www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Praying in tongues after Epiklesis

I hope that this is a better and deeper explanation than of the same old tired Fr. Seraphim Orthodox stance on this subject.




http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/holy_spirit.htm

The Divine Liturgy represents the corporate worship of the Body of Christ. Speaking in tongues has no place in the Divine Liturgy because it is likely to be misunderstood or worse. As Christians we have a duty to evangelize. Strange practices of this sort are contrary to that goal because they convey an aura of cultism. That is my opinion with all due respect.

This, in fact, is why I've always been highly skeptical of the practice, which has always struck me as akin to Abigail's visions . . . If someone actually spoke in tongues, with each person hearing in their own language, I doubt that there would be any opposition . . .

hawk

I have read (if I recall correctly, this was from an Orthodox source) that we (Orthodox) believe it is a 'lesser' gift of the Holy Spirit.

Alice

Remember, we are talking about PRAYING in tongues, not speaking in tongues. Romans 8:26 (NIV): "In the same way the Spirit helps us in our weakness. ...the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." When we are Chrismated we are sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. One of these is the gift of tongues. We are chrismated on our lips and ears to speak and hear using these gifts. If we do not use the gifts of the Holy Spirit, how do we know we have them?

One reason we employ the liturgical prayers and do not extemporize--either consciously or "under the influence of the Spirit", is most of us are not nearly as creative, original or insightful as we think we are. The prayers of the Fathers have stood the test of time, and they reflect the fullest and most perfect expression of our faith. We really have no need for individuals to put their oars in, no matter what their motivation.

That aside, I find glossolalia to be, well, tacky and highly suspect. The spirit speaks, but whose spirit? How do we know? How do you know? And why do we need this? If you understood the Byzantine Tradition and its expression, you would see that there is more than adequate space available for our cooperation with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Being charismatic does not require us to make spectacles of ourselves.

The Byzantines valued taxis, order, very highly indeed. That is why the Liturgy is the way the Liturgy is--a highly ordered hieratic dance and dialogue between the celebrant and the people, in which we offer the sacrifice of praise to God the Father. Prayer or speaking in tongues disturbs the symphonia, the harmony that is created through the Liturgy; it is a discordance which to me seems more diabolical than anything else.

Live linked: The Holy Spirit and His Variety of Gifts [fatheralexander.org]

Extracts:

Interpretation of Tongues

The gift of "interpretation of tongues" was needed because the "speaker of tongues," the glossolalist, was not understood by the people. "Glossolalia" is the original Greek word meaning "tongue" (glossa) and "talking" (lalia); it implies the faculty of speaking with tongues (languages). This Greek word "glossolalia" as a term came into use during the 19th century, although in the New Testament era "speaking in tongues" was a common phenomenon. This practice of speaking in languages and dialects is recorded in two places in the New Testament, Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Glossolalia in these two passages meant utterances expressed by individuals to God in exotic manner, but in human speech. When a language was unknown to the people, an interpreter was used. However, many who used this glossolalia spoke in unfamiliar tongues, and those who heard did not understand or benefit from what was said.

Apostle Paul speaks to the Corinthians concerning the "speaking in tongues." He said: "One who speaks in a tongue (foreign language or dialect) speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit" (1 Cor. 14:2). Paul compares the utterances of the speaker of tongues with prophesy (preaching) and he supports the validity of prophesy because: "He who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (v. 3). Paul stresses the point that the learning of the teachings of Christianity is first and foremost for the believer; this is the primary mission of the Church. Therefore, those who speak in foreign languages which are unknown to the people are not serving the church but themselves. Paul says: "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies (preaches) edifies the church" (v. 4). Paul makes the comparison between speaking in tongues and preaching: "He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues" (v. 5).

It is clear here by Paul's explanation that speaking in tongues without an interpreter has no value for the people 3/4 the Church. Paul emphasizes this point by saying: "If I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophesy or teaching?" (v. 6). Apostle Paul concludes his admonition: "If you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.... But if I do not know the meaning of the languages, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me" (vs. 9, 11). As it is with teaching it is also with prayer, which must be understood by the people. Otherwise the speaking of prayers in tongues is in vain. "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" (v. 14). Therefore, "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also" (v. 15). The same applies to singing and to blessings. "Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider (without gifts) say the 'Amen' to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified" (vs. 16-17).

Apostle Paul discourages the practice of "speaking in tongues" inasmuch as the people do not benefit, for "in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" (v. 19). Paul makes himself clear as being against "speaking in tongues": "Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. . . . If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders of unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" (v. 22). If there are speakers in tongues without one to interpret, "Let each one of them keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God" (v. 28). Paul does not oppose the practice of "speaking in tongues" provided that the language of the speaker can be made known by the people either by using the languages understood or using an interpret to convey the meaning to the people. For Paul, religious instruction of the people is the most important work of the church. "For you can all prophesy (preach) one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged" (v. 31).

The varieties of gifts mentioned here, as well as those in Romans (12:6-8), "are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills" (1 Cor. 12:11). All these "varieties of gifts" are interlocked and equal, coming from the same Source 3/4 the Holy Spirit.



The Glossolalia Movement of Today

The "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament as described above is far different from the new glossolalia, tongues movement, of today. Although the word, glossolalia, is a term which was lately adopted, in the 19th century, the phenomenon of speaking is very ancient, as mentioned before. The difference is that in the past, and especially in the Bible, the speaking in tongues was the speaking of a human foreign language, which could be understood directly or through an interpreter. Glossolalia today has another meaning entirely, nor should it be associated with the Pentecostal Church, either. This new movement of glossolalia of today started in 1960 with an Episcopal priest in California. This movement has flourished, but not without opposition. The point of this movement of glossolalia is that the "tongues" are not human languages, but inarticulated speech. All agree that from a linguistic point, glossolalia is not a human language, for one cannot identify any positive language being spoken, and there is no evidence that the glossolalia contains actual speech. Despite the claim of the members of this movement, they cannot provide any case to stand up under scientific investigation.

There is an explicit difference between real human languages and the glossolalia of today. The "interpretation" of the various utterances of glossolalia is not the same for all speaking it; there is no similarity whatsoever between interpretation given. Thus, from a linguistic point of view and through scientific scrutiny, the result is that glossolalia does not involve a real human language. Close examination of this new movement reveals that it has attracted many troubled people who display increased anxiety and instability. Their frenzied actions indicate they lose some of their mental self-control, resulting in a turning of their minds to something beyond their control. Studies of this new movement of glossolalia also indicate that the persons involved are seeking a different religious experience, for they are not finding satisfaction in their churches. This may explain the sudden interest in and growth of the glossolalia.

Many people are turning to this glossolalia movement, mystic cults, oriental philosophies, witchcraft, astrology, etc., because they do not find inner satisfaction in the material wealth of our affluent society. This dissatisfaction is partly due to the materialism and technological advances of this present century. It is obvious that material possession cannot satisfy the spirit of many people. People today need an "awakening spirit." But the Church seems unable to provide this, because the Church itself is not involved with materialism. People today are turning to diverting mystical movements and drugs to get beyond themselves in search of inner satisfaction and contentment. The actions of today's society clearly reflect the lack of spiritual values, and indicate the need to return to the true concepts of Christianity. It is a sad situation that even though more and more people are dissatisfied with material wealth and possessions and are turning to the various cult movements, society strives for even greater materialism.

The more materialism, the more dissatisfaction and unhappiness. The more unhappiness, the greater the exodus to the occult world. The loud cry from growing numbers of people is a sound that must be listened to by all segments of society, especially by the Christian Church. The question that must be asked is whether or not these people who are turning to the occult - especially the glossolalia movement 3/4 are really finding the spiritual satisfaction they are seeking. Examinations of these movements clearly indicate that the people who seek spiritual reawakening through them fail in the long run to realize their quest of the fountain of spiritual life and its inner satisfaction. Studies reveal that the people are turning to this glossolalia movement because they are looking for a new religious experience. The desire for these searching people ought to be satisfied in the Church of Christ. Since the Church is the people themselves (the Ecclesia), it depends upon their attitudes and activities to indicate whether or not the "established Church" is fulfilling their needs.

The "movement" for the reawakening of the spiritual life of the people should start within the Church itself, both by leaders and people. There is no true "satisfaction" outside the Church. It is easier to renovate spiritual methods within the Church than to create new, far-out movements which as the past has already shown, in the end fail anyway. This is a lesson of the past, for these movements are not new, but date back thousands of years. This is why Apostle Paul puts prophecy 3/4 the preaching and teaching of the Church 3/4 above the "speaking in tongues," saying: "He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues. . . so that the church may be edified" (1 Cor. 14:5). Paul clearly indicates that the people who seek spiritual uplifting should not find it outside the Church "since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church" (v. 12). This is the answer for those who leave the Church, rather than the present glossolalia movements, or others. What is needed today to overcome this dissatisfaction of many people is the reawakening and strengthening of the spirit, something that is needed in the Church as well.

Such hostility towards speaking in tongues reminds me of the attacks against the hesychasts. We all want to keep God in our neat little boxes.

I think that the possibility of falling into Prelest is the leading cause of Eastern reluctance to the Charismatic Renewal. "The monks on Athos don't speak in tongues, so how could Nick the usher?"

"Direct access to the Holy Spirit? That's something you earn by fleeing the world and living a life of strict asceticism--even then there are no guarantees. Illumination is a reward--no shortcuts!"

This rigid thinking can lead to a quenching of the Spirit. Like the pharisees they only expect God to act in a certain way according to established rules. Anything outside of those rules is suspicious, delusional, or even heresy.

It's all based on fear. Fear of prelest, fear of diluting or destroying tradition, fear of losing ethnic identity, fear of "ecumenism".

I will admit there were ups and downs in the last four decades. Mistakes and mis-steps have been made and some people do swim out over their heads and get into trouble.

The best safeguard against Prelest, according to Eastern writers, is to have a good spiritual director. If you are accountable to a priest or other elder in the Lord you are less likely to fall into error.

And that is exactly what the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church did. Those who had experienced this new outpouring of the Holy Spirit went to the Church hierarchy for guidance and clarification. In their wisdom the Pope along with many cardinals and bishops recognized the "new Pentecost" that they were praying for.

If you're an Eastern Catholic, or "Orthodox in communion with Rome", be aware that the last four Popes encouraged the Charismatic Renewal. Pope Benedict has been one of the strongest supporters. Patriarch Lubomyr supports the Charismatic Renewal in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of evangelism.

Christ is in our midst!!

It just depends on what you actually mean by "speaking in tongues." If you mean that you take off in Greek or Russian or Italian or French or Chinese or Latin or Church Slavonic, and have never studied the language you utter, and we can discern that this is a human language, then there really is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Then it's a matter of having someone fluent to translate and edify the believers.

But if you mean the babbling described above that has no linguistic relation to human language, then you are talking about what is objected to: a faking of the gift of the Holy Spirit. And faking of this gift is brought about by the spirit that sows confusion in the Church and among believers.

Basically the Popes and bishops have encouraged the former, but no one has come out and endorsed the latter. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of this, expanding on St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians in paragraphs 798 to 801, where the emphasis is on discernment and testing of the manifestations of the Spirit to see if they "build up the whole Body" (the Church and its members): 798. " . . . discernment of charisms is always necessary": 801.

In Christ,

BOB

There have been many different manifestations of the Holy Spirit within the Byzantine Tradition. These have included extreme acecis, acts of healing, of spiritual discernment, Holy Fools, and even, in extreme cases, manifestations of the uncreated light of Tabor. Speaking in tongues has never been part of that (which may go back to our unfortunate experience with the Montanists), but another part of it may be the extreme reticence of authentic Byzantine spirituality. We are instructed not to boast of our spiritual prowess, and with very few exceptions most Orthodox mystics have been reluctant to put their experiences down on paper (the most notable being St. Symeon the New Theologian).

The reason is simple: an encounter God is purely experiential; it transcends human language, and therefore any words used will be inadequate, analogical and incomplete (hence our love of the apophatic). Speaking in tongues, during the Divine Liturgy, no less, is antithetical to that spirit. It places that individual at the center of attention, displacing our focus from He to whom our prayers are directed. It disrupts the flow of the services, and sows doubt and confusion. It has no place in our worship.

A better example by far is the anonymous monk of Athos who spent the entire day in his cell except for meals. When he was late for dinner one day, the abbot sent a novice to check on him and remind him it was meal time. The novice went to the cell, knocked on the door, and received no reply. He knocked again, louder, but again received no reply. At that, he summoned the temerity to peak through a window.

There he saw the old monk standing in prayer before an icon of Christ, bathed from head to toe in brilliant flames that did not consume him. Taking alarm, he pounded on the door, yelling, "Abba! Abba! It is time for dinner!"

A few seconds later the door opened, and there stood the old monk, looking just like himself. He looked the novice up and down, and asked, "What is it you want, my child?"

"Abba", the novice said, "The abbot sent me to remind you of dinner".

"Ah" said the old monk. "And were you waiting here long?"

"No, Abba".

"You didn't happen to see anything, did you?"

"No, Abba."

"That is good", said the old monk. "Come, we shall be late for dinner".

The fact is that one needs to be prepared and purified before reaching a very high level of union with the Lord. In my experience, this is something that the charismatic movement likes to ignore.

Furthermore, practices such as "Slaying in the Holy Spirit" and "Baptism in the Spirit" all betray what can only be described as serious errors in basic theology and spirituality, not to speak of a serious underestimation of the sacraments. "Slaying in the Holy Spirit" at the touch of an elder or prayer-leader, for example, is held up by certain charismatic writers as the proof that someone has truly surrendered to God, which leads us to ask the question -- should not the reception of the sacraments result in the same effect in those who are truly surrendered to God? As for "Baptism in the Spirit" (which is said to be the true start of one's life in the Spirit), the problem with this is that it implies that true baptism and confirmation / chrismation are secondary and are, in the final analysis, dispensable. It is not difficult to see that these practices really reflect Pentecostal theology.


If you have noticed, the Holy See has completely stopped using the term "New Pentecost", which is all too often misunderstood as implying that we are living at a time of outpouring of the Holy Spirit on par with the First Pentecost -- which, in turn, has heretical implications.



Pope Benedict's support for the "new ecclesial movements" (which includes the charismatics) is noticeably weak compared to that of John Paul II.

Furthermore, keep in mind that there are three main strains in the Catholic charismatic movement: the French, Brazilian and American, and the French charismatic tradition is quite different, with its strong emphasis on monasticism and liturgy (especially the Liturgy of the Hours) -- it also has a far larger presence in the "new ecclesial movements" and the "new monasticism" than the Brazilians and the Americans (although the Brazilians have the "Toca de Asis" Franciscans). It is my understanding that when Rome speaks of the "charismatics", it has the French primarily in mind, and not the American Catholic charismatics with their brazen adoption of pure Pentecostalism.

Priests and spiritual directors are not infallible, and if they are ignorant they can cause more harm than good.

Besides, who are the "elders in the Lord" to whom a lot of charismatics turn? In my experience, too many charismatic elders build up little personality cults and do not submit themselves to the guidance of theologians when preaching their strange doctrines, much of it concocted from Ann Arbor tracts, their personal reading of the Bible or whatnot.

EXCUSE ME! Since when are we told not to read the Holy Word of God and take it as a Word from Him to ourselves? The Word of God was fed to me long before the Eucharist was. If not for God's Word, I would not know the Eucharistic Lord.

I AM SORRY BUT THOSE WORDS MAKE ME VERY ANGRY!!!
YOU ARE CRITICIZING PEOPLE FOR READING THE BIBLE THEMSELVES?

Dear Pani Rose,

I think, perhaps, Asian Pilgrim was meaning to say(atleast the way I read the last sentence in context) : "their personal *interpretation* of the Bible".

I do not think anyone here would be against us reading the Bible on our own. Indeed, reading the Bible on my own as a child led me to the Lord and set me on my spiritual path moreso than attending Liturgy (which was all 'Greek to me' then, literally and figuratively!)

Be at peace, dear sister in Christ.

In Christ,
Alice

I am sure that "reading" in the context provided does indeed mean exegesis, not merely the physical act of reading the text. And in this, it is correct: we are called upon to read Scripture in light of the totality of the Tradition, for it was the Church that gave us the Bible, and the Church which provided us with the guideposts to interpreting it. Since the Liturgy itself consists mainly of citations of Scripture strung together to illuminate the mysteries of the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God, our reading of Scripture ought to be consistent with that which the Liturgy teaches us.

It is a Protestant canard that Catholics (and Orthodox, too, by extension) are forbidden to read the Bible. In fact, we should read scripture daily, in addition to hearing it read and elaborated upon in the liturgy of the Church. That's why we have a lectionary--it guides us through the Bible, reading it in a manner congruent with the Church's festal calendar by which we participate in the events of salvation history. What we are not permitted to do is read only parts of Scripture to the detriment of others, and to apply to Scripture our own ideosyncratic interpretations, particularly if these run contrary to the teaching of the Church (e.g., the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes as an example of "sharing").