begun to accrue to the practice: "St. Paul had seen the gift conferred at Ephesus and St. Luke does not distinguish Ephesian glossolaly from that of Jerusalem. They must therefore have been alike and St. Paul seems to have had both in mind when he commanded the Corinthians (14:37) to employ none but articulate and 'plain speech' in their use of the gift (9), and to refrain from such use in church unless even the unlearned could grasp what was said (16). No tongue could be genuine 'without voice' and to use such a tongue would be the act of a barbarian (10, 11). For him the impulse to praise God in one or more strange tongues should proceed from the Holy Ghost. It was even then an inferior gift which he ranked next to last in a list of eight charismata. It was a mere 'sign' and as such was intended not for believers but for unbelievers (22). "Corinthian Abuses (I Corinthians 14 passim).-Medieval and modern writers wrongly take it for granted that the charism existed permanently at Corinth - as it did nowhere else-and that St. Paul, in commending the gift to the Corinthians, therewith gave his guaranty that the characteristics of Corinthian glossolaly were those of the gift itself. Traditional writers in overlooking this point place St. Luke at variance with St. Paul, and attribute to the charism properties so contrary as to make it inexplicable and prohibitively mysterious. There is enough in St. Paul to show us that the Corinthian peculiarities were ignoble accretions and abuses. They made of 'tongues' a source of schism in the Church and of scandal without (14:23). The charism had deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10) with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which sometimes might be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). The Corinthians, misled not by insincerity but by simplicity and ignorance (20), were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit (pneuma), or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding (nous) of the Spirit of God (15). What today purports to be the 'gift of tongues' at certain Protestant revivals is a fair reproduction of Corinthian glossolaly, and shows the need there was in the primitive Church of the Apostle's counsel to do all things 'decently, and according to order' (40). "Faithful adherence to the text of Sacred Scripture makes it obligatory to reject those opinions which turn the charism of tongues into little more than infantile babbling (Eichhorn, Schmidt, Neander), incoherent exclamations (Meyer), pythonic utterances (Wiseler), or prophetic demonstrations of the archaic kind (see 1 Samuel 19:20, 24). The unalloyed charism was as much an exercise of the intelligence as of the emotions. Languages or dialects, now kainais (Mark 16:17) for their present purpose, and now spontaneously borrowed by the conservative Hebrew from Gentile foreigners (eteroglossois, cheilesin eteron, 1 Corinthians 14:21), were used as never before. But they were understood even by those who used them. Most Latin commentators have believed the contrary, but the ancient Greeks, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and others who were nearer the scene, agree to it and the testimony of the texts as above studied seems to bear them out."
@@TheFatimaCenter Word of God is for all, not just for early Christians. Study Bible well. You guys are misguiding the people with lack of knowledge and understanding. THE GIFT OF TONGUES : Three types of Tongues mentioned in the Bible are as follows :- 1). Praying in Tongues : 1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. Romans 8:25-27 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will. 2). He who has the gift of interpretation can interpret what someone speaks in tongues for the good of the society. That is why Paul said those who speak in tongues should be silent in church, unless they have the gift of interpretation. As this message was given by God it is therefore can also be considered as prophecy. Please note that praying to God with the the gift of tongue and speaking to the society by tongue with the help of gift of interpretation are two things : 1 Corinthians 14:13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 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. 3). In the early church when the apostles spoke to thousands in their language those who gathered there heard the speech in their own languages : Acts 2:1-11 When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind,* and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire,* which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they 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, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.
@@TheFatimaCenter Much like the evil one perverted the Word of God when he tempted Christ, you are also guilty of the same wickedness & hatred of the Holy Spirit. You are being used as a tool of satan.
i'm an ex protestant and it's kinda funny when your neighbors practices how to speak in tongues and dance like an evil possessions...omg..!!! many Catholic lost their faith ,imitating like a protestant;kinda funny😂
@Jeffrey Stern lol, no haven't done that yet but I have seen the Holy Spirit convert an atheist to a believer and many other things u cannot explain with human intelect. My God is a living God and wants to use his people to reveal his power on the earth
@Jeffrey Stern Hi Jeffrey, I didnt ask a question. Jesus Christ died a hideous death on a cross rejected by everyone around him that you an I might have life. Both in this life and the next. This is very real, I have a small piece of eternity that lives in me and when I pray I get filled with the holy spirit, peace,love and joy. Not anger,anxiety and worry. And I know that when my body dies I wont die. Following Jesus Christ is about people not snakes and many people say they do things in his name but what they do is just a dead work and dosent help anyone. Religion is lifeless but a real relationship with Jesus is wonderful.
@Jeffrey Stern sorry to disappoint but I dont say anyone is wrong, many people from all Christian denominations have a personal relationship with the same Jesus as me and experience the same holy spirit within them. If they love Jesus then that makes them family. Religious division within the Christian church is a man made construct and is more to do with money and power than Jesus Christ
Why is it in the catechism then? I have this gift, and its not chirping, or babbling, I actually speak another ancient language, sounds Arabic, which i have never spoken before, or learnt before. How do you do that if you have had no exposure to that language, and it only comes during personal prayer or adoration. I graciously received this gift through healing. It is a legitimate gift of the holy spirit.
The question answers itself. It is to be feared that you have opened yourself to the operations of the devil. We urge you to have no more to do with this practice. God bless you.
@@T_dog1 Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas are God nor did either have papal authority to speak ex cathedra. The Holy Spirit moves REGARDLESS of whether or not we understand or approve. This video is evidence that these men & all who reject the charisms of the Holy Spirit because of their false teachings based on ignorance & a lack of education, are being guided by the evil one & will be judged for their acts that has caused more confusion & division.
@@kanemarko2503 Their "false teachings" is what Catholicism has taught for 1900 years. Only after Vatican 2 did this charismatic garbage seep into the Church. It seems that you're the one who's ignorant and lacks education.
The one on the right doesnt know the history of the beginning of Pentecostal movement....in Kansas they DIDN'T ever think speaking in tounges was a sign of justification... such a misunderstanding. It was seen as a sign of a second blessing for those who had previously been justified.
He does know it. But he is not talking about the explanation they gave it right there and then. When looking forward a century from there, it has this exact theological, emotional and social function in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Having known Pentecostals and Protestant Charismatics for a few decades, they never talk about "a second blessing". They would even consider that disparaging. The filling and the tongues are, for them, the blessing. The sign. And the practical use of it is exactly what was said: a sign of justification. The movement had initial theories of it being a miraculous capability to speak some or any foreign language. Some went around like "hey, you are Chinese? Is this Chinese what I am saying?" And the answer was "no, but maybe you should ask the Koreans? Or the Japanese?" Of course, poor Koreans, poor Japanese, it was no different then than it is now.
Agree about tongues and it's validity ,or lack of, today. The argument regarding Protestant usage falls flat - if R.C. have the sacraments ,individuals, then it doesn't explain the movement withing the church . No offense, intended, but I think the issue goes deeper and requires more of an explanation that blaming Protestant denial. IT comes across more of a defense of R.C. doctrine than a apologetic /theological argument . Don't forget the San Francisco Azuzu . . Again, not trying to put R..C. church ,quite the contrary , but the argument seems straw-man.
There's something more that could be said about Charles perram. His original claim was that his followers could speak true languages such as Chinese. They ended up raising a bunch of money to send missionaries to China. And when they got there, they found out they could not speak in those languages. He refused to return the money and later in life. He was actually a fugitive for committing Sexual crimes. This all came about at a time when spiritualism was at an all time high in the states. So he probably was just a scammer like all of the psychics, extorting widows out of money.
Jesus said to wait I will send you a helper ,,he is the helper in the church today .When you get touched by God you will know .For you to be saved as Christians he first hand picked you ..He said all are called and few come ..Faith has a lot to do with God ,it's by faith we are saved .close your eyes listen to the wind ..you do not know we're it comes from but God sends the winds ....the facts are true even when John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus the heavens opened .the sprit of God came upon him like a dove ..this is my son who is we'll pleased ...God is love ..when you feel gods love you also will know it ....
I enjoyed but wish the priest was not interrupted so much interviewer should have just sat alone and spoke his opinion.. was pretty terrible listening to that part of things
i am involved in the charismatic renewal and i noticed most of the tongue people practiced are voluntary, i.e. self made,, a blabber. but it could happen in a charismatic movement... i remember one guy suddenly really talking chinese yet he did not know any chinese... luckily, there was a chinese lady who interpret the tongue for all of us present..
Yeahhh, I don't buy it. There has never been a documented case of someone who w/o any training or cultural background, just spouts a complete intelligible foreign language. Sorry, not sorry.
I’m sorry but there are several factual errors in this video. 1. The Catholic Renewal started in 67 as Fr G said not 64 as the presenter said. 2. The Protestant origins of the Catholic renewal - whilst it’s true that the professors who called the students to a weekend retreat had been prayed for by Protestants, the students who had the experience of the Holy Spirit at the retreat weekend were not prayed for either by Protestants or by their professors. In fact they were in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament when the Spirit of God manifested Himself in a powerful way and the presence of God in the adoration chapel became so strong that they were all prostrate on the floor. THIS experience is considered to be the beginnings of Catholic Charismatic Renewal - and as I’ve described, it was Eucharistic in origin: perfectly Catholic - God is infinitely wise and knew well that some would come later and accuse the Catholic Renewal of being Protestant so He ensured that it actually had a very Catholic start. Read Patty Mansfield’s account of the experience if you want proof - she is one of the students present at the time. 3. St Augustine encouraged his congregation to ‘jubilate’which is the ‘babbling’ form of tongues mentioned in the video, so Augustine was aware of and not against this phenomenon as was St Thomas Aquinas. It’s true that these gifts were less common after the early centuries of the Church once Christianity became the established religion, but it makes perfect sense that God would revive them now in our days when Christianity is on the margins again in society and our times are so much like the times of the early Church when we need supernatural gifts to help in the work of evangelisation of our neo-pagan western world.
What do you make of Paul saying that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself to God? That doesn't seem like one speaking a language to another person, though that is clearly a function of the gift as seen in scripture. And what do you make of Paul speaking about speaking a message in tongues to the church in which case some one must be present who has the gift of interpretation of tongues? If tongues were only for the sake of someone who does not understand the spoken language, why the need for someone else to interpret? Peter didn't have someone to interpret at Pentacost. It seems to me that there are three functions shown in scripture of tongues: so others hear the gospel in their own language, as a special message to the church (gift of interpretation must be present), and personal edification to God. Now, the examples you gave, I agree, are ridiculous. You can't just say some syllables and figure it out. Scripture makes clear it is a gift that God gives as he wills. I agree there is a lot of bad doctrine and theology about it out there. But it seems plain to me in scripture that there are those three functions of tongues given as gifts from the Holy Spirit.
Theodoret of Cyrus affirms that interpretation was in itself a spiritual gift (Commentary on 1 Cor 12:10), but we would caution our viewers that what many today consider a continuation of the pentecostal gifts is in fact a dangerous Protestant exercise which has attracted a Catholic following. The need for the true gift of tongues was in the time of the infant Church, as St. Gregory the Great affirms (Moralia, On Job): "There are some who, when they hear of the wonderful works of the apostles, that having received the Holy Spirit, they raised the dead with a word, cast out demons from the obsessed, removed infirmity with their shadow, preached by prophesying things to come, and speaking in the language of every nation, preached the only-begotten Word of God, because they do not see these powers in the church now, believe that heavenly grace has already been withdrawn from the church, not knowing that they should believe what is written: 'A Helper in times of tribulation' (Psalm 9:9).21"
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you for the reply. My parents were raised in a protestant denomination that taught precisely that, that the charismatic gifts had been removed, having served their purpose. I appreciate your reference to St. Gregory the Great. Are there any more references from the fathers or official statements of the church? I admit that my protestant brain wants to say, but scripture doesn't say that, that the gifts were done away with. But of course, Sola scriptura is a protestant thing. I've heard other Catholics, including a priest or two, say that the Church is open to the gifts, doesn't teach against them, but has no official stance on the issue. Does that sound accurate, or are they missing something?
@@timrichardson4018 The topic is quite broad. Here are some articles that we can recommend. Fr. Scott Gardner, “The Catholic Charismatic Renewal” archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_charismatic_renewal.htm Fr. John Hardon, S.J., “Pentecostalism: Evaluating a Phenomenon” www.therealpresence.org/archives/Protestantism/Protestantism_002.htm James Likoudis, “The Pentecostalism Controversy” www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6587 Peter Kwasniewski, “Confusion about Graces: A Catholic Critique of the Charismatic Movement” onepeterfive.com/confusion-about-graces-a-catholic-critique-of-the-charismatic-movement/ John Vennari also wrote extensively about the history and dangers of the charismatic movement. See his articles, "‘Catholic' Pentecostalism: Grown in the Garden of Protestantism" www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2013/5/10/catholic-pentecostalism-grown-in-the-garden-of-protestantism and "From Pentecostalism to Apostasy" www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm and his (now rare and prohibitively expensive) book "Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement" www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=john+vennari&title=close+ups+of+the+charismatic+movement&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr
@@timrichardson4018 Below is a compendium of citations regarding the gift of tongues, focused on demonstrating that this gift involved real human languages as opposed to the gibberish so often employed in charismatic worship. HILARY OF POITIERS (359 a.d.) "And we learn that all this prophecy was fulfilled in the case of the apostles, when, after sending of the Holy Spirit, they all spake with the tongues of the Gentiles." EUSEBIUS OF EMESA (359 a.d.) "But when He [God] gave literary ability to ignorant men so that they could write gospels, giving the ability to write he also gave the Roman tongue to Galileans, and the languages of the world to his apostles, for the teaching and admonition and exhortation of the nations of the world." CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (387 a.d.), "John and the rest of the apostles spake every tongue of those of Gentile extraction. What teacher can be found so great as to teach men all at once things which they have not learned? But the Holy Spirit taught them many languages at once, languages which all their life they never knew." FILASTRIUS (397 a.d.) "[T]he knowledge of languages which offending men lost twenty-seven hundred years earlier the Lord conferred again through the Holy Spirit at the time of the blessed apostles after his ascension without any effort upon those who believed, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles. For it is the power of angels to know the languages of all men; but through faith in Christ without any effort the knowledge of them all was passed on to believers." PSEUDO-CONSTANTIUS (405 a.d.) "For the one who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and consolation to people. The one who speak in a tongue edifies only himself. But the one who prophesies edifies the church. I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. For the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in a tongue, unless it is interpreted so that the church may receive edification" (1 Corinthians 14:3-5). He says If I shall come to you and shall speak to you' in the Syrian or Persian language 'what good is that to you' who do not understand?" JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (407 a.d.) "[On 1 Corinthians 14:1-3] Wherefore then did the apostles receive it [the gift of tongues] before the rest? Because they were to go abroad everywhere. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak diverse languages." GAUDENTIUS (410 a.d.), SERMONS " For being filled with the Holy Spirit they were speaking with the tongues of the various nations." RUFINUS OFAQUILEIA (d. 412) "They [the apostles] were thus enabled to speak a variety of different languages, with the result that they found no nation strange to them, and no foreign speech beyond their powers of comprehension. PELAGIUS (414 a.d.) "The Holy Spirit fills the soul, like air coming into musical pipes, and the finger of God touches the hearts of his saints like the strings of a harp. When he was poured forth upon the apostles and the community of believers on the day of Pentecost, as he had promised by the Lord, why was it that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of fiery tongues and caused those over whom he rested to speak with the tongues of all nations? "But 'the Spirit was not yet given'; that is, with that abundance of spiritual grace which enabled those assembled together to speak in every language, and thus announce before hand in the language of every nation the church of the future: and so by this spiritual grace it was that the nations were gathered into congregations, sins were pardoned far and wide, and thousands of thousands were reconciled unto God." LEO THE GREAT (461 a.d.) "[B]ut the Spirit of God blowing where He wills, the languages peculiar to each nation became common property in the mouth of the Church." THEODORET OF CYRUS (466 a.d.) "To another the interpretation of words" (1 Corinthians 12:10). This also was a spiritual gift. For often a person who knew only the Greek language, after discoursing with another in the language of Scythia and Thrace, brought an interpretation to the hearers. 16 "For one who speaks in a tongue, speaks not to people, but to God: for no one hears. But in the Spirit he speaks mys-teries" (1 Corinthians 14:2) .... For it was given to preachers, because of the diverse languages of people, so that one who was going to the people of India might bring the divine preaching in the language used by them. And again, when discoursing with Persians, and with Scythians, and Romans, and Egyptians, they would preach the evangelical doctrine in the languages used by each." AUGUSTINE "All the people present [in the Upper Room] had learned one language. The Holy Spirit came, they were filled with it, they began to speak with the different languages of all nations which they didn't know, and hadn't learned .... The fact, I mean, that small church was speaking with the tongues of all nations, what else can it signify but that this great church from the rising of the sun to its setting (Psalm 113:3) is speaking with the tongues of all nations?" JACOB OF SERUGH (5TH CENTURY) "O Upper Room, your story is exalted even more than Babel; Because without any writing all tongues are distributed in you. The Spirit made you as a school for the sons of the light And they have learned from you the speech of the nations and their tongues .... For, on the great feast when all the nations were gathered The tongues resounded from the Upper Room with new voices. The Greeks and the Alans heard their own tongues Simply from the disciples who had multiplied among the Jews .... In the language of the region he spoke to them so that it should become known That he himself is the teacher, master and the Lord of the region .... The Good News of the Son was sent by all sorts of tongues To the peoples of the earth who had proceeded from Babel." CASSIODORUS (580 a.d.) "With the coming of the Holy Spirit, and with all sitting in that house, fire from heaven appeared upon their heads and they spoke the languages of various nations." GREGORY THE GREAT (603 a.d. ) "The Holy Spirit appeared in tongues of fire over the disciples, and gave them the knowledge of all languages." GREGORY THE GREAT "There are some who, when they hear of the wonderful works of the apostles, that having received the Holy Spirit, they raised the dead with a word, cast out demons from the obsessed, removed infirmity with their shadow, preached by prophesying things to come, and speaking in the language of every nation, preached the only-begotten Word of God, because they do not see these powers in the church now, believe that heavenly grace has already been withdrawn from the church, not knowing that they should believe what is written: 'A Helper in times of tribulation' (Psalm 9:9)."
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you for the references. It's always great to learn more about the ancient Christians' understanding of things. It is perfectly clear in scripture that the speaking in tongues at Pentecost was for the preaching of the Gospel in a way that other nationalities would hear it in their respective languages. But I wonder what the Church makes of 1 Corinthians 14:2 "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." This verse says specifically that when speaking in this mode of tongues, one speaks not to people but to God, mysteries of the spirit that no one understands. This does not sound like the function of tongues in Acts 1 to me. I genuinely do not mean to argue. I truly would like to know the church's position on this verse. For the life of me, I can't see any other way to read it. It seems to me that a private prayer to God in tongues, a mystery of the Spirit that no one understands, was at least once a part of the life of the Church. Do the Church Father's say anything about 1 Corinthians 14:2?
Unfortunaly what Fr Gruner is referring to would be “Hearing in Tongues”. It is speaking or praying in Corinthians. No Man understands not even the speaker. 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Paul was still talking about the similar experience at Pentecost, not unknown languages. Actually paul emphasizes if you have no interpreter, then should not speak in tongues in the church but pray to your God in secret.Yes I agree with Paul, tongues which are not being interpreted should not be used in the public, the Holy spirit is not an author of confusion. He will give the gift to a person for a purpose but today many in the "penteostals" & charismatic are even teaching people how to speak in tongues,that is rendering the Holy Spirit idle.Some tongues being taught are not of the Holy Spirit but the deception of the devil.
PTL!! Romans 8:26 does not refer to the second blessing or its prayer language of tongues, however, as I further explain both in tweets and in reply to the comnent which followed yours.
The "knowing" that you're in God's fight is described according to western definition of "know", where there is a different definition of "know" in the mid-east culture where our faith originates: knowing being based on experiential wisdom......as compared to "blind faith" in any human doctrine. What's being said here doesn't necessarily debunk the modern use of tongues. We all a re in God's fight, but according to different experiences with God.
This is sad that these two gentlemen do not seem to understand the argument of the charismatic movement. Worse, protestant pentecostal didn't start the speaking in tongue experience as a need to show that they were justified. Justification is an argument of mainline protestant churches who by the way don't care about the speaking of tongues. Pentecostals could care less about the Lutherans debate on justification. This is a misleading video about the history of the issue. Protestant Cessationists make a better case against 'speaking in tongues' than these two gentlemen.
@@T_dog1 Yes, I know who they were. One was a Church father and the other the angelic doctor. And you, do you even know about the Catholic saints who believed and spoke in tongues in history, including Saint John Paul 2? Maybe you should consider humbling yourself and study this issue. In a spirit of sharing, you might find these two quotes of some interest to you: 1) St. Thomas Aquinas: "When our mind is kindled by devotion as we pray, we break out spontaneously into weeping and singing and cries of jubilation and other such noises. (...) we offer reverence in prayer not only with our mind, but with our bodies." 2) St. Augustine: "He who sings a jubilus does not utter words; he pronounces a wordless sound of joy; the voice of his soul pours forth happiness as intensely as possible, expressing what he feels without reflecting on any particular meaning; to manifest his joy, the man does not use words that can be pronounced and understood, but he simply lets his joy burst forth without words; his voice appears to express a happiness so intense that he cannot formulate it." St. Paul the Apostle: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (...) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." They may have used different words to express their unintelligible spiritual experience but they undoubtedly spoke about the same divine reality.
@@T_dog1 @Trevor G Scott Yes, I know who they were. One was a Church father and the other the angelic doctor. And you, do you even know about the Catholic saints who believed and spoke in tongues in history, including Saint John Paul 2? Maybe you should consider humbling yourself and study this issue. In a spirit of sharing, you might find these two quotes of some interest to you: 1) St. Thomas Aquinas: "When our mind is kindled by devotion as we pray, we break out spontaneously into weeping and singing and cries of jubilation and other such noises. (...) we offer reverence in prayer not only with our mind, but with our bodies." 2) St. Augustine: "He who sings a jubilus does not utter words; he pronounces a wordless sound of joy; the voice of his soul pours forth happiness as intensely as possible, expressing what he feels without reflecting on any particular meaning; to manifest his joy, the man does not use words that can be pronounced and understood, but he simply lets his joy burst forth without words; his voice appears to express a happiness so intense that he cannot formulate it." St. Paul the Apostle: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (...) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." They may have used different words to express their unintelligible spiritual experience but they undoubtedly spoke about the same divine reality.
The question was asked from Father Gruner but the other guy did all the talking :) There are two types of Tongues please read your bible . The other one Paul mentioned is a tool to talk with God and not with human. It is not a language of human. Amazing that you did not read your bible:) Father Gruner with all those knowledge you can be so wrong. So let's be clear that missionary you mentioned did indeed hear the prayer in a language ? and that was a curse of Jesus and Mary ? LOL How Satan hates people to have more intimate relationship with God. Don't you people read that if you ask God to give you bread he won't give you stone or ask for fish will God give you snake? If you ask God to give you a spiritual gift it won't be a curse.
Thank you for your comment. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm) corrects the assumption that the gift of tongues manifested in early Christian communities was fundamentally different from its first expression on Pentecost, except insofar as abuses had already begun to accrue to the practice. God bless you.
@ Michael - Not sure what ever happened to Part 2, but here's a completely revised version in both parts..... Part 1 - There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language. In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically. Tongues-speech is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, ‘Adonai’, etc.). Sometimes, part of the utterance is rendered in the speaker’s native language, and part in tongues-speech. One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues. (hardly a “reversal of Babel” as some would argue, is it?) Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”. Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features - I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does. People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.” Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught. If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing. This forced a serious theological dilemma - As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen. One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem - how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place. In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries. As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist - it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications. The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed. Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next. The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be. What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated.
Thank you for your comment. Clearly Mr. Vennari misspoke in that instance, but his meaning is not difficult to follow. The sacramental life that Catholics are privileged to participate in has no equivalent within Protestantism, and this void leads them to seek emotion-laden pseudo-religious experiences.
From a person who’s been a charismatic for 30 yrs: The gift of tongues no longer exists as it did during the day of Pentecost. What you hear now in the charismatic church is fake, made up gibberish. Why? Because 99% of us are attention seekers with low self esteem. We want other people to ‘think’ we are closer to God than you because we have a ‘heavenly language’ and you don’t. We love to abuse all the ‘outward gifts’ because they are something to see. We get a lot of attention that way. You can also put yourself in an ‘altered state’ of the mind when songs are played over and over and over. It’s done on Purpose. It helps the mood. In the charismatic church, you will do things that are NOT normal and do things there that you don’t do in your every day life or your job. But we claim that it’s God, when in reality, it’s just us making stuff up. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of peer pressure to speak in gibberish if your not and everyone around you is. You better start speaking quick because you will get a label that your not ‘saved’, and nobody wants that, so they go with the flow. We know this but you won’t catch us admitting it, .....until now. It’s all a game, folks. I big, fat lie of a game. Hardly ANY of the charismatic or Pentecostal preachers have any formal theology classes or even college degrees, period. Why? Because sensible people ‘wake up’ to this type of hoopla. Hardly any of them know how to properly use the Greek or Hebrew and handle it properly when interpreting verses. Why? Because that takes hard work and years of mastery and they simply won’t do it. The reward is correct doctrine, but if your a charismatic, you make up your own doctrine and defend it to the grave and then say your being persecuted. See how this works? Again, it’s a game. If you feel your stuck in this type of movement and are looking for someone to sound off to, I am that person. You can write me at markforquer@gmail.com.
Whatever. Speaking in tongues is biblical. I don't speak in tongues but it doesn't mean The Holy Spirit doesn't gift someone with it. I see the danger that people may pretend or blaspheme while speaking in tongues. I don't wear a hair shirt or inflict pain as a penance. Fasting is enough because the other self inflicted sacrifice is left for saints. I believe speaking in tongues falls under this category.
Yes I went to renewal in 1980s at our Ladies Convent ,was prayed over nothing happened ,but later on the 9/9/ 1984 I had a Wonderfull vision ,much later I got the gift ,we were also encouraged to read the bible ,in many many places it talks about the gift and St Paul says we should pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and John Paul second also encouraged it ,As we all receive the same spirit as the early Christians we should all have the same fruits and gifts as them ,and Jesus warned not to blaspheme agenst the Holy Spirit.
Dont get the gift of tongues mixed up with speaking in tongues. Read 1cor14v4 jude14. One is to build us up, it's a little piece of heaven in us and it builds our spirit man and that's my experience. It amazes me how people who dont speak in tongues put the gift down they also fail to understand that god does not hand out useless gifts
You’re right in saying “God does not hand out useless gifts”. Only satan does..... I have prayed and asked God to reveal to me in His kindness and mercy if this tongues gift is really from Him. Nada, Niet, Zilch. Till such time that He does, I will be opposing it. Satan is a confuser and so this confusing language is his. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33. I have always followed the principle of “WHEN IN DOUBT, DON’T”. God bless you to see the truth.
1.When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The Holy Spirit enables them to speak in tongues and my friend has tried many times to teach how to spend in tongues. I tell him how can you teach me how to speak in tongues, you are not the enabler the Holy Spirit.
On the gift of tongues I suggest you reflect on paragraph 2003 in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. These are days not too far from the dark days of Christ establishing the first church. These are days of revelation and renewal. PS from that little barn in California over 1.8 billion people were influenced by the fullness of being born again. I suggest you consider carefully your words when speaking about things you have observed rather than permitting yourself to be immersed in ❤️💨🔥
The Bible is VERY clear about the Apostles. They were UNDERSTOOD by their hearers, they did NOT babble gibberish. This present day speaking in tongues nonsense is clearly a con, a scam, at best, demonic possession at worst
No. Pentecostalism does not believe that the gift of tongues is a sign of justification. Because Pentecostalism is Protestant, it believes that justification is imputed upon being 'saved' or 'born again'. But after salvation, Pentecostalism believes a second work of grace that empowers the Christian for ministry: the Baptism of the Spirit. Speaking in tongues is the sign of the Baptism of the Spirit. As for Charismatism, which is Pentecostalism 2.0, they believe that tongues is not the sole or only sign but one sign among others that you are baptised in the spirit.
There are two major problems with this discussion. First, St. Paul says in 1 Cor 12: "to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues." There are different kinds of tongues. If the only kind of gift of tongues is that you can understand another person regardless of what language they speak, they why would Paul tell us that there is a gift of interpreting tongues? Why would we need to interpret what we already understand? In 1 Cor 14: St. Paul asks the Corinthians that if a member prays in tongues, they should keep it to themselves unless they have someone to interpret: "Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified." Finally, St. Paul concludes: 1 Cor 14:18: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Clearly, here St. Paul is referring to speaking in tongues as words that are not intelligible to others. Second, the description of the Duquesne group is inaccurate. All of them testify that they did not know about the gift of tongues before they received it. They were not imitating a Protestant set of expectations. It is not fair to give a different version of someone else's story when they are more than eager to tell it themselves. Please listen to their own testimonies about what happened: vimeo.com/242231052 While it is true that someone can fake speaking in tongues, to claim that all people who speak in tongues are deceivers and frauds or delusional is very narrow-minded. In Acts 11 St Peter says: "So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?" Is the God whose fatherly love makes it rain on the fields of the just and unjust alike going to refuse the Holy Spirit to Protestants? The power of God's grace is much bigger than our human ways. With all due respect to your ministry, Fr. Gruner, I must echo Matt 22:29: Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."
Tongues are written spoken languages used to confirm the word of God to the Jews. Acts 2 tells us explicitly that they were speaking in other languages. It even lists them. Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. It was a supernatural sign for the Jews to believe. Why? The word tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 (KJV) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom Paul confirms it in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: Nowhere in the Bible does it tell Christians that they need 'tongues' to be saved. Or that is confirms salvation in any way. There is also nowhere where a gentile in Acts spoke in tongues. We are told in Acts 13:46 (KJV)Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ, the gospel came to the Gentiles. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is our gospel. The just are to live by faith. Romans 10:17 (KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Paul specifically says us that an interpreter must be present which was not needed in Acts. Why? Because God gave supernatural evidence in Acts for them to hear in their own language. The Spirit gave them utterance to speak in the language where they were born. In our dispensation, we need an interpreter present to translate from English to French as one example. 1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Compare scripture with scripture. Paul is rebuking the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. What tongues was Paul speaking? He tells us one tongue in Acts 21:40 kjv And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying An unknown tongue is like Korean to an English speaking person. We don't understand or know it. Tongues is always throughout the Bible used to confirm the word of God to people of other languages. How can you do that if people don't have a clue what you are saying. It's easy to be deceived with how much deception is in the world right now. But the truth is in the Bible. Unfortunately because we live in deceptive times, men are twisting the Bible, taking it out of context and hoping their followers don't know Gods word to question what they are being told. I pray for all those deceived in this - I was once too so I understand it's easy to fall for. I know speaking in tongues can make you feel good but it's not of God. Satan can give you signs and wonders. 2 Timothy 2:25 (KJV)In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Timothy 2:15 kjv Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. God bless
@@andrewortiz9226 ¡Andrés, ay, por favor! Then why did Jesus say to His one and only Church , "He who HEARS you HEARS Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me?"
This doesn't really answer the phenomena. I know of a very conservative Latin mass priest who suddenly had the speaking in tongues experience and my own priest who never believed in the charismatic thing or the gift of tongues until he experienced it himself. He does not belong to a charismatic group but he had the experience once. It leaves me more confused than ever.
GUARDIAN 208 :IN MY OPINION THE PRIEST WAS UNDER ATTACK FROM THE DEVIL ,AND HAD HE BEEN IN GOOD STANDING SPRITUALLY WITH GOD HE WOULD HAVE RECOGNISED THIS (ONLY MY OPINION )
Guardian208 This might be the work of demons.I highly recommand you the sermons of exorcist Father Chad Ripperger on this topic and on discerning spirits
as far as i know the gift of tongue can manifest any moment but not always and at will. i remember when i was praying over my sister in the charismatic renewal, as i was saying alleluia, suddenly my tongue felt like numb and big ang entangled and i was talking i didn't know.. i was knew then at the renewal.. i got scared and stopped myself.. it never manifested again and i didn't practice... to me if that is how the gift of tongue is manifested then you can not just blabb words and say you received the gift.. you have to have this strange feeling or sensation not coming from your emotion or something ... it has to be a power from the Holy Spirit.
1 corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. This is telling us that NO MAN understands only god.. the bible talks about multiple tongues for example Yes the bible says they spoke in other tongues but if you do your research you will see all the proof that tongues is as real as it was 2000 years ago... God Bless
Speaking in a tongue means speaking in a different language. The purpose of speaking is to communicate. For communication to be effective, you must understand what you are saying, and the other person must understand it. If you refuse to speak to God in English, or whatever be your native tongue, and decide to babble in words you yourself do not understand, how then are you communicating with God? This is like sitting on your couch, holding a dinner plate and pretending you are driving a car. With enough delusion you may convince yourself that you are driving a car, but in reality you are going nowhere.
1Co 14:2 If you speak languages that others don't know, God will understand what you are saying, though no one else will know what you mean. You will be talking about mysteries that only the Spirit understands. Maybe update to a bible that doesnt use King James english from 17th century
My great grandmother could, as well as my grandma. It was usually a mix of Greek and Hebrew (as well as an ancient language none of us knew, but it was consistent). Don't listen to the fakers who just ramble on incoherently.
I agree with quite a few things people have said here and so do some Charismatics I know. For one thing, if people were truly falling under the power of God, they'd fall forward, on their faces, NOT backward. However, some of us are thrown out with the bath water. I don't believe tongues are a sign of salvation. For one thing that would rule out people who cannot talk. The sign of salvation is holiness. Tongues have not ceased. What they are describing happens on the mission field with non-charismatics missionaries. A retired missionary in our Baptist church told me of her experiences. She never sought tongues. I don't believe that manifestations we often see in charismatic churches are appropriate, but I speak in tongues in private. Neither do I believe that we get to choose whatever spiritual gifts we want. That is totally up to God. A lot of charismatics are not penticostals. One other thing about charismatics, they pray and they pray and they PRAY until God answers--and we don't just pray up things we want. Also bear in mind that a lot of good, biblical Christian music comes from charismatics. That is where the jesus music movement started. I never hear anyone talking about that. If errant fellowships, and there are plenty of those who aren't charismatic, use little cups with grape juice during communion, should we biblical fellowships stop doing that?
Wrong. The direction a person falls (rests in the Holy Spirit) is not restricted to only falling forward. The Holy Spirit is not bound by human understanding nor tradition of prostration.
Do not be quick to judge, and you will not be judged. It's fraternal charity to correct and rebuke in love. But this is not one of the ways to do it. For one, the arguments are off scripture on the most part and secondly, the gentleman with fr. is asserting everything a spirit of arrogance- and if this is with brothers in the faith, how will do it to non believers and lost sheep. I'm not speaking for Catholic charismatics today, but Just like at St Paul's Corinth 1 Cor 12, there obviously will be abuse of charisms. That does not mean Holy Spirit won't bless the little ones with an abundance of them again. Their fruits also stand against you, they love mass and the sacraments and the Word, they love each other and the Lord keeps adding their numbers, healings take place, they listen to the pope and they actually respect him whom Jesus appointed steward of the sheep. With love, my prayers.
The phenomenon is protestant and also kbown as glossalalia linguistically. It is not valid anymore as a foreign language for evangelisation. It is real language not gibberish: it could also be used as a portal for the demonic. It just is not Catholic.
And then what? It is a Charismatic thing to shred your Bible and then make doctrine out of the shreds. I've always known that the actual content of the said books does not support anything the modern Charismatics are doing. But I also see that the shreds do.
I was told by a religious person not to focus too much on the gifts of the Holy Ghost but focus more on the Fruit of the Holy Ghost.
You're missing his point. These are not gifts of the Holy Spirit.
What the speakers says at 3:30 about the lack of fulfillment from denying the sacraments and trying to replace or refill it with the “gift” of tongues. I think he hit the nail on the head. I’m blown away that he solved where it stems from. 🤯
Amen
That’s why one needs to research it on both sides and if any names come up, dig into their bio on their beliefs, intentions. You’ll uncover more to be able to discern. Plus, this protestantization is a new “thing”. So, the Church got the Holy Spirit wrong after almost 2000 yrs?! It plainly states in scripture the “heard/understood”in their native tongue. It I remember correctly it was Scoffield and Parnum, Protestant pastors and others who propagated it. Then after the debacle of Vat II Catholic people adopted it🤦🏻♀️
Vat II was a valid council, but elements, such as the liturgy, were hijacked by Bugnini (who fraternized with Freemasons and Baggio(If I remember correctly, he was one), and invited Protestant pastors to give input in OUR liturgy. They submitted to Pope Paul VI that the changes were what the laity wanted. Why Novus Order is like a Protestant service and meal; rather than a heavenly experience and worship of the sacrifice.
Huge difference with the NO and Latin liturgies. The preparation of the priest to offer Mass and the servers to
assist before the Mass begins, if a high Mass, is beautiful. The prayers throughout are more sublime and beautiful and is a process of repentance, denial of self, making one worthy, etc. to receive His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty!
I always recommend first timers to investigate before going how it’s laid out. I’m sure there’s articles and videos online. At the church there are little red books that have the prayers, when to sit, kneel, stand, and explanation of what the priest is doing as well as pictures of the priest bowing or changing sides of the altar to identify what he’s doing next.
His back is toward the congregation, is not the propaganda of the priest “turning his back to you”, but offering the sacrifice for and with you as part of the body-one community priest and parishioners. If anything it’s satanic as the devil is opposite of God: priest looking at us during the sacrifice-is a distraction, takes focus from God alone, and the priest’s back is to the Tabernacle. In book of Revelation a depiction of the Mass, the angels knelt during the Sanctus and Agnus Dei. When we are in the presence of God when we can see Him and receive him should be in the utmost humility, respect and sacrifice to Him, on our knees; and kneel before and after reception of Holy Communion, in the pew-no standing until your pew is next. NO so much distraction and noisy. Latin is sublime, quiet and the Gregorian Chant is heavenly-if you have a good schola/“choir”. So beautiful for contemplation.
The priest always read the Epistle and Gospel in English along with the homily.
You can find a Latin Mass in you state by going to
latin mass.com
Tap to your country and state and enlarge map.
As a protestant myself, I always felt uneasy about all this tongues thing. Some people went so far that they told me I don't have the Holy Spirit when I don't talk this gibberish. Now Im home in RCC and feel at peace. I think it can be a gift from God, but it's not always the case, and it's not for me.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph 2003 : Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments.
There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 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. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
@@ShummyAntony And your point?
I somehow didn’t get that gift, nor the one to pray in tongues, but I did get the gifts of healing and of prophecy(being able to talk about Jesus and our rich faith). There is nothing wrong with the charismatic movement, but like anything there are exaggerations which do not come from the Holy Spirit. This was present in the time of the apostles. Tongues have always continued over the centuries, but it is a gift. To deny the actuality of the gift is to deny the Holy Spirit. Just because our Church tried to bury tongues for many centuries, does not mean the Holy Spirit is not still at work. Rather than condemning, we should be welcoming them and working with. Your attitude has lost us many truly wonderful people filled with FAITH. For many years already a New Pentecost has been foretold. Let’s not reject it.
@koolguy5344 Prophecy is not foretelling the future. It is the grace hear the spirit tell us to talk openly to whomever He has chosen about our Saviour God. It is the grace that gives the courage to pray for a stranger in need. It's about making one's life a testimony for Jesus. This is not an easy task.
@koolguy5344 I don’t heal, only God heals. I only respond to his call. It is un-nerving as you never know what kind of healing He is going to help with. We need to remember, a healing usually has to be received by the sick (spiritual or physical). However, there are times where it is God’s will, period. But He still wants our participation.
I suffered from this. For years I could never speak in tongues. Now I thank God I never did.
I tried to tell charismatic catholics, who would start praying in tongues like shabala hababa lalalalalalalala, that this could be wrong. I also wondered how can every one in their group can talk in tongues because this is a gift.
But they got angry. I was told that those with this "gift" felt offended! They felt their kids would get confused by my questioning their gifts and might stray away from the path!
They started accusing priests such as Fr. Ripperger as anti-charismatic.
I could feel they were annoyed and their egos hurt.
That's when I knew charismatic catholics.
Most of them are very good people though.
You were generous, IMO. I think charismatics are protestant in spirit, resistant to correction, arrogant and self-promoting. EX: Scott Hahn, Matt Fradd, Johnette Williams, Ralph Martin, Fr. Mark Goring. All suffer from this heresy and are blinded by it. I reject the idea that most of them are 'good' people, rather I think that most of them are smarmy, smiling egotists.
They might be good people but being good but being ignorant of the Faith and having their egos placed on nr. 1 is not being that good unfortunately This is why the EVIL ONE has such a wonderful time.
@Margaret Boyle I was not aware that Scott Hahn and Matt Fradd are “charismatics” or that they speak in tongues.
Over the years I have seen Fradd grow and grow in humility - almost as if his growth in tradition had something to do with it!
@@IpCrackle You respond with your feelings, not facts which is what typical Novus Ordo Catholics do. Both Fradd and Hahn are associated with Steubenville, the home turf of charismatic crazies. Both make $$, selling their heterodox opinions; Hahn has been selling his conversion story, written to a sixth grade comprehension level for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS. His wife and children are in on the family business; they make money from lectures and one of the sons works for "Catholic" Answers, a totally heretical forum established by Modernist heretic: Karl Keating. Pope Paul VI, destroyer of liturgy and manifest heretic, allowed the charismatic heresy to infest the Church in 1967. All of the charismatics write books written to a sixth grade comprehension level, encourage undignified emotionalism and GUSH repeatedly over each other. Hahn described himself as a "glad Trad Pentacostal Catholic" on the Matt Fradd show. To anyone with sense and true faith, this is a contradiction in terms. Fradd's followers and this is how they describe themselves, refer to themselves as "Fraddismatics." There is a lot you don't know, apparently. John Vennari did an excellent talk on the heretical errors of charismatics which is posted on the Defeat Modernism channel. I challenge you to listen to it and draw your own conclusions.
@@margaretboyle8719
Are you sure those are all Charismatics?
God bless both of you, I pray for your souls daily. Thank you Fatima Center, for everything!
This evil generation always seeks a sign. And they emphasize the experiential dimension of religion. Consolations are few and far between. Worship God the way HE wants to be worshipped.
How absolutely shocking that nothing officially has been said about it by the Church.
Right!
It is only "absolutely shocking" to those unaware of the fact that the institutional Church was overtaken by Modernists at Vatican II. Pope Paul VI allowed the infestation of the charismatic cult into the Church and since he was a Modernist heretic, it is hardly surprising. If you want an overview of what really happened at Vatican II, I suggest you listen to the Defeat Modernism channel.
I wish I had a Miraculous medal the size of father Gruners !
Star buono You can order a 2" Miraculous Medal from St. Joseph's Bookstore in Niagara Falls, NY.
Their phone number is (716) 282-2960
***** Thank you so much !
From an intellectual perspective let me simplify:
-To speak in tongues you have never learned is demonic
-To be understood by people who who do know you're language is from the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, do not seek to "speak in tongues."
Under the first example you have power, but under the second example the Lord has power, and this is the source of the conflict. Those who want to "speak in tongues" want to use the Holy Spirit for their own agenda, while those who want to obey the Holy Spirit do not demand that it perform for them. Does this make sense to you?
Very well put
I was invited to a group two nights ago by charismatic leader he's also a Catholic and I almost started to laugh when these women around me started rolling their tongues around and some of them selling like a little baby crying it was silly. And then I felt like I'm being looked down upon because I'm just sitting there staring and listening to their incoherent rambling jumbo Mumbo stuff. If it is from God I asked him to forgive me but how in the world is anyone supposed to know if this is from God? And I speak about God in heaven.
Mr. Vennari has written extensively about the history and dangers of the charismatic movement. See his articles "‘Catholic' Pentecostalism: Grown in the Garden of Protestantism"
(www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2013/5/10/catholic-pentecostalism-grown-in-the-garden-of-protestantism)
and "From Pentecostalism to Apostasy"
(www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm)
and his (now rare and expensive) book "Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement"
(www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&ref=bf_s2_a1_t1_1&qi=2QAm5LBOXSwpHEvJhr5uYCwjFI0_1478281349_1:322:507&bq=author%3Djohn%2520vennari%26title%3Dclose%2520ups%2520of%2520the%2520charismatic%2520movement)
Exactly the same thing that happened to me, and I was 11 years old. I guess the 'Holy Spirit' thought I was the only one there who did not deserve the 'gift'.
@@auraxfire I spoke in toungues before but my gift is healing and I see visions
@@andrewortiz9226 Please tell me what you have seen about end times? Or anything you think of important.
Paradise for the Hellbound Author/Designer In one of my visions. Jesus spoke to me of five crucial things that will allow your connection with God to grow stronger, deeper and more genuine and passionate... that is, if you truly want to see, feel, hear or be in the presence of our heavenly father. You must have... (in order)
FAITH
LOVE
PASSION
COMMITMENT
GENUINENESS
One cannot go missing, all 5 must be at PEAK LEVEL. If you try to take out one thing, the other 4 will not prove sufficient.
This reminds of the time when my mother and I went to visit her brother who was a Presbyterian. Went to their Sunday worship and they all started bawling their out shouting Amen and some of them babbling in tongues. My mom and I, not used to such scenes in a Catholic mass, just looked at each other in a silent, "What in the world....?" Then a couple of minutes later, everyone was back in their seats, straightening their clothes and sitting proper for another round of 40 minute sermon (it seemed like to me at the time - being a teenager).
PART 1
A few thoughts on “tongues” - due to length, presented in two parts.
Let me first preface this post by making it clear that it is not written with any deliberate intention of offending anyone who practices glossolalia (a/k/a ‘speaking in tongues’).
As a Linguist, I have studied the phenomenon of glossolalia from both a linguistic and cultural point of view. My primary concentration was on the linguistic aspect of this phenomenon. What follows is extracted from what was a considerably longer post - I have tried to edit it to be as brief as possible, but it’s still a bit long….presented in two parts.
The results of my study (as well as many I’ve read) can be summed up as follows:
Results were rather straightforward from which only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn: glossolalia in and of itself is simply an advanced form of subconscious word-play or "free-vocalization", consisting of *only* those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to); anyone can learn to produce it relatively easily. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in their glossolalia. American speakers do however typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues” - it makes the glossic utterance sound more foreign. Glossolalia only has specific significance in a cultural or religious context where it is part of that cultural or religious belief system’s practice. In these instances, with the possible exception of Christian glossolalia, it is viewed as a *tool* (with which to connect to the deity) rather than a means (by which the deity communicates to man, and visa versa). It must also be noted that certain forms of schizophrenia will present with glossolalia - this is an example glossolalia in a non-cultural/religious context.
Ermaneglossia (a/k/a “interpretation of tongues”), which in most cases goes hand in hand with glossolalia, can be viewed as nothing more than a Christian form of what is known as ‘direct spirit channeling’. Practitioners are simply channeling the Holy Spirit (sometimes via the tool of glossolalia, sometimes not). It can be done instantly by the practitioner - i.e. there’s no ‘preparation’ that needs to be done beforehand. As in other traditions that practice channeling, the method/tool used to initiate the process is not necessarily related to the actual ‘message’(the glossa). Practitioners will argue that channeling and what happens when one is speaking in tongues are two very different things; however, it really boils down to semantics - from every description given by Christian practitioners I have read or been told - both Christian and non-Christian practitioners describe essentially the same thing.
The above said however, it can be argued (and frankly comes across to me as such more often than not) that in the modern Christian tradition, interpretation of glossolalia are nothing more than random spontaneous generic praise or message phrases, typically inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance itself. In this respect it has really nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed corresponding glossic utterance.
The results of the many studies done regarding interpretation were very non-inspiring: Yes, there are people who can supposedly interpret a glossic string; however, if one were to record said string and play it to ten different people who are said to have the ability to interpret; you essentially get ten totally different answers.
The all too common come-back to the issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”
A very strong argument for tongues as being divine in nature frequently referred to by proponents is a study done by the University of Pennsylvania on the phenomenon of glossolalia. In a nutshell, the study determined via SPECT imaging that when a person exhibits glossolalia, the language producing areas of the brain are not really engaged; i.e. ‘tongues’ do not originate in the speech center of the brain. These results have been used to support its supposed divine origins or that a person is not in control of what s/he is saying. After reading the study, I would argue the results are exactly as what one would expect; it stands to reason the brain’s language producing center is not really being engaged simply because glossolalia is not language. It’s just free vocalization -simply playing with sounds does not require the language producing centers in the brain to be overly engaged. The results of the UP study are inconclusive at best in that they can be skewed to equally support either argument.
What I have also noticed is that any glossolalia that is non-Christian is automatically deemed “demonic” in origin by Christian practitioners despite the fact it’s produced the exact same way. Non-Christian practitioners of glossolalia (and schizophrenic glossolalics for that matter) are speaking and producing their glossolalia in the EXACT same way Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are - it can’t be stressed enough that there is absolutely ZERO difference between what they are doing and what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are doing. For any Christian practitioner to think that simply because they are Christian and these other practitioners are not, that what these others are doing is somehow “Satanic”, “demonic”, or “false” in nature (even though you’re both doing the exact same thing in the exact same way), is utter nonsense and religiocentric in the absolute extreme.
Biblical “tongues” (in Greek - ‘glossa’, but also ‘dialektos’) as referenced particularly in Acts and Corinthians is to always be translated and understood as real language(s), not ecstatic utterances. The only ecstatic utterances may have been those imported into the church in Corinth by converts who came from non-Christian traditions where glossolalia was quite common (e.g. Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth).
Where's part 2??
Not true, you are approach a kingdom gift with worldly man intellect
@@michellem6201
See the revised posts in two parts. Modern "tongues" are what they are; non-cognitive non-language utterance.
@@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 brilliantly laid out. Thx. I always used common sense thinking that if Our Blessed Lord wanted to make a miracle, He'd never lower Himself to make people look like retards. Don't you think that He would do something like have a guy with one leg grow a new one or raise the dead or the Miracle of the sun at Fatima, etc. Why would He have people doing something that anybody can fake. When God performs a PUBLIC Miracle, He's going to make sure that whoever sees it, objectively could never deny it. The main reason for Miracles is conversion from sin not to " justify" the heretic so he wallows in his heresy. God don't do carney parlor tricks. Think about it.
@@michellem6201 Amusing how you denounce rationality and logic because they NEVER confirm your faith claims. If science did, you'd be on your knees praising Jesus for the glories of science.
Part 2 -
With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition I mentioned earlier, the best two examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself.
“Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit - “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”. One of the most mindboggling responses I ever received in reference to the above is “They would not be called ‘tongues’ if they were languages.” - it’s honestly difficult to know where to even begin to go with that type of “thought process”, to put it nicely!
The popular modern typical, almost ‘standard’ distinction/classification of ‘four types of tongues’, two public and two private, is also the direct result of the Pentecostal redefinition of ‘tongues’ in order to fit the modern phenomenon/understanding.
The most damning result of this re-definition is the reading into scriptural texts of things that are simply just not there.
Another aspect of the modern tongues phenomenon is, of course, the concept of ‘interpretation’.
“Interpretation of tongues”, which goes hand-in-hand with ‘speaking in tongues’, may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs. What do I mean by this? Well….
Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be ‘The small white cat is quick’. These latter two characteristics (‘generic-ness’ and multiple interpretations) do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself.
A common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As one writer put it rather succinctly, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying what is an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place”.
So, what are modern tongues, then? Modern tongues is a _tool_ , remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the _tool_ it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it as a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was.
Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release and inner peace, in that virtually all stress can be gone after the experience.
People describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience, and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs - this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to what they’re doing.
Mind you, and a point I wish to stress is that, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any other culture that practices glossolalia_ . Religious and cultural differences aside, the glossolalia an Evenki Shaman in Siberia, a vodoun priestess in Togo and a Christian tongues-speaker in Alabama are producing are in no way different from each other. They’re all producing their glossolalia in the exact same way.
“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best; non-cognitive non language utterance - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”.
Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia” or non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU), is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from literally all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
As a point of note, I’m a Linguist, not a Theologian and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ - I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.
I would recommend the following video - skip over the above and go right to about 18:35 and take part in the “tongues-speech” exercise presented: ua-cam.com/video/zuPa6O8RG-c/v-deo.html
For a further discussion on why modern tongues cannot be considered language, I refer the reader to:
ua-cam.com/video/eqHLM94w_bU/v-deo.html
For an in-depth discussion of the ‘tongues’ at Pentecost, see: ua-cam.com/video/B7Vg6JRml5Q/v-deo.html
There was indeed a miracle concerning language, but not the one you think.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph 2003 : Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments.
There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 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. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
Thank you for your comment. Possibly this citation tells us more about the trustworthiness of the New Catechism than about the subject under consideration. As even Pope John Paul II admitted, the publication of the New Catechism was essentially an attempt to further propagate the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, so it is no surprise that there are more than 800 citations from the Council in this catechism -- roughly one in every third paragraph! God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter Anyone being Anti-Vatican II is the absolute work of satan among weak-minded & faith lacking "catholics". Our Lady of Fatima would never reject the teaching authority of the Church nor reject the charisms of the Holy Spirit. Your channel & association are in grave error & completely ignorant to the charisms of the Holy Spirit.
I'll take any examples of Acts 2 type tongues today
The topic or teaching that deals directly with the scripture was very well done. It would do best to keep to scripture and avoid discredit/attack of other's religion. (As in confession we announce our sin, and only "our" sin.) This way others hearing do not become offensive and let the Holy Spirit do His job at bringing light to the Truth.
What is the core here is the Love and Heart to draw close to our Lord, and Savior. We are seeking a deeper relationship with our Lord. Holy Spirit bring truth to those who hear. Amen
PART 2 -
In the Pentecost narrative of Acts - tongues and “other tongues” are simply nothing more than Aramaic and Greek - the two mother tongues spoken by the Jews of the Diaspora who were in Jerusalem for the feast of Shavuot (as well as the mother tongues of all the “locals” in attendance). The disciples spoke both languages; however, religious teaching (as well as worship and praying) in the Jewish world had to be done in a specifically prescribed language - Hebrew. This is the concept of ecclesiastical diglossia - very simply put; the use of a specific language over all others with respect to liturgical use as well as teaching/preaching, etc. People were “amazed, astounded and bewildered” to hear the disciples speaking to them in their mother tongues of Greek and/or Aramaic rather than the expected (and, in this instance, culturally/socially correct) Hebrew - no language or hearing miracle, no xenoglossy, and no ecstatic utterances were necessary. The ‘list’, in Acts by the way is not a list of languages; it is a list of lands/countries the Jews of the Diaspora were from along with a few ethnic groups - not one place in the Pentecostal narrative is ANY language mentioned by name….not one. In fact, nowhere in the entire narrative does it suggest there was any type of a communication problem to begin with!
Corinthians also describes real languages - in this passage, Paul frequently uses the literary device of hyperbole which by many has been misinterpreted and taken literally; something it was never intended to do. To paraphrase a bit from an article written about the ‘tongues’ described in Paul’s letter:
“Paul is not a proponent of speech that is not understandable (1 Cor. 14:9) and in 1 Cor.14:10 states that no language is without meaning. Glossolalia does not fit his definition of language. He insists that whenever foreign languages are spoken in prayer, they should be translated. Throughout the whole, he is talking about real languages with real meaning. Paul’s overriding message throughout this whole chapter is that everything done in the public worship service is supposed to be edifying to the hearers. That is his key point. He is calling for intelligibility. He is appealing for clarity. When we say something in public worship, the people in the congregation need to understand the message.”
Many will use Cor. 14:4 as “proof” of tongues not being spiritual language(s) - it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearer”.
As one writer put it, “Think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.
Another way of looking at it is that, for example, I could teach you a poem or perhaps even a short song (or both) in say, Welsh, and you could learn them and recite/sing them perfectly well, even to near native fluency with enough practice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you understand Welsh or even exactly one word of what you’re actually saying/singing. As Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:14, “your spirit is praying/singing, but your understanding is unfruitful”. So, yes, “tongues” certainly can, and did, refer to real languages.
A few further thoughts on the “tongues” in Corinth paraphrased from a paper by Robert Zerhusen: “In 1 Corinthians 12:10 Paul says some have ability in "kinds [Gk. ‘gene’] of tongues." If non-cognitive non-language-utterances (“NC-NLU” - ‘tongues’) are not languages of any kind and have no cognitive structure, how can they be differentiated into "kinds" or "classes" (read ‘language families’ here)? Differentiation into individual, particular tongues types/classes seems to imply various real languages.
Sometimes tongue is singular, and sometimes plural: tongues. Can there be singular or plural NC-NLU's? Did Paul engage in multiple NC-NLU's (1 Cor. 14:18)? References to singular ("tongue") and plural ("tongues") fit the hypothesis of language (singular) versus languages (plural) much better.
NC-NLU's cannot, by their very nature, be interpreted or translated. As W. F. Orr and J. A. Walther observed regarding the interpretation of tongues: "If the reference is to 'languages,' this (the word “interpretation”) should be rendered 'translation'". If the reference is to genuine NC-NLU's, then interpretation or translation cannot take place.”
And finally, he states: “Careful examination of the text of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that Paul never explicitly states whether or not the language-speaker knew or understood the language that he was using. In fact, Paul's emphasis throughout the chapter is, as Antoinette C. Wire observes, on the hearer of the problem languages, not the speakers: "He takes the hearer rather than the speaker as his touchstone, rejecting tongues (i.e. foreign languages) because the hearers do not understand them".
Some practitioners will argue that there are “thousands of languages spoken in the world today, how can anyone know that ‘tongues’ are not one of them?” Yes, there are indeed thousands of languages spoken in the world today - unfortunately not one of them is remotely close to what people are producing in their glossolalia/tongues.
As Linguist Dr. William Welmers puts it: “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in the interior of South America or in New Guinea. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with."
Dr. Welmers further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."
As a Linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia.
Xenoglossia must also be discounted in reference to ‘tongues’ - as demonstrated above, ‘tongues’ at Pentecost was clearly not xenoglossy. There are in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy…..anywhere.
Despite this however, Pentecostal and Charismatic communities are rife with reported examples. Unfortunately, none are backed by any substantial proof; it amounts to essentially hearsay whereby virtually nothing is known of the speaker, his/her background, possible exposure to the purported languages, or the linguistic background of many the ‘hearers’. Are they hearing actual language or something that just “sounds” like ‘language X’? I have to discount reports of non-English speakers speaking in English - it’s just too common a language for people, even in remote areas of the world, not to pick up either consciously or subconsciously. The subconscious mind can do some incredible things - who hasn’t struggled with learning a foreign language (the conscious mind at work) only to find that they are able to dream in the language….and, in the dream, speak it flawlessly (the subconscious mind at work).
As one internet writer put it (rather bluntly) “People who claim to speak in tongues need to understand that they are making a testable claim. The claim has been tested, numerous times. And the tongues speakers have failed the test, every single time.”
This writer further goes on to say: “You want this to be real. You’ve convinced yourself it’s real. You’re improvising the sounds, but there is nothing about what you’re doing that cannot be explained in natural terms. The only reason it sounds like a language is that you want it to sound like a language. But it’s not.”
The above is admittedly a somewhat harsh statement from a former tongues speaker, but it begs the question of just how accurate those three sentences really are. I suspect more than most practitioners would care to admit.
For most Christians, glossolalia is a way for that person to become closer to God (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that). Many are taught from a young age to believe that the tool (i.e. ‘tongues’) is the actual medium by which one speaks to God or God speaks/reveals to man. From the many examples I have seen however, it is absolutely no different than how other faith traditions that practice glossolalia connect to their deities.
Tongues/Glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful phenomenon, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In the extreme, to some it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.
Hi I am 20 years old and This was very informative.
So to my understanding, does that mean St Paul is actually referring to a real language they spoke in Pentecost?
And that language is specifically designed for pray/worship?
So is that the reason why St Paul said it can translated for people who dont understand.
Can I e-mail you i got question about the topic and your expertise would help.
Thanks very much and God Bless You.
@@Michael-xn6tv
Hi,
Not sure if this will answer your questions or not, but the “tongues” at Pentecost were indeed real, rational languages; not modern tongues-speech.
In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, all references to “tongues” refer to real, rational language(s), perhaps not always understood by those hearing it, but always understood by the speaker; it’s his native language. Throughout his letter, Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship. Therefore, if someone chooses to pray in his/her native language (which the other people at that worship do not understand), Paul admonishes them to pray that they may be able to have someone translate it into the local language so that ALL may benefit. If it’s just the speaker who understands what he’s saying, nobody else can benefit.
This is in strong contrast to how Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians view “tongues” in Paul’s letter. They hold that the speaker does not understand what he is saying and thus, needs someone to “interpret” his tongues-speech.
It’s been a long time since I posted this comment - I might recommend the following videos which explain my views on modern tongues and the languages at Pentecost - they may answer many of your questions. Keep in mind though that I am a Linguist, not a Theologian. I am not a so-called cessationist or continuationist - do not identify with either term and in fact had never heard either term until just a few years ago.
For a more in-depth overview on ‘tongues’. Take part in the “tongues-speech” exercise presented at the end and leave your comments and answers: ua-cam.com/video/zuPa6O8RG-c/v-deo.html
For a further discussion on why modern tongues cannot be considered language, I refer the reader to:
ua-cam.com/video/eqHLM94w_bU/v-deo.html
For an in-depth discussion of the ‘tongues’ at Pentecost, see: ua-cam.com/video/B7Vg6JRml5Q/v-deo.html
It's funny how a lot of the people in the comments here think their own personal interpretation of the Bible is more accurate than the priest's interpretation. Catholic Charismatics are really not much different from Protestants. The charismatic nonsense is a good example of why we don't believe in sola scriptura.
I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Another human being cannot teach you how to speak in tongues. Nor coach you how to speak in tongues. That is a gift from God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Anyone who says that they can teach you how to speak in tongues that is any human being into service, Or revival meeting so called, his faults only God gives the gift of speaking in other tongues whether it is a prayer language, or tongues and interpretation and giving a message or exhorting.
The true speak in tongues is if I speak in my language (I'm not american) and you speak in your own language and we understand each other as we would speak in the other's own language. Think about it a little. When did the different languages appear? When God punished the people who were trying to build the Tower of Babylon. The idea of adding more foreign languages to His own Church is like He would punish again but this time He would punish His own servants. Holy Spirit is not the spirit of division but the spirit of unity. Where does division appear? When people don't understand each other. When there is unity? When people understand each other. Now the idea that the Holy Spirit would encourage people to speak languages that nobody understands contradicts everything we know about God.
Yes but for what purpose? If you do not understand what you are saying, then you are not praying. When I see pentecostals, they speak in tongues (supposedly full of the Holy Spirit), yet they follow and listen to so called men of God who build mansions and ride in private jets while their flock (who financed them) beg for money on the streets. I suppose the Holy Spirit bothered to give these people such great gifts but cannot be bothered that they do not follow all the other teachings of Christ: a) they are not humble, and b) they are unnecessarily loud when praying (pharisees anyone). Furthermore, when you pass a pentecostal 'church' in the middle of this 'tongues' babble it can sound like a scene from an actual exorcism - with the demon shouting. That should kinda give a clue as to what it is.
1st. What he said about padre pio and the confessional , is the gift of interpretation of tongues “But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God (1 Corinthians 14:28”
Also If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret (1 Corinthians 14:27 ESV). As well as the mention of the gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in 1Cor 12.
2nd. What takes place at Pentecost is the actual speaking of different kinds of tongues (Languages) Acts 2:4
“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.”
Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
Act 2:5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing(F) Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard THEIR OWN LANGUAGE BEING SPOKEN. 7 Utterly amazed,(G) they asked: “Aren’t all these WHO ARE SPEAKING Galileans ?(H) 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in OUR NATIVE LANGUAGE ? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,(I) Pontus(J) and Asia,[b](K) 10 Phrygia(L) and Pamphylia,(M) Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene;(N) visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in OUR OWN TONGUES!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
Also
Mark 16:17
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues”
Tongues were meant to preach the Gospel. What are the tongues doing today? I once saw a lady say she had the gift of prophecy. In the middle of praying she would open her bible and read her own hand written notes . Pre written notes were her prophecy !!!
Read 1cor14v4 jude 20, it build our spirit man up and if u use speaking in tongues properly its s wonderful gift
@@markferguson6194 A fabrication is a fraud, not a gift. Useless babble has no purpose and bears no fruit. Missionary priests and nuns may be given the authentic gift of tongues in order to preach and teach to cultures with obscure language, that is a genuine example. I don't understand why making a fool of yourself mouthing drivel could be appealing to the ego, either. It's pathetic and puts on a show of piety and fervor. "There's a sucker born every minute." Don't be one.
I unfortunately don't think the premises of the conclusion of the argument hold. I agree with the conclusion, however, to say that God could not or would not bestow the gift of tongues 1900 years later is to know the mind of God comprehensively, which no human being can claim. Who is to say what God would or would not do? The reality is that certain saints such as St. Hyacynth and St. Clement and St. Francis Xavier had the gift of tongues, but undestood properly. Similarly, St. John Bosco was able to raise someone from the dead.
Excellent points
A very big like for this video especially as charismatic movement is part of the Catholic Church. I was really shocked that this movement is not just something protestant mumbo-jumbo, but part of the Catholic Church and recognized by the Catholic Church.
sfappetrupavelandrei according to these two men it is NOT catholic. This would not have happened before Vatican 2
It's a terrible thing that God hands out useless gifts like speaking in tongues. Or is it?. 1 cor14v4 and jude20
It is Protestant mumbo jumbo. It wasn't recognized by the Church until after Vatican 2
It is terrible. And both of those points in scripture you listed are saying just that. You should probably go read them again.
@@markferguson6194 Those gifts were given for a certain period of time (the beginning of Christianity) for a certain purpose (preach the Gospel to the world). I would believe that what Charismatics have is what Apostles got on Pentecost when these people will start talking Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, etc. without previous knowledge of these languages.
The problem with "tongues"..(really spiritual babbling)...is that it is fleshly. It is prideful and ego driven. There are only 7 sacraments. This so called "baptism in the spirit" would be 8.
Read 1 cor14, 1cor14v4 and jude20 and all these scriptures are my experience. The gift of tongues builds us up
@Colin Sheehan you may be right. It seems to have driven me into complete love for Jesus. Transformed my life . Changed my anxiety and fear to love joy and peace and brought me into an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit and given me a profound sense of eternal life and eternity. And that's without the other benefits of seeing people healed and inspired to serve God. We need to live Gods word...1cor14v4 jude 20
@Colin Sheehan I dont argue with people Colin. U dont need to speak in tongues to be a Christian but it sure helps. Jesus was accused of having demons as well so I'm in good company
@Colin Sheehan Colin.i dont argue with people do this is the last ispeak on the matter. You need to read your bible and start to live it. Read and meditate on 1 Corinthians. Read and meditate on song of solomon. The gift of tongues given by the Holy Spirit is a gateway gift to a supernatural life and a close intimate relationship with God. 1 cor14v4 and jude20 is about building up our inner spirit man and paying in tongues does exactly that. Accusing me of being demonised or living some emotional delusion does not change what's Gods written and how I live it. I dont accuse u of anything but pray that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to this wonderful gift so that you can come into a much richer relationship with him. Gods will be done and not mine
If you go on UA-cam you can here the whole group singing in tongues to Pope John Paul ,and give his approval
He also kissed the Koran, took on the red dot from one of India's pagan religions, had said pagan religions do their religious practices in one of OUR parishes (Assisi)--not everything a Pope approves is right or good. This from a "JP2 convert" who loves and respects him in totality--ME.
@@stevenfarley5161 "loves and respects him" is a problem, to put it mildly. The multitudinous heresies of JPII were to be found not simply in those few acts of sacrilege and blasphemy that you listed but in his horrid books. I knew he was suspect soon after converting and found him to be a complete, Modernist heretic after listening to REAL traditional priests like the late Fr. Gregory Hesse, Fr. Malachi Martin and the SSPX priests of the resistance. I suggest you do some homework: start with the Defeat Modernism channel which has a three-part series on the heresies of JPII. It is the TRUTH that sets us free, not sentiment and certainly not cults of personality which the late JPII deliberately fostered and encouraged.
Research what is called the Azuza street revival him. In the early 1900s it broke out in the United States. I believe somewhere in the state of California, in Los Angeles, or one of the suburbs of California. It was called the Azuza street revival's.
That was the Protestant version. It's almost certainly not authentic, because the Holy Spirit doesn't come to Protestants
@@T_dog1 , ok. The Holy Spirit is "property" of Vatican's Church and He is not free. Wow!🤣
Which led to the highly disturbing Assembly of God church. I happened to have the misfortune of spending 5 yrs in it as a child. Every service seriously felt like being locked in an asylum of the mad.
I have listened to Fr. Ripperger on this. He said we must be very careful if we speak in tongues as it could be a demon and not the Holy Spirit speaking through the person. On the other side then Saint Paul said in 1Corinthians 14 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you." He also said it edifies the person only unlike prohecy. Does it follow that only those who are sanctified like St Paul and so can recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit should be speaking in tongues?
We would caution you to have nothing to do with this practice for the precise reason stated by Father Ripperger.
@@TheFatimaCenter Wouldn't it be better to say to have nothing to do with this practice unless you're working closely with an excellent priestly spiritual director, who is a traditional Catholic? Fr. Ripperger says be very careful; not have nothing to do with it whatsoever, under any circumstances.
@@amg2598 Possibly, but who is to be the judge of this "excellent priestly spiritual director"? At this advanced point in the dissolution of both our society and the Church, the claim or appearance of being traditional is no guarantee of anything.
@@TheFatimaCenter That's a valid concern. I understand now why you have to make that general caution. Despite the times, however, a lay person can still be the judge of an excellent spiritual director for himself. But he has to be far enough in the spiritual life as well as very well educated in the traditional faith *as well as* spiritual direction in general (John of the Cross, etc.) in order to recognize one. It's true that there are not many of us out there. So, would you accept the qualification: "We caution you to totally stay away from tongues unless you are working closely with a qualified priestly spiritual director; however, unfortunately, in these times, even most priests who are otherwise good and holy directors do not have the education or capability of discerning this charism properly. So, unfortunately, it remains our general recommendation to have nothing to do with this practice."
@@TheFatimaCenter That's a valid concern. I understand now why you have to make that general caution. Despite the times, however, a lay person can still be the judge of an excellent spiritual director for himself. But he has to be far enough in the spiritual life as well as very well educated in the traditional faith *as well as* spiritual direction in general (John of the Cross, etc.) in order to recognize one. It's true that there are not many of us out there... it's so bad that you almost have to have the special charism of knowledge from the Holy Spirit.
So, would you accept the qualification: "We caution you to totally stay away from tongues unless you are working closely with a qualified priestly spiritual director; however, unfortunately, in these times, even most priests who are otherwise good and holy directors do not have the education or capability of discerning this charism properly. So, unfortunately, it remains our general recommendation to have nothing to do with this practice." Obviously, not all have the education making them capable of understanding the sophistication of this viewpoint, so I can see why you might give a blanket recommendation cautioning against it.
I do think it's an important qualification to make sometimes because we don't want to seem like we are "forbidding" tongues---St. Paul says we must not forbid them. Yet, we have to protect others from the demonic and recognize the times we are in. I suspect that is why Fr. Ripperger takes the approach that he does.
On top of all this, it's good to note that unlike the other charisms, tongues are primarily for one's own edification. So, if one can help it, it's usually best in these times to seek other forms of edification.
Didn't they (Apostles) receive tongues SO THAT others could understand them and thus spread the Gospel message? Why would these people have tongues that nobody can understand, especially when "every idle word will be accounted for"??
Thank you for your observation, which is in line with the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm), correcting the assumption that the gift of tongues manifested in early Christian communities was fundamentally different from its first expression on Pentecost, except insofar as abuses had already begun to accrue to the practice. God bless you.
It is a shameful act of look what I can do I am special. Stay away from any charismatic group.
What is worse is that the vast majority of the antics are fabrications that are often used to induce enthusiasm in audiences, who are often coaxed into donating to the false preachers, who often live in luxury and spend almost nothing on authentic charity.
alice tt Awesome what you say..Speaking in Tongues is a gift from above
alice tt you are a heretic. Nothing more and nothing less
alice tt I met a Catholic Priest who spoke fluently with the gift of tongues
To know thyself is to know thy fear. Confront fear and live. Fear is not something to hide away in shame. But rather to strip it away by humility and expose fear to the light. Confronting fear expels false pride that it not take us down. Fear is part of the human condition but indoctrination into the shame of fear teaches us to hide it. It is this problem that causes self deception. My people perish for lack of knowledge.
Thanks for clearing this important fact that I have witnessed. I am now better ready to deal with such people.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH paragraph 2003 🔥
so I'm trying to learn Latin and have been reading out loud the bible verses from the Vulgate, looking online how to pronounce the words in the ecclesial pronunciation. I even found many Catholic prayers online in Latin and again read it out loud because it's fun speaking another language but I think my neighbors hear me and wonder what the heck is he talking about, and does he even know what he's saying. Is this bad? I heard father Ripperger say speaking in charismatic tongues could be channeling demons.
You do well as a Catholic to learn the Church's chosen language in which She prays and in which She offers to us the most reliable translation of Sacred Scripture. Learning it from an interlinear Bible is also a beautiful method. (The famous American navigator Nathaniel Bowditch learned many languages in just this way.) A classic Latin text from The Nature-Method Language Institute by Dr. Hans Oerberg titled Lingua Latina uses this same principle of learning from direct experience of the language in use. A dictionary and an associated text, the "College Companion," utilize English explanations to fully clarify the Oerberg text. God bless you.
chaharrah.tv/chaharrah-depot/arthouse/latin-attachments/latin-book.pdf
www.hackettpublishing.com/pdfs/Familia_Romana_Latin-English_Vocabulary.pdf
kupdf.net/download/a-companion-to-familia-romana-2nd-editionpdf_5a00e144e2b6f5351c8d36d3_pdf
@@TheFatimaCenter thank you, one more thing though. I've been having feeds since the ending of 2019 from this group called Grace Mercy Order, that claims to be having locutions from the holy family, they are saying we're in end times can you please give me your opinion on them. They have many videos on the messages on UA-cam.
@@theFormidable1 The Grace Mercy Order is described online as an autonomous Christian and ecumenical religious organization, without formal ties to any institutionalized religion. We urge you to have no part in it. God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter ok thank you, please pray for me that I may not be deceived and I'll keep your mission in my rosary prayers
Why don’t you let the priest speak?
As a Charismatic Catholic, this has been the best explanation I have ever heard on tongues.
No, our tongues is not Acts 2.
Yes, tongues exploded especially from Azusa Street in Protestantism in the early 1900s.
But us “Cradle Protestants” had zero tangible signs. Zero tangible sacraments. Everything was “symbolic”. Now, we have something tangible, what do we do with a tangible sign from God?
I hunger, I thirst, and that drove me to the Catholic Church.
I am trying to understand, can someone explain me this?
1 Corinthians 14:2
2For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Thank you for your question. The meaning of the passage seems to be clarified by the following verses in which St. Paul elaborates on the point that those who speak in tongues do not speak in a manner that is understood by others present. He writes: "But he that prophesieth, speaketh to men unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in a tongue, edifieth himself: but he that prophesieth, edifieth the church. And I would have you all to speak with tongues, but rather to prophesy. For greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues: unless perhaps he interpret, that the church may receive edification."
Cornelius a Lapide notes that some have proposed another way of reading the text which he does not find convincing: "S. Augustine (de Gen. ad Litt. lib. 12.), Primasius, and Cajetan read the nominative in the last clause of this verse, 'Howbeit the Spirit speaketh mysteries.' The meaning then would be: The Holy Spirit speaks of hidden mysteries in the Holy Scriptures, which cannot be understood, stood, except some prophet or doctor interpret them. But this meaning is foreign to the context, and this reading is not supported by the Greek or Latin copies."
God bless you.
Thank you
So, because people abuse of this gift, therefore is not biblical? Just like some priest abuse the priesthood, it make the EUCHARIST invalid.
Sad that these people praise the garbage these men are spewing!! The ignorance spoken in this video & the multitue of asinine comments that are viciously anti-VaticanII\anti-Christian sicken me. So much childishness among these so called "catholics" fearing what cannot understand due to their own lack of faith.
St. Paul said: "I speak in tongues more than you all" to the Corinthian Church (which spoke in tongues alot). So I would disagree with John on this point.
Thank you for your comment. In the Vulgate, the passage reads: “I speak with the tongues of you all,” which (as Cornelius a Lapide informs us) Sts. Ephrem, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others understand to mean, "All the tongues that you speak and more I speak: I do not extol, I do not condemn the gift of tongues, for I use it myself, but I do not use it, as you do, for ostentation, but to edification." God bless you.
@@TheFatimaCenter False interpretation.
I know thousands of protestant and Baptists that reject the tounges movement just like infant sprinkling
And they are the poorer for it. Read 1 cor14v4 jude20
They're right about rejecting the Charismatic nonsense, but not about baby baptism.
So is the Charismatic movement Protestant? Do you recommend staying away? I've gone, but was kicked out because I wasn't "happy" enough. What can I say?
Yes, we recommend staying away. Mr. Vennari wrote extensively about the history and dangers of the charismatic movement. See his articles "‘Catholic' Pentecostalism: Grown in the Garden of Protestantism"
(www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2013/5/10/catholic-pentecostalism-grown-in-the-garden-of-protestantism)
and "From Pentecostalism to Apostasy"
(www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm)
and his (now rare and expensive) book "Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement"
(www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=john+vennari&title=close+ups+of+the+charismatic+movement&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr)
And please check Charisms and Charismatic Renewal by Father Sullivan SJ for a Biblical and theological analysis of the movement and writings of Cardinal Suenens and check the Charis website and what Saint John Paul II said about and of course Pope Francis in the recent 50th birthday jubilee of the movement that now has almost 150 million people in 120 countries and that has been called "a current of grace" by Popes. You can also refer to the writings and talks of Father Raniero Cantalamessa preacher to the papal household and appointed cardinal very recently by Pope Francis.
@@TheFatimaCenter Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph 2003 : Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments.
There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 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. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.
@@ShummyAntony Thank you for your comment. Possibly this citation tells us more about the trustworthiness of the New Catechism than about the subject under consideration. As even Pope John Paul II admitted, the publication of the New Catechism was essentially an attempt to further propagate the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, so it is no surprise that there are more than 800 citations from the Council in this catechism -- roughly one in every third paragraph! God bless you.
please check Charisms and Charismatic Renewal by Father Sullivan SJ for a Biblical and theological analysis of the movement and writings of Cardinal Suenens and check the Charis website and what Saint John Paul II said about and of course Pope Francis in the recent 50th birthday jubilee of the movement that now has almost 150 million people in 120 countries and that has been called "a current of grace" by Popes. You can also refer to the writings and talks of Father Raniero Cantalamessa preacher to the papal household and appointed cardinal very recently by Pope Francis.
I dont get it. The bible says we will speak in tongues and we will have gifts. There are christians who speak in tongues and have the same gifts the bible speaks of. What's so hard to understand?
A sermon on this subject is included within the attached article. onepeterfive.com/confusion-about-graces-a-catholic-critique-of-the-charismatic-movement/
@@TheFatimaCenter how about approvals from St. John Paul II and the remaining popes and the words and experiences of laymen and clergy against the point of view of one person and also opposed to several theological and biblical analysis. Not sure of the health of presenting one article to refute a 50 plus years movement that was heavily scrutinized by the Church's highest authorities including Popes.
How would you explain a group of people kneeling in prayer in front of the Holy Sacrament and all of a sudden all at once they start speaking this way? These are faithful Catholics in the state of grace that never asked for this gift but were humbly praying before the sacrament.
They're probably faking it
@@T_dog1 these were family and friends of ours. I highly doubt that. That would be premeditated.
Self delusion and herd mentality, probably has already been familiar with this "tongue speaking" environment too.
tie a bow-tie; untie a bow-tie. lol
I would prefer..."packapistol unpacka pistol..."
I shoulda bought a Honda I shoulda bought a honda
You guys are so hilarious 🤣😂🤣
I bought a Hondaaaa! She bought a Hondaaaaa!
Mother Mary was in the upper room when Holy Spirit fell. Scriptures say they ALL spoke in tongues as the spirit gave them utterance.
*spoke in different languages
as the Holy Spirit GAVE the! Utterance
@@lynnegilham2981 How do you know those "speak in tounges" charismatics utter the same as the Apostles at Pentecost?
I wish someone could track down that mission priest from Africa who walked out of a charismatic meeting because he could understand the language that someone was speaking in, and get his testimony on video...
11.2. It must be known that even though these apprehensions can come to the bodily senses from God, one must never rely on them or accept them. A person should rather flee from them completely and have no desire to examine whether they be good or bad. ‼️The more exterior and corporeal these things are, the less certain is their divine origin‼️. God's self- communication is more commonly and appropriately given to the spirit, in which there is greater security and profit for the soul, than to the senses, where ordinarily there is extreme danger and room for deception. Thinking that spiritual things are identical with what is felt, the bodily sense usually sets itself up as arbiter and judge over them. But spiritual things are as different from what is sensed as is the body from the soul and sensibility from reason. The bodily sense is as ignorant of spiritual matters as a beast is of rational matters, and even more.
-St. John of The Cross, Ascent to Mount Carmel, Chapter 11
11.3. *Individuals who esteem these apprehensions are in serious error and extreme danger of being deceived.* Or at least they will hinder their spiritual growth because, as we mentioned,2 these corporeal perceptions bear no proportion to what is spiritual. *Such manifestations ought always to be considered as more surely from the devil than from God,* for the devil possesses greater leeway in influencing the exterior and corporeal part of human nature. He can deceive the soul more readily through this action than through a more interior and spiritual kind.
11.4. *The more exterior these corporeal objects and forms, the less profitable they are to the interior and spiritual part of the soul.* This is due to the extreme distance and the lack of proportion between the corporeal and the spiritual. Even though some spirituality results from these corporeal communications -- which is always the case when they are from God -- it is far less than when the communications are more spiritual and interior. As a result they are a ready occasion for the breeding of error, presumption, and vanity in the soul. Palpable, tangible, and material as they are, they strongly affect the senses so that in one's judgment they seem more worthwhile on account of their being more sensible. A person, then, forsaking faith, will follow after these communications, believing that their light is the guide and means to the goal, which is union with God. But the more importance one gives to these communications the further one strays from faith, the way and means.
11.5. Furthermore, persons receiving these apprehensions often develop secretly a special opinion of themselves -- that now they are important in God's eyes. Such a view is *contrary to humility.*
11.5.(2). The devil too is adept at suggesting to individuals a secret self-satisfaction that becomes truly obvious at times. *He often purveys objects to the senses, presenting to the sense* of sight images of saints and most beautiful lights, and to the hearing, dissembled words, and to the sense of smell, fragrant odors; in the mouth, sweetness, and in the sense of touch, delight. He does all of this so that by enticing persons through these sensory objects he may induce them into many evils.
11.5.(3). Such representations and feelings, consequently, *must always be rejected* . Even though some may be from God, this rejection is no affront to him. Nor will one, by rejecting and not wanting them, fail to receive the effect and fruit God wishes to produce through them.
Father Gruner makes serious assumptions about the gift of tongues as later experienced in the early church. Just the speaking in tongues he has chosen to concentrate on found in Acts 2, he has chosen to ignore that the fact that even though were not learnt languages since they were divinely given by the Holy Spirit as He so desired. If the Church began and later evolved with sacraments why were early Christians including Mary speaking in tongues, also found in 1 Corinthians 14.
May the gracious Lord grant you grace to experience this life. Of course abuses are there but the Lord promised. Quoting St Augustine and his views does not negate God's outpouring of gifts.
St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas said that it doesn't happen anymore
@@T_dog1 Neither of them God.
this video is incredible! thank you all!
So 1st Corinthians chapters 12 and 14 are meaningless? St Paul spoke of praying in tongues and praying with reason. That is not the same as what Peter was doing
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm) corrects the assumption that the gift of tongues manifested in early Christian communities was fundamentally different from its first expression on Pentecost, except insofar as abuses had already begun to accrue to the practice:
"St. Paul had seen the gift conferred at Ephesus and St. Luke does not distinguish Ephesian glossolaly from that of Jerusalem. They must therefore have been alike and St. Paul seems to have had both in mind when he commanded the Corinthians (14:37) to employ none but articulate and 'plain speech' in their use of the gift (9), and to refrain from such use in church unless even the unlearned could grasp what was said (16). No tongue could be genuine 'without voice' and to use such a tongue would be the act of a barbarian (10, 11). For him the impulse to praise God in one or more strange tongues should proceed from the Holy Ghost. It was even then an inferior gift which he ranked next to last in a list of eight charismata. It was a mere 'sign' and as such was intended not for believers but for unbelievers (22).
"Corinthian Abuses (I Corinthians 14 passim).-Medieval and modern writers wrongly take it for granted that the charism existed permanently at Corinth - as it did nowhere else-and that St. Paul, in commending the gift to the Corinthians, therewith gave his guaranty that the characteristics of Corinthian glossolaly were those of the gift itself. Traditional writers in overlooking this point place St. Luke at variance with St. Paul, and attribute to the charism properties so contrary as to make it inexplicable and prohibitively mysterious. There is enough in St. Paul to show us that the Corinthian peculiarities were ignoble accretions and abuses. They made of 'tongues' a source of schism in the Church and of scandal without (14:23). The charism had deteriorated into a mixture of meaningless inarticulate gabble (9, 10) with an element of uncertain sounds (7, 8), which sometimes might be construed as little short of blasphemous (12:3). The Divine praises were recognized now and then, but the general effect was one of confusion and disedification for the very unbelievers for whom the normal gift was intended (14:22, 23, 26). The Corinthians, misled not by insincerity but by simplicity and ignorance (20), were actuated by an undisciplined religious spirit (pneuma), or rather by frenzied emotions and not by the understanding (nous) of the Spirit of God (15). What today purports to be the 'gift of tongues' at certain Protestant revivals is a fair reproduction of Corinthian glossolaly, and shows the need there was in the primitive Church of the Apostle's counsel to do all things 'decently, and according to order' (40).
"Faithful adherence to the text of Sacred Scripture makes it obligatory to reject those opinions which turn the charism of tongues into little more than infantile babbling (Eichhorn, Schmidt, Neander), incoherent exclamations (Meyer), pythonic utterances (Wiseler), or prophetic demonstrations of the archaic kind (see 1 Samuel 19:20, 24). The unalloyed charism was as much an exercise of the intelligence as of the emotions. Languages or dialects, now kainais (Mark 16:17) for their present purpose, and now spontaneously borrowed by the conservative Hebrew from Gentile foreigners (eteroglossois, cheilesin eteron, 1 Corinthians 14:21), were used as never before. But they were understood even by those who used them. Most Latin commentators have believed the contrary, but the ancient Greeks, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and others who were nearer the scene, agree to it and the testimony of the texts as above studied seems to bear them out."
@@TheFatimaCenter
Word of God is for all, not just for early Christians. Study Bible well. You guys are misguiding the people with lack of knowledge and understanding.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES :
Three types of Tongues mentioned in the Bible are as follows :-
1). Praying in Tongues :
1 Corinthians 14:2
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
1 Corinthians 14:14
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
Romans 8:25-27
But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings. And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will.
2). He who has the gift of interpretation can interpret what someone speaks in tongues for the good of the society. That is why Paul said those who speak in tongues should be silent in church, unless they have the gift of interpretation. As this message was given by God it is therefore can also be considered as prophecy. Please note that praying to God with the the gift of tongue and speaking to the society by tongue with the help of gift of interpretation are two things :
1 Corinthians 14:13
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret.
1 Corinthians 14:27-28
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.
3). In the early church when the apostles spoke to thousands in their language those who gathered there heard the speech in their own languages :
Acts 2:1-11
When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind,* and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire,* which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they 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, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.
@@TheFatimaCenter Much like the evil one perverted the Word of God when he tempted Christ, you are also guilty of the same wickedness & hatred of the Holy Spirit. You are being used as a tool of satan.
Saint Paul says in the Bible, says, there should always be someone there able to explain what they said. (this is to ensure its not from evil source)
i'm an ex protestant and it's kinda funny when your neighbors practices how to speak in tongues and dance like an evil possessions...omg..!!! many Catholic lost their faith ,imitating like a protestant;kinda funny😂
Read 1 cor14v4 and jude20. They are both my experience. It's a wonderful gift when used correctly
@Jeffrey Stern lol, no haven't done that yet but I have seen the Holy Spirit convert an atheist to a believer and many other things u cannot explain with human intelect. My God is a living God and wants to use his people to reveal his power on the earth
@Jeffrey Stern Hi Jeffrey, u dont believe that Jesus told these people to handle snakes and hang themselves on crosses and neither do I
@Jeffrey Stern Hi Jeffrey, I didnt ask a question. Jesus Christ died a hideous death on a cross rejected by everyone around him that you an I might have life. Both in this life and the next. This is very real, I have a small piece of eternity that lives in me and when I pray I get filled with the holy spirit, peace,love and joy. Not anger,anxiety and worry. And I know that when my body dies I wont die. Following Jesus Christ is about people not snakes and many people say they do things in his name but what they do is just a dead work and dosent help anyone. Religion is lifeless but a real relationship with Jesus is wonderful.
@Jeffrey Stern sorry to disappoint but I dont say anyone is wrong, many people from all Christian denominations have a personal relationship with the same Jesus as me and experience the same holy spirit within them. If they love Jesus then that makes them family. Religious division within the Christian church is a man made construct and is more to do with money and power than Jesus Christ
Why did Jesus never spoke in tounges? Did Jesus ever said we shall speak jiibbirish to God?
Read mark 17 Jesus said only true followers will speak in toungues and cast out demons and heal the sick
@@andrewortiz9226
¡Ay, qué tan especial eres tú ... en tu mente !
Why is it in the catechism then? I have this gift, and its not chirping, or babbling, I actually speak another ancient language, sounds Arabic, which i have never spoken before, or learnt before. How do you do that if you have had no exposure to that language, and it only comes during personal prayer or adoration. I graciously received this gift through healing. It is a legitimate gift of the holy spirit.
The question answers itself. It is to be feared that you have opened yourself to the operations of the devil. We urge you to have no more to do with this practice. God bless you.
It WAS a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit. St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas said that it doesn't happen anymore.
@@TheFatimaCenter How ignorant your personal interpretation of the charism is. It is you who are being controlled by the evil one.
@@T_dog1 Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas are God nor did either have papal authority to speak ex cathedra. The Holy Spirit moves REGARDLESS of whether or not we understand or approve. This video is evidence that these men & all who reject the charisms of the Holy Spirit because of their false teachings based on ignorance & a lack of education, are being guided by the evil one & will be judged for their acts that has caused more confusion & division.
@@kanemarko2503 Their "false teachings" is what Catholicism has taught for 1900 years. Only after Vatican 2 did this charismatic garbage seep into the Church. It seems that you're the one who's ignorant and lacks education.
The gift of tongues is Biblical, according to the teaching of Paul. To live Biblical truths is very Catholic.
The one on the right doesnt know the history of the beginning of Pentecostal movement....in Kansas they DIDN'T ever think speaking in tounges was a sign of justification... such a misunderstanding. It was seen as a sign of a second blessing for those who had previously been justified.
Very good
He does know it. But he is not talking about the explanation they gave it right there and then. When looking forward a century from there, it has this exact theological, emotional and social function in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Having known Pentecostals and Protestant Charismatics for a few decades, they never talk about "a second blessing". They would even consider that disparaging. The filling and the tongues are, for them, the blessing. The sign. And the practical use of it is exactly what was said: a sign of justification.
The movement had initial theories of it being a miraculous capability to speak some or any foreign language. Some went around like "hey, you are Chinese? Is this Chinese what I am saying?" And the answer was "no, but maybe you should ask the Koreans? Or the Japanese?" Of course, poor Koreans, poor Japanese, it was no different then than it is now.
Agree about tongues and it's validity ,or lack of, today. The argument regarding Protestant usage falls flat - if R.C. have the sacraments ,individuals, then it doesn't explain the movement withing the church . No offense, intended, but I think the issue goes deeper and requires more of an explanation that blaming Protestant denial. IT comes across more of a defense of R.C. doctrine than a apologetic /theological argument . Don't forget the San Francisco Azuzu . . Again, not trying to put R..C. church ,quite the contrary , but the argument seems straw-man.
There's something more that could be said about Charles perram. His original claim was that his followers could speak true languages such as Chinese. They ended up raising a bunch of money to send missionaries to China. And when they got there, they found out they could not speak in those languages.
He refused to return the money and later in life. He was actually a fugitive for committing Sexual crimes.
This all came about at a time when spiritualism was at an all time high in the states. So he probably was just a scammer like all of the psychics, extorting widows out of money.
Jesus said to wait I will send you a helper ,,he is the helper in the church today .When you get touched by God you will know .For you to be saved as Christians he first hand picked you ..He said all are called and few come ..Faith has a lot to do with God ,it's by faith we are saved .close your eyes listen to the wind ..you do not know we're it comes from but God sends the winds ....the facts are true even when John the Baptist was baptizing Jesus the heavens opened .the sprit of God came upon him like a dove ..this is my son who is we'll pleased ...God is love ..when you feel gods love you also will know it ....
The fact that the Charismatic movement began in the 1960s says it all....No thanks!
I enjoyed but wish the priest was not interrupted so much interviewer should have just sat alone and spoke his opinion.. was pretty terrible listening to that part of things
i am involved in the charismatic renewal and i noticed most of the tongue people practiced are voluntary, i.e. self made,, a blabber. but it could happen in a charismatic movement... i remember one guy suddenly really talking chinese yet he did not know any chinese... luckily, there was a chinese lady who interpret the tongue for all of us present..
Terry Mance they are demonic possessions i'm an ex protestant and i'm scared of them 😅 they practice it how to say and how to dance
Yeahhh, I don't buy it. There has never been a documented case of someone who w/o any training or cultural background, just spouts a complete intelligible foreign language. Sorry, not sorry.
I’m sorry but there are several factual errors in this video. 1. The Catholic Renewal started in 67 as Fr G said not 64 as the presenter said. 2. The Protestant origins of the Catholic renewal - whilst it’s true that the professors who called the students to a weekend retreat had been prayed for by Protestants, the students who had the experience of the Holy Spirit at the retreat weekend were not prayed for either by Protestants or by their professors. In fact they were in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament when the Spirit of God manifested Himself in a powerful way and the presence of God in the adoration chapel became so strong that they were all prostrate on the floor. THIS experience is considered to be the beginnings of Catholic Charismatic Renewal - and as I’ve described, it was Eucharistic in origin: perfectly Catholic - God is infinitely wise and knew well that some would come later and accuse the Catholic Renewal of being Protestant so He ensured that it actually had a very Catholic start. Read Patty Mansfield’s account of the experience if you want proof - she is one of the students present at the time. 3. St Augustine encouraged his congregation to ‘jubilate’which is the ‘babbling’ form of tongues mentioned in the video, so Augustine was aware of and not against this phenomenon as was St Thomas Aquinas. It’s true that these gifts were less common after the early centuries of the Church once Christianity became the established religion, but it makes perfect sense that God would revive them now in our days when Christianity is on the margins again in society and our times are so much like the times of the early Church when we need supernatural gifts to help in the work of evangelisation of our neo-pagan western world.
What do you make of Paul saying that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself to God? That doesn't seem like one speaking a language to another person, though that is clearly a function of the gift as seen in scripture. And what do you make of Paul speaking about speaking a message in tongues to the church in which case some one must be present who has the gift of interpretation of tongues? If tongues were only for the sake of someone who does not understand the spoken language, why the need for someone else to interpret? Peter didn't have someone to interpret at Pentacost. It seems to me that there are three functions shown in scripture of tongues: so others hear the gospel in their own language, as a special message to the church (gift of interpretation must be present), and personal edification to God. Now, the examples you gave, I agree, are ridiculous. You can't just say some syllables and figure it out. Scripture makes clear it is a gift that God gives as he wills. I agree there is a lot of bad doctrine and theology about it out there. But it seems plain to me in scripture that there are those three functions of tongues given as gifts from the Holy Spirit.
Theodoret of Cyrus affirms that interpretation was in itself a spiritual gift (Commentary on 1 Cor 12:10), but we would caution our viewers that what many today consider a continuation of the pentecostal gifts is in fact a dangerous Protestant exercise which has attracted a Catholic following. The need for the true gift of tongues was in the time of the infant Church, as St. Gregory the Great affirms (Moralia, On Job): "There are some who, when they hear of the wonderful works of the apostles, that having received the Holy Spirit, they raised the dead with a word, cast out demons from the obsessed, removed infirmity with their shadow, preached by prophesying things to come, and speaking in the language of every nation, preached the only-begotten Word of God, because they do not see these powers in the church now, believe that heavenly grace has already been withdrawn from the church, not knowing that they should believe what is written: 'A Helper in times of tribulation' (Psalm 9:9).21"
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you for the reply. My parents were raised in a protestant denomination that taught precisely that, that the charismatic gifts had been removed, having served their purpose. I appreciate your reference to St. Gregory the Great. Are there any more references from the fathers or official statements of the church? I admit that my protestant brain wants to say, but scripture doesn't say that, that the gifts were done away with. But of course, Sola scriptura is a protestant thing. I've heard other Catholics, including a priest or two, say that the Church is open to the gifts, doesn't teach against them, but has no official stance on the issue. Does that sound accurate, or are they missing something?
@@timrichardson4018 The topic is quite broad. Here are some articles that we can recommend.
Fr. Scott Gardner, “The Catholic Charismatic Renewal”
archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/catholic_charismatic_renewal.htm
Fr. John Hardon, S.J., “Pentecostalism: Evaluating a Phenomenon”
www.therealpresence.org/archives/Protestantism/Protestantism_002.htm
James Likoudis, “The Pentecostalism Controversy”
www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6587
Peter Kwasniewski, “Confusion about Graces: A Catholic Critique of the Charismatic Movement”
onepeterfive.com/confusion-about-graces-a-catholic-critique-of-the-charismatic-movement/
John Vennari also wrote extensively about the history and dangers of the charismatic movement. See his articles,
"‘Catholic' Pentecostalism: Grown in the Garden of Protestantism"
www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2013/5/10/catholic-pentecostalism-grown-in-the-garden-of-protestantism
and "From Pentecostalism to Apostasy"
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/charisma.htm
and his (now rare and prohibitively expensive) book "Close-Ups of the Charismatic Movement"
www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=john+vennari&title=close+ups+of+the+charismatic+movement&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr
@@timrichardson4018 Below is a compendium of citations regarding the gift of tongues, focused on demonstrating that this gift involved real human languages as opposed to the gibberish so often employed in charismatic worship.
HILARY OF POITIERS (359 a.d.)
"And we learn that all this prophecy was fulfilled in the case of the apostles, when, after sending of the Holy Spirit, they all spake with the tongues of the Gentiles."
EUSEBIUS OF EMESA (359 a.d.)
"But when He [God] gave literary ability to ignorant men so that they could write gospels, giving the ability to write he also gave the Roman tongue to Galileans, and the languages of the world to his apostles, for the teaching and admonition and exhortation of the nations of the world."
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (387 a.d.),
"John and the rest of the apostles spake every tongue of those of Gentile extraction. What teacher can be found so great as to teach men all at once things which they have not learned? But the Holy Spirit taught them many languages at once, languages which all their life they never knew."
FILASTRIUS (397 a.d.)
"[T]he knowledge of languages which offending men lost twenty-seven hundred years earlier the Lord conferred again through the Holy Spirit at the time of the blessed apostles after his ascension without any effort upon those who believed, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles. For it is the power of angels to know the languages of all men; but through faith in Christ without any effort the knowledge of them all was passed on to believers."
PSEUDO-CONSTANTIUS (405 a.d.)
"For the one who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and consolation to people. The one who speak in a tongue edifies only himself. But the one who prophesies edifies the church. I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. For the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in a tongue, unless it is interpreted so that the church may receive edification" (1 Corinthians 14:3-5). He says If I shall come to you and shall speak to you' in the Syrian or Persian language 'what good is that to you' who do not understand?"
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (407 a.d.)
"[On 1 Corinthians 14:1-3] Wherefore then did the apostles receive it [the gift of tongues] before the rest? Because they were to go abroad everywhere. And as in the time of building the tower the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak diverse languages."
GAUDENTIUS (410 a.d.), SERMONS
" For being filled with the Holy Spirit they were speaking with the tongues of the various nations."
RUFINUS OFAQUILEIA (d. 412)
"They [the apostles] were thus enabled to speak a variety of different languages, with the result that they found no nation strange to them, and no foreign speech beyond their powers of comprehension.
PELAGIUS (414 a.d.)
"The Holy Spirit fills the soul, like air coming into musical pipes, and the finger of God touches the hearts of his saints like the strings of a harp. When he was poured forth upon the apostles and the community of believers on the day of Pentecost, as he had promised by the Lord, why was it that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of fiery tongues and caused those over whom he rested to speak with the tongues of all nations?
"But 'the Spirit was not yet given'; that is, with that abundance of spiritual grace which enabled those assembled together to speak in every language, and thus announce before hand in the language of every nation the church of the future: and so by this spiritual grace it was that the nations were gathered into congregations, sins were pardoned far and wide, and thousands of thousands were reconciled unto God."
LEO THE GREAT (461 a.d.)
"[B]ut the Spirit of God blowing where He wills, the languages peculiar to each nation became common property in the mouth of the Church."
THEODORET OF CYRUS (466 a.d.)
"To another the interpretation of words" (1 Corinthians 12:10). This also was a spiritual gift. For often a person who knew only the Greek language, after discoursing with another in the language of Scythia and Thrace, brought an interpretation to the hearers. 16 "For one who speaks in a tongue, speaks not to people, but to God: for no one hears. But in the Spirit he speaks mys-teries" (1 Corinthians 14:2) .... For it was given to preachers, because of the diverse languages of people, so that one who was going to the people of India might bring the divine preaching in the language used by them. And again, when discoursing with Persians, and with Scythians, and Romans, and Egyptians, they would preach the evangelical doctrine in the languages used by each."
AUGUSTINE
"All the people present [in the Upper Room] had learned one language. The Holy Spirit came, they were filled with it, they began to speak with the different languages of all nations which they didn't know, and hadn't learned .... The fact, I mean, that small church was speaking with the tongues of all nations, what else can it signify but that this great church from the rising of the sun to its setting (Psalm 113:3) is speaking with the tongues of all nations?"
JACOB OF SERUGH (5TH CENTURY)
"O Upper Room, your story is exalted even more than Babel; Because without any writing all tongues are distributed in you.
The Spirit made you as a school for the sons of the light And they have learned from you the speech of the nations and their tongues ....
For, on the great feast when all the nations were gathered The tongues resounded from the Upper Room with new voices. The Greeks and the Alans heard their own tongues Simply from the disciples who had multiplied among the Jews .... In the language of the region he spoke to them so that it should become known That he himself is the teacher, master and the Lord of the region .... The Good News of the Son was sent by all sorts of tongues To the peoples of the earth who had proceeded from Babel."
CASSIODORUS (580 a.d.)
"With the coming of the Holy Spirit, and with all sitting in that house, fire from heaven appeared upon their heads and they spoke the languages of various nations."
GREGORY THE GREAT (603 a.d. )
"The Holy Spirit appeared in tongues of fire over the disciples, and gave them the knowledge of all languages."
GREGORY THE GREAT
"There are some who, when they hear of the wonderful works of the apostles, that having received the Holy Spirit, they raised the dead with a word, cast out demons from the obsessed, removed infirmity with their shadow, preached by prophesying things to come, and speaking in the language of every nation, preached the only-begotten Word of God, because they do not see these powers in the church now, believe that heavenly grace has already been withdrawn from the church, not knowing that they should believe what is written: 'A Helper in times of tribulation' (Psalm 9:9)."
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you for the references. It's always great to learn more about the ancient Christians' understanding of things. It is perfectly clear in scripture that the speaking in tongues at Pentecost was for the preaching of the Gospel in a way that other nationalities would hear it in their respective languages. But I wonder what the Church makes of 1 Corinthians 14:2 "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit." This verse says specifically that when speaking in this mode of tongues, one speaks not to people but to God, mysteries of the spirit that no one understands. This does not sound like the function of tongues in Acts 1 to me. I genuinely do not mean to argue. I truly would like to know the church's position on this verse. For the life of me, I can't see any other way to read it. It seems to me that a private prayer to God in tongues, a mystery of the Spirit that no one understands, was at least once a part of the life of the Church. Do the Church Father's say anything about 1 Corinthians 14:2?
Unfortunaly what Fr Gruner is referring to would be “Hearing in Tongues”. It is speaking or praying in Corinthians.
No Man understands not even the speaker.
1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
I am a Catholic and would like to suggest the priest reads St Pauls letter in the bible before he starts answering questions
Paul was still talking about the similar experience at Pentecost, not unknown languages. Actually paul emphasizes if you have no interpreter, then should not speak in tongues in the church but pray to your God in secret.Yes I agree with Paul, tongues which are not being interpreted should not be used in the public, the Holy spirit is not an author of confusion. He will give the gift to a person for a purpose but today many in the "penteostals" & charismatic are even teaching people how to speak in tongues,that is rendering the Holy Spirit idle.Some tongues being taught are not of the Holy Spirit but the deception of the devil.
The explanation given for what tongues is and its purpose in this video is WAY off.
No, they're actually 100% right
@@T_dog1 You are ignorant. Please educate yourself.
I am a catholic , I prayed for the I dwelling of the Holy Spirit and got it . Please read Romans 8:26
PTL!!
Romans 8:26 does not refer to the second blessing or its prayer language of tongues, however, as I further explain both in tweets and in reply to the comnent which followed yours.
Thank you for this video!!! It’s vital for Catholics to know that this movement isn’t of God.
The "knowing" that you're in God's fight is described according to western definition of "know", where there is a different definition of "know" in the mid-east culture where our faith originates: knowing being based on experiential wisdom......as compared to "blind faith" in any human doctrine. What's being said here doesn't necessarily debunk the modern use of tongues. We all a re in God's fight, but according to different experiences with God.
Magnificent explanation!
This is sad that these two gentlemen do not seem to understand the argument of the charismatic movement. Worse, protestant pentecostal didn't start the speaking in tongue experience as a need to show that they were justified. Justification is an argument of mainline protestant churches who by the way don't care about the speaking of tongues. Pentecostals could care less about the Lutherans debate on justification. This is a misleading video about the history of the issue. Protestant Cessationists make a better case against 'speaking in tongues' than these two gentlemen.
St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas said that it doesn't happen anymore
@@T_dog1 If true, then they were both wrong!
Eric Gatera Do you even know who they were? Humble yourself and study them.
@@T_dog1 Yes, I know who they were. One was a Church father and the other the angelic doctor. And you, do you even know about the Catholic saints who believed and spoke in tongues in history, including Saint John Paul 2? Maybe you should consider humbling yourself and study this issue.
In a spirit of sharing, you might find these two quotes of some interest to you:
1) St. Thomas Aquinas: "When our mind is kindled by devotion as we pray, we break out spontaneously into weeping and singing and cries of jubilation and other such noises. (...) we offer reverence in prayer not only with our mind, but with our bodies."
2) St. Augustine: "He who sings a jubilus does not utter words; he pronounces a wordless sound of joy; the voice of his soul pours forth happiness as intensely as possible, expressing what he feels without reflecting on any particular meaning; to manifest his joy, the man does not use words that can be pronounced and understood, but he simply lets his joy burst forth without words; his voice appears to express a happiness so intense that he cannot formulate it."
St. Paul the Apostle: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (...) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."
They may have used different words to express their unintelligible spiritual experience but they undoubtedly spoke about the same divine reality.
@@T_dog1 @Trevor G Scott Yes, I know who they were. One was a Church father and the other the angelic doctor. And you, do you even know about the Catholic saints who believed and spoke in tongues in history, including Saint John Paul 2? Maybe you should consider humbling yourself and study this issue.
In a spirit of sharing, you might find these two quotes of some interest to you:
1) St. Thomas Aquinas: "When our mind is kindled by devotion as we pray, we break out spontaneously into weeping and singing and cries of jubilation and other such noises. (...) we offer reverence in prayer not only with our mind, but with our bodies."
2) St. Augustine: "He who sings a jubilus does not utter words; he pronounces a wordless sound of joy; the voice of his soul pours forth happiness as intensely as possible, expressing what he feels without reflecting on any particular meaning; to manifest his joy, the man does not use words that can be pronounced and understood, but he simply lets his joy burst forth without words; his voice appears to express a happiness so intense that he cannot formulate it."
St. Paul the Apostle: "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (...) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."
They may have used different words to express their unintelligible spiritual experience but they undoubtedly spoke about the same divine reality.
The question was asked from Father Gruner but the other guy did all the talking :) There are two types of Tongues please read your bible . The other one Paul mentioned is a tool to talk with God and not with human. It is not a language of human. Amazing that you did not read your bible:) Father Gruner with all those knowledge you can be so wrong. So let's be clear that missionary you mentioned did indeed hear the prayer in a language ? and that was a curse of Jesus and Mary ? LOL How Satan hates people to have more intimate relationship with God. Don't you people read that if you ask God to give you bread he won't give you stone or ask for fish will God give you snake? If you ask God to give you a spiritual gift it won't be a curse.
Thank you for your comment. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm) corrects the assumption that the gift of tongues manifested in early Christian communities was fundamentally different from its first expression on Pentecost, except insofar as abuses had already begun to accrue to the practice. God bless you.
@ Michael - Not sure what ever happened to Part 2, but here's a completely revised version in both parts.....
Part 1 -
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); usually unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language.
In contrast, the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing underlying sounds (called phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with.
It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is also interesting to note that any disallowed sound combinations, i.e. consonant clusters, in the speaker’s native language are also disallowed in his/her tongues-speech. Further, this subset of phonemes typically contains only those sounds which are easiest to produce physiologically.
Tongues-speech is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, ‘Adonai’, etc.). Sometimes, part of the utterance is rendered in the speaker’s native language, and part in tongues-speech. One of the most immediately recognizable results of all these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. There are as many ‘tongues’ as there are speakers of tongues. (hardly a “reversal of Babel” as some would argue, is it?)
Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.
Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, for it to be 'language', it must contain, at a minimal, two specific features - I can’t stress enough that these two features are universal, regardless of where or, more to our point, by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish by its nature does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.
People tend to believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer rather bluntly put it: “tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.”
Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in linguistic terms.
Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe, or were taught.
If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.
This forced a serious theological dilemma - As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen.
One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at this ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem - how can something like this be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals, or other denominations that adhere to ‘tongues’? The answer is not overly surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’, and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue, and in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed in the first place.
In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.
As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist - it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.
The Pentecostal solution to the issue was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.
Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next.
The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be.
What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
Whether one is interested in this part of Pentecostal history or not, this redefinition has heavily influenced many other Christian denominations that adhere to the modern tongues phenomenon; specifically, it is from this historical doctrinal change that various modern Christian denominations’ belief in tongues, ultimately originated.
Protestants do have baptism. What are you talking about? @3:30 Ever heard of Baptists? You lost me right after that statement.
Thank you for your comment. Clearly Mr. Vennari misspoke in that instance, but his meaning is not difficult to follow. The sacramental life that Catholics are privileged to participate in has no equivalent within Protestantism, and this void leads them to seek emotion-laden pseudo-religious experiences.
Baptists have baptism, but they don't believe it confers any kind of grace, or really does anything to the person being baptized
From a person who’s been a charismatic for 30 yrs: The gift of tongues no longer exists as it did during the day of Pentecost. What you hear now in the charismatic church is fake, made up gibberish. Why? Because 99% of us are attention seekers with low self esteem. We want other people to ‘think’ we are closer to God than you because we have a ‘heavenly language’ and you don’t. We love to abuse all the ‘outward gifts’ because they are something to see. We get a lot of attention that way.
You can also put yourself in an ‘altered state’ of the mind when songs are played over and over and over. It’s done on Purpose. It helps the mood. In the charismatic church, you will do things that are NOT normal and do things there that you don’t do in your every day life or your job. But we claim that it’s God, when in reality, it’s just us making stuff up. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of peer pressure to speak in gibberish if your not and everyone around you is. You better start speaking quick because you will get a label that your not ‘saved’, and nobody wants that, so they go with the flow.
We know this but you won’t catch us admitting it, .....until now. It’s all a game, folks. I big, fat lie of a game. Hardly ANY of the charismatic or Pentecostal preachers have any formal theology classes or even college degrees, period. Why? Because sensible people ‘wake up’ to this type of hoopla. Hardly any of them know how to properly use the Greek or Hebrew and handle it properly when interpreting verses. Why? Because that takes hard work and years of mastery and they simply won’t do it. The reward is correct doctrine, but if your a charismatic, you make up your own doctrine and defend it to the grave and then say your being persecuted.
See how this works? Again, it’s a game.
If you feel your stuck in this type of movement and are looking for someone to sound off to, I am that person.
You can write me at markforquer@gmail.com.
You're lying. You were never a "charismatic". Stop being used by the evil one.
Whatever. Speaking in tongues is biblical. I don't speak in tongues but it doesn't mean The Holy Spirit doesn't gift someone with it. I see the danger that people may pretend or blaspheme while speaking in tongues.
I don't wear a hair shirt or inflict pain as a penance. Fasting is enough because the other self inflicted sacrifice is left for saints. I believe speaking in tongues falls under this category.
The modern version isn't
The fact it started in the 1960s says it all.
Can't beat the old videos
Our lady keep you
Yes I went to renewal in 1980s at our Ladies Convent ,was prayed over nothing happened ,but later on the 9/9/ 1984 I had a Wonderfull vision ,much later I got the gift ,we were also encouraged to read the bible ,in many many places it talks about the gift and St Paul says we should pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and John Paul second also encouraged it ,As we all receive the same spirit as the early Christians we should all have the same fruits and gifts as them ,and Jesus warned not to blaspheme agenst the Holy Spirit.
St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas said that it doesn't happen anymore
Dont get the gift of tongues mixed up with speaking in tongues. Read 1cor14v4 jude14. One is to build us up, it's a little piece of heaven in us and it builds our spirit man and that's my experience. It amazes me how people who dont speak in tongues put the gift down they also fail to understand that god does not hand out useless gifts
You’re right in saying “God does not hand out useless gifts”. Only satan does..... I have prayed and asked God to reveal to me in His kindness and mercy if this tongues gift is really from Him. Nada, Niet, Zilch. Till such time that He does, I will be opposing it. Satan is a confuser and so this confusing language is his. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33.
I have always followed the principle of “WHEN IN DOUBT, DON’T”. God bless you to see the truth.
If you speak in tongue do you understand the tongue that you are speaking
Corinthians 12,13,14
1.When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.
2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The Holy Spirit enables them to speak in tongues and my friend has tried many times to teach how to spend in tongues. I tell him how can you teach me how to speak in tongues, you are not the enabler the Holy Spirit.
On the gift of tongues I suggest you reflect on paragraph 2003 in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. These are days not too far from the dark days of Christ establishing the first church. These are days of revelation and renewal. PS from that little barn in California over 1.8 billion people were influenced by the fullness of being born again. I suggest you consider carefully your words when speaking about things you have observed rather than permitting yourself to be immersed in ❤️💨🔥
The Bible is VERY clear about the Apostles. They were UNDERSTOOD by their hearers, they did NOT babble gibberish. This present day speaking in tongues nonsense is clearly a con, a scam, at best, demonic possession at worst
No. Pentecostalism does not believe that the gift of tongues is a sign of justification. Because Pentecostalism is Protestant, it believes that justification is imputed upon being 'saved' or 'born again'.
But after salvation, Pentecostalism believes a second work of grace that empowers the Christian for ministry: the Baptism of the Spirit. Speaking in tongues is the sign of the Baptism of the Spirit.
As for Charismatism, which is Pentecostalism 2.0, they believe that tongues is not the sole or only sign but one sign among others that you are baptised in the spirit.
There are two major problems with this discussion. First, St. Paul says in 1 Cor 12: "to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues." There are different kinds of tongues. If the only kind of gift of tongues is that you can understand another person regardless of what language they speak, they why would Paul tell us that there is a gift of interpreting tongues? Why would we need to interpret what we already understand?
In 1 Cor 14: St. Paul asks the Corinthians that if a member prays in tongues, they should keep it to themselves unless they have someone to interpret: "Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified."
Finally, St. Paul concludes: 1 Cor 14:18: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."
Clearly, here St. Paul is referring to speaking in tongues as words that are not intelligible to others.
Second, the description of the Duquesne group is inaccurate. All of them testify that they did not know about the gift of tongues before they received it. They were not imitating a Protestant set of expectations. It is not fair to give a different version of someone else's story when they are more than eager to tell it themselves. Please listen to their own testimonies about what happened: vimeo.com/242231052
While it is true that someone can fake speaking in tongues, to claim that all people who speak in tongues are deceivers and frauds or delusional is very narrow-minded. In Acts 11 St Peter says: "So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?"
Is the God whose fatherly love makes it rain on the fields of the just and unjust alike going to refuse the Holy Spirit to Protestants? The power of God's grace is much bigger than our human ways.
With all due respect to your ministry, Fr. Gruner, I must echo Matt 22:29: Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."
Georges Montillet this was perfectly said!!
St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas said that it doesn't happen anymore
I speak in tongues because a priest layer hands on me and I received them.
You can't get it that way. Fr. Ripperger it's a gift from God, you can't pray for it.
Tongues are written spoken languages used to confirm the word of God to the Jews. Acts 2 tells us explicitly that they were speaking in other languages. It even lists them. Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
It was a supernatural sign for the Jews to believe. Why? The word tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 (KJV) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom
Paul confirms it in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:
Nowhere in the Bible does it tell Christians that they need 'tongues' to be saved. Or that is confirms salvation in any way. There is also nowhere where a gentile in Acts spoke in tongues. We are told in Acts 13:46 (KJV)Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ, the gospel came to the Gentiles. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is our gospel. The just are to live by faith. Romans 10:17 (KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Paul specifically says us that an interpreter must be present which was not needed in Acts. Why? Because God gave supernatural evidence in Acts for them to hear in their own language. The Spirit gave them utterance to speak in the language where they were born. In our dispensation, we need an interpreter present to translate from English to French as one example.
1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Compare scripture with scripture. Paul is rebuking the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
What tongues was Paul speaking? He tells us one tongue in Acts 21:40 kjv
And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying
An unknown tongue is like Korean to an English speaking person. We don't understand or know it.
Tongues is always throughout the Bible used to confirm the word of God to people of other languages. How can you do that if people don't have a clue what you are saying.
It's easy to be deceived with how much deception is in the world right now. But the truth is in the Bible. Unfortunately because we live in deceptive times, men are twisting the Bible, taking it out of context and hoping their followers don't know Gods word to question what they are being told.
I pray for all those deceived in this - I was once too so I understand it's easy to fall for. I know speaking in tongues can make you feel good but it's not of God. Satan can give you signs and wonders.
2 Timothy 2:25 (KJV)In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2 Timothy 2:15 kjv Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
God bless
Toungues are from God but Satan can also use counterfeit toungues!! A prophets still exist to this day!! A prophet is one who speaks on Gods behalf
@@andrewortiz9226
¡Andrés, ay, por favor!
Then why did Jesus say to His one and only Church , "He who HEARS you HEARS Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me?"
some of the comments that is mentioned in this video is false
This doesn't really answer the phenomena. I know of a very conservative Latin mass priest who suddenly had the speaking in tongues experience and my own priest who never believed in the charismatic thing or the gift of tongues until he experienced it himself. He does not belong to a charismatic group but he had the experience once. It leaves me more confused than ever.
GUARDIAN 208 :IN MY OPINION THE PRIEST WAS UNDER ATTACK FROM THE DEVIL ,AND HAD HE BEEN IN GOOD STANDING SPRITUALLY WITH GOD HE WOULD HAVE RECOGNISED THIS (ONLY MY OPINION )
Romans 8:26?
Guardian208
This might be the work of demons.I highly recommand you the sermons of exorcist Father Chad Ripperger on this topic and on discerning spirits
as far as i know the gift of tongue can manifest any moment but not always and at will. i remember when i was praying over my sister in the charismatic renewal, as i was saying alleluia, suddenly my tongue felt like numb and big ang entangled and i was talking i didn't know.. i was knew then at the renewal.. i got scared and stopped myself.. it never manifested again and i didn't practice... to me if that is how the gift of tongue is manifested then you can not just blabb words and say you received the gift.. you have to have this strange feeling or sensation not coming from your emotion or something ... it has to be a power from the Holy Spirit.
@@terrymance4172 or it could be demons
1 corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
This is telling us that NO MAN understands only god.. the bible talks about multiple tongues for example Yes the bible says they spoke in other tongues but if you do your research you will see all the proof that tongues is as real as it was 2000 years ago... God Bless
speaking jibbrish is demonic actually...
Speaking in a tongue means speaking in a different language. The purpose of speaking is to communicate. For communication to be effective, you must understand what you are saying, and the other person must understand it. If you refuse to speak to God in English, or whatever be your native tongue, and decide to babble in words you yourself do not understand, how then are you communicating with God? This is like sitting on your couch, holding a dinner plate and pretending you are driving a car. With enough delusion you may convince yourself that you are driving a car, but in reality you are going nowhere.
auraxfire not necessarily. Read St. Paul’s teaching on it.
1Co 14:2 If you speak languages that others don't know, God will understand what you are saying, though no one else will know what you mean. You will be talking about mysteries that only the Spirit understands.
Maybe update to a bible that doesnt use King James english from 17th century
Hit the nail on the head, when you don't have sacraments, you create innovations, and innovations is what protestantism is about.
My great grandmother could, as well as my grandma. It was usually a mix of Greek and Hebrew (as well as an ancient language none of us knew, but it was consistent). Don't listen to the fakers who just ramble on incoherently.
Great video!! Thank you for this. This is exactly my understanding too if speaking in tongues!! Not the intelligible jibberish that one hear
I agree with quite a few things people have said here and so do some Charismatics I know. For one thing, if people were truly falling under the power of God, they'd fall forward, on their faces, NOT backward. However, some of us are thrown out with the bath water. I don't believe tongues are a sign of salvation. For one thing that would rule out people who cannot talk. The sign of salvation is holiness.
Tongues have not ceased. What they are describing happens on the mission field with non-charismatics missionaries. A retired missionary in our Baptist church told me of her experiences. She never sought tongues. I don't believe that manifestations we often see in charismatic churches are appropriate, but I speak in tongues in private. Neither do I believe that we get to choose whatever spiritual gifts we want. That is totally up to God.
A lot of charismatics are not penticostals. One other thing about charismatics, they pray and they pray and they PRAY until God answers--and we don't just pray up things we want. Also bear in mind that a lot of good, biblical Christian music comes from charismatics. That is where the jesus music movement started. I never hear anyone talking about that.
If errant fellowships, and there are plenty of those who aren't charismatic, use little cups with grape juice during communion, should we biblical fellowships stop doing that?
Wrong. The direction a person falls (rests in the Holy Spirit) is not restricted to only falling forward. The Holy Spirit is not bound by human understanding nor tradition of prostration.
There's only One Father!! God Almighty!!
Greatly distorted, has not ever been a thing.
Do not be quick to judge, and you will not be judged. It's fraternal charity to correct and rebuke in love. But this is not one of the ways to do it. For one, the arguments are off scripture on the most part and secondly, the gentleman with fr. is asserting everything a spirit of arrogance- and if this is with brothers in the faith, how will do it to non believers and lost sheep.
I'm not speaking for Catholic charismatics today, but Just like at St Paul's Corinth 1 Cor 12, there obviously will be abuse of charisms. That does not mean Holy Spirit won't bless the little ones with an abundance of them again. Their fruits also stand against you, they love mass and the sacraments and the Word, they love each other and the Lord keeps adding their numbers, healings take place, they listen to the pope and they actually respect him whom Jesus appointed steward of the sheep. With love, my prayers.
Salman metobo, you and I are equal with the pope, the pope is not holier than me or you, for God shows no favoritism but I respect the pope
The phenomenon is protestant and also kbown as glossalalia linguistically. It is not valid anymore as a foreign language for evangelisation. It is real language not gibberish: it could also be used as a portal for the demonic. It just is not Catholic.
Excuse me, read the book of Acts, Corinthians, and yes the CCC para 2003. Good grief people !!
And then what? It is a Charismatic thing to shred your Bible and then make doctrine out of the shreds. I've always known that the actual content of the said books does not support anything the modern Charismatics are doing. But I also see that the shreds do.
Channeling babel.