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

I have been enjoying all the posts on the topic of glossalalia.

It's good when Catholics & Orthodox seek a spiritual renewal. What's perhaps not so good is when we seek it outside our own tradition. Protestant and Pentecostalist spiritualities alienate me.

Maybe we're like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz": at the end of the movie she arrives at the reassuring insight that all she truly yearned for she already had, right there at home.

Precisely, Alice. I think the context makes my meaning clear. All too often in charismatic circles, the reading of the Bible is divorced from theological reflection and the Tradition of the Church.

By the way, I think Pani Rose owes me an apology for shouting at me without even thinking about the context of what I said.

If I owe you an apology it is about personality cults building of followings, to some extent that is true. However, people build up followings to a certain extent, because they are able to 'explain' Scripture.

Their personal reading of the Bible, is what lead them to understand. I agree, that things must be in the context of the Church, however, at any given time, the Lord will speak to people individually through his Word giving guidence.

That is what made me upset. You are basically saying that people reading Scripture on a one on one basis is taboo. That is wrong!

However, if those people arrive at an understanding of the Word in Scripture that is not compatible with the Word as presented in Liturgy, in the writings of the Fathers, in the acts of the Great Councils--in short, with the total fabric of Tradition, then there is good cause to wonder whether they hear the voice of the Spirit, the voice of their own desires, or the voice of something much darker.

We must always look for dicernment from the Lord, and it can often come in Scripture. Taking it to a priest, or someone in whom you are confident in their understanding in agreement with the Church. Looking not to just one source for help, that of three or four people even. However, there are those - not just in charismatic circles, but people everywhere - who will give too much creedence to their own thoughts, doing their own 'pontificating'. Those are the ones that asianpilgram is most likely referring too, however, you placed it in a very negative sence, pointing fingers at one particular area. You make it sound like those at Ann Arbor were not looking for dicernment. I have been to many conferences through the years from many different types of ministries - they all have said to look to the Church for dicernment.

This is a very interesting conversation! I would like to share some of my experiences with the Charismatic movement. While stationed in Neu Ulm, Germany in the US Army in 1973, I became convicted of my sinful state. I learned from reading a book by a Christian author that I needed a relationship with God. To have that I needed to repent (as in Luke 13:3) and receive Christ (as in John 1:12)and live an obedient life committed to Jesus Christ (John 15). Soon after my conversion I was befriended by a group of Charismatic Chrisitans. They were fervent believers in Christ and practiced the "gifts of the Spirit". Since I didn't know much about correct theology, I accepted what they taught as biblical. Later, as I grew in my faith and my ability to correctly interpret the bible, I changed my convictions regarding Charismatic theology. StuartK's post is an outstanding summary of correct Christian theology so I won't repeat him. But I must say this: those early days with my Charismatic brothers in the Lord were wonderful even tho none of us were very mature Christians, and even tho our exegetical skills were very immature (to say the least). Yes, they spoke in "so-called" tongues. Were they real languages? No. What were they doing/saying, then? Linguists would say their utterances were more akin to baby babble. No grammar, no syntax, no recognizable vocabulary. Therefore, no language. On the other hand the biblical tongues were real, spoken languages given as a witness that the Holy Spirit had been given to the gentiles; and therefore, they were now part of the people of God. But these men of whom I spoke were loving, fervent Christians. All of them had been delivered from the drug culture so prevelant there. They turned to Christ and became shining lights in a dark world, living Christ-like lives before their peers of whom they had once been a part, and witnessed how Christ can change men. Some were persecuted. Some were actually forced to take drugs from their one-time friends. I will never forget them - but their theology of the gifts of the Spirit was wrong. Here is one example of Charismatic interpretation (mentioned by Dr. Henry P.) that I believe is incorrect: Romans 8:26 - "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;..." Two basic interpretive principles - 1) What does it say? and 2) What does it mean? shows that the Charismatic interpretation is wrong. First, What does it say? Answer: The text says (1) the Spirit helps us in our weakness as we don't know how to pray as we should 2) the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. Who is helping? The Holy Spirit. Who is interceding? The Holy Spirit. Who is groaning? The Holy Spirit. Are the groanings expressed in words? No. Interpretation - i.e. What does it mean? Answer: The Holy Spirit intercedes for us passionately - in fact, so passionately that Paul says that He -the Holy Spirit - groans. Conclusion: This is not a passage that can be used to support speaking in tongues. If I were a church leader where someone came in and promoted contemporary, unbiblical, Charismatic practices, I would pull him aside and seek to instruct him in the way more clearly. If unsuccessful, I would in no uncertain terms demand him to stop. Contemporary Charismatic practices apart from being unbiblical are divisive. They literally tear congregations apart. I have witnessed this personally. And it is tragic. Are Charismatics Christians? That depends on their relationship with God? Are the "gifts of the Spirit" given today? Yes, I believe so. Is speaking in tongues one of the gifts God still uses today? Don't underestimate God. He can do what He wants. But contemporary Charismatic practices, however, are simply repackaged doctrinal deviations condemned by the early church. Thanks again for a stimulating discussion.

I already made it clear that that is NOT what I was referring to. Stop rationalizing.

You also say:


II would like to clarify (without implying that you do not accept this) that even when the Lord speaks to us individually through his Word (especially in the context of lectio divina or prayerful reading of Scripture, where doctrinal exegesis is not the primary goal), the teaching and example of the Church must never be absent from the background.

"You make it sound" but I didn't say that. Again, stop rationalizing your outburst.

I was referring to the writings emanating from the well-known charismatic circles in Ann Arbor. I implied that these contain deficiencies, but nothing in what I said means "the people in Ann Arbor do not look for discernment." That is too farfetched.

As I noted earlier, though the Eastern Churches are inherently pneumatological, there is nothing in our Tradition that points to glossolalia or any of the other forms of pentacostalism, so how can anyone justify importing something which is a 19th century Protestant innovation into the Church? This is far worse than latinization--it's bowdlerization.

Saint John Chrysostom:

This whole phenomenon [of speaking in tongues] is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such then as used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?

(Homilies on First Corinthians)

Precisely so: by the end of the fourth century, the phenomenon of glossolalia had disappeared from the Eastern Churches--except among the Montanist heretics who advocated "new prophesy" (among many flakey things). Thus, it has no place whatsoever in the worship of the Byzantine Churches.

Period. End of discussion.

That is what I said, only not as elequently...

The original post was interesting and thought provoking. I even found it encouraging to know that I wasn't the only Eastern Catholic whose personal devotional life includes the ancient Apostolic practice of speaking in toungues. I looked forward to discussion about how this practice, (accepted by Mother Church and encouraged by the Pope and bishops from East and West) operates within the context of Eastern spirituality.

Alas, my joy turned to disappointment as the Pharisees popped out to throw the weak old arguments thrown at Catholics in the Renewal on a regular basis.

I get the point... Orthodox and Eastern Christians feel threatened by anything outside the fantasies they build up about what the Church is.

Why don't the charismatic bashers go back to their cells, stare at their belly buttons and mumble the Jesus prayer while the rest of us carry on an intelligent, uplifting conversation about how God the Holy Spirit "renews in our hearts an upright Spirit" (Pentecost Matins, Ode 5) for "He is God and deifies us, Fire proceeding from Fire speaking, acting, and distributing gifts." (from Pentecost Matins, again)

This post is thoroughly offensive and completely lacking in Christian charity. I suggest that a retraction and an apology are in order.

Ryan

You have to understand that when some people ask a question, they don't want an honest answer, they want personal validation.