by Calvert Shenk

As we continue, during Eastertide, to consider the Alleluia in its liturgical and musical significance, it would be well for us to look at the Gregorian chant settings of this most joyful of words in the Proper chants of the Mass.

Because of the desire for congregational participation, and also because the chants between the Lessons in the Liturgy of the Word are usually sung in the vernacular, it is rare to hear the authentic Gregorian Alleluias. But this is a real loss, these musical treasures should be better known and loved.

The traditional musical form and its verse before the Gospel is as follows:

1.) The word “Alleluia” is intoned by the cantors.

2.) Alleluia is repeated to the same music by the full choir, but with a long musical addition with many notes (a melisma) on the last syllable. This long melisma is called the jubilus, a Latin word related to jubilate: rejoice.

3.) The verse (varying with the day) is sung by the cantors in a very elaborate, long setting, manifesting both the skill of the singers and the exaltation of the praise of God.

4.) The last word or two of the verse is sung by the full choir, almost always in the same melody as the jubilus.

5.) The Alleluia is repeated by the full choir, including the jubilis.

The jubilus (entirely on the syllable “ah”, of course) has been described as a kind of ecstatic, wordless prayer, soaring above the power of verbal communication and simply floating in contemplative adoration. Although it takes some time to sing the Alleluia and its verse in this form (and during Eastertide there are two, the first replacing the Gradual or the Responsorial Psalm), praying the text is made easier by this very expansiveness – there is time to realize the full implications of each word of the verse. And to share in the exalted adoration of the jubilus is to touch the heights of liturgical prayer – where formal liturgy and personal contemplation unite.

Calvert Shenk
April 3, 2005

Robert T. Jones III

“Zeloute” [ζηλοῦτε] in 1 Cor 12:31 is one of the few “ambiguous” verbs in the New Testament Greek.

Three entries for “zeloute” in the Zondervan Analytical Greek Lexicon:

The exact ambiguous word form of “zeloute” occurs four other times in the New Testament:

1. In 1 Cor. 14:1 where the context calls for the imperative mood and every translation I have checked correctly translates “zeloute” as the “imperative” of “command”

2. In 1 Cor. 14:39 where the context also calls for the imperative mood, and again, virtually all English versions correctly translate “zeloute” as the “imperative” of “command”

3. In Gal. 4:17 where the context calls for a “subjunctive”, “maybe yes, maybe no” mood, and every translation that I have checked correctly translated “zeloute” as “subjunctive”.

4. And in James 4:2 where the translators virtually all agree that it should be translated in the “indicative”, or “reality” mood.

Only in 1 Cor 12:31 do I see a serious problem with this rare ambiguous verb form.

Many commentators and Bible editors, in their references to 1 Cor 12:31 point to “zeloute” in 1 Cor 14:1 – where Paul states “Follow after charity, (agape love) and desire (zeloute) spiritual [gifts], but rather that ye may prophesy”, as “justification” for translating “zeloute” in 1 Cor 12:31 in the “imperative” mood of “command”. But, the word “gifts” in 1 Cor 14:1 is in “italics” and is not in the Greek text, but has been added by the translators. 1 Cor 14:1 is stating “seek to be spiritual”, or “seek spiritual things”, and “zeloute” there is correctly translated in the “imperative” mood, but it does not state for us to seek, or choose spiritual “gifts”.

[Source]

Robert T. Jones III

1 Cor. 12:31 and Our Spiritual Gifts
“Insights” from the New Testament Greek

The subject of “spiritual gifts” is very important to God’s people. These gifts, or “abilities”, from God renable us to serve and glorify God, to be a blessing to others, and to lay up treasure in heaven.

When we study this subject in depth, it is clear that each child of God has their own spiritual gift, or gifts, sovereignly and individually bestowed by God Himself, and they do not change throughout the life of the individual:

1 Cor 12:11 “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally (individually) as he will”.

1 Cor 12:18 “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him”.

1 Cor 7:7 “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that”.

Heb 2:4 “God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will”.

Rom 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance”. (Irrevocable)

This means that we, as God’s children, all have our spiritual “gifts” from God, and all we have to do is to “grow up in Christ” for our “gifts” to function!

There is a verse in the KJV though, that has caused confusion within the body of Christ concerning our spiritual gifts, and that is 1 Cor. 12:31, where the KJV is translated “But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way”.

1 Cor 12:31 in the KJV is a most unfortunate translation, in that it leads many English readers to think that we are commanded here to “seek the BEST gifts”!

How could our spiritual gifts clearly be sovereignly and individually bestowed by God, and then we be commanded to decide which gifts are the “best” and earnestly seek them?

I believe the answer is in the Greek word “zeloute”, in 1 Cor. 12:31, which should be translated “you (Corinthians) ARE zealous for, or desirous of, the best gifts, but I show you a BETTER way”.

The Greek word form “zeloute”, is one of the few Koine Greek verbs whose “mood” is ambiguous. “Zeloute” in 1 Cor 12:31 can be “indicative mood”-“you ARE earnestly coveting”, or “imperative mood”- the command to “covet earnestly”, or “subjunctive mood” -“you should covet earnestly”. The verb tables in the Zondervan Analytical Greek Lexicon confirm that “zeloute” can be either “indicative”, “imperative”, or “subjunctive” mood, depending on the context.

In the very rare instances in the New Testament, where these “ambiguous verb forms” appear, “zeloute” in 1 Cor 12:31 is the only one that I see, where it is very hard for the translator to decide which “mood” to use.

I believe the reason for the lack of “precision” in “zeloute” in 1 Cor 12:31, is that it is “present tense, second person, plural”, and when this word form is spoken to someone, they know whether they are “doing” it, or being “commanded to do it”, or “should do it”, so, in spoken language, there is normally no need for individual verb forms for each mood in the present tense, second person plural. An example would be walking up to a swimming pool and addressing swimmers – they know whether they are presently “swimming”, or being “commanded to swim”, or they “should swim”!

Unfortunately, 2000 years later, the present tense, second person plural, in its written form, is ambiguous. In 1 Cor 12:31, the translator needs to know what is going on in the whole Book of First Corinthians, and specifically in the immediate context, in order to know whether the Apostle Paul is commanding the Corinthian Church to “earnestly seek the ‘best’ gifts”, or whether Paul is chiding the Corinthians for being selfish and seeking what they thought were the ‘best’ gifts, and ignoring the spiritual gifts that God has sovereignly and individually bestowed upon them.

The context of 1 Cor. Chapter 12 states that ALL the gifts are important, from the least to the greatest, and that every member of the body of Christ is important, and verses 11 and 18 state that God distributes the gifts “to every man severally (individually) as he will”, and that “God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him”.

And then, we see in the greater context of the First Corinthian Letter, that God’s people at Corinth were the most immature and most “out of fellowship” of all the Churches. The members of the Body of Christ at Corinth were:

1. Arguing and divided in Chapter 1:10-14.
2. Carnal and immature in Chapter 3:1-3.
3. Condoning immorality in Chapter 5.
4. Suing each other in civilian court in Chapter 6:1-11.
5. Getting drunk and not sharing food at the Lord’s Supper, and therefore under God’s discipline in Chapter 11:18-22.
6. Misusing their spiritual gifts in Chapter 14
7. Tending to not even believe in the resurrection of the dead in Chapter 15:12-18.

Now, since “zeloute” can be translated either in the “indicative” OR the “imperative” mood, and the translator must decide, there is no doubt in my mind that Paul is chiding the Corinthians for selfishly seeking what they thought were the “best”, and most “flashy” gifts.

Paul states at the end of his narrative on “spiritual gifts”, in 1 Cor 14:20, “Brethren, be not children (Present tense – stop being children) in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye (you presently are) children, but in understanding be (become) men” (grow up)!

In my mind, Paul could not be commanding them (imperative mood verb), in 1 Cor 12:31, to do something they could not do, and then say “never mind I’ll show you a better way”!

Over the years, I have seen this “mistranslation” of “zeloute”, in 1 Cor 12:31 encourage many of God’s people to seek for a gift that THEY think is valuable, or that THEY want, or that they are encouraged by family or friends to “seek”, when their God given gift or gifts go undeveloped!

2 Cor 3:18 and Rom 12:2 illustrate of the principal of our “growing up” and allowing God to develop within us the gift (s) that He has already given us!

2 Cor 3:18 states “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass (a partial image of an ancient mirror) the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same (his) image from glory to glory, (in “stages” or “plateaus”) even as by the Spirit of the Lord”.

Rom 12:2 states “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God”.

The KJV word “changed”, in 2 Cor 3:18, and “transformed” in Rom 12:2 is the Greek word “metamorpho”, from which we get our English Word “metamorphosis”. “Metamorpho” means to “transform”, as a butterfly larva “transforms” into a butterfly. The nature of a butterfly larva is to become a beautiful butterfly. All the larva has to do is “grow up”, and its God given nature will work itself out and become visible, and it will become what God designed it to be!

In the same manner, we, as children of God, have all been given the “nature of Christ”, and all we have to do is “grow up”, as 2 Cor. 3:18 states, to become, “from glory to glory”, what God has designed us to be!

Let’s all “grow up” in Grace and into the full knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and seek for God to empower us to be all He has designed each of us to be!

[Source]

Concerning Self-Deception

• “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

Concerning False Prophets

• “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

• “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

• “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-30)

• “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

• “My hand will be against the prophets who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 13:9)

• “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)

• “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.'” (Jeremiah 23:16)

• “And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

Concerning Lying Wonders

• “The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders … Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false ….” (2 Thessalonians 2:9,11)

• “Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts.” (Exodus 7:11)

Pius XII, encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi (June 29, 1943):

17. One must not think, however, that this ordered or “organic” structure of the body of the Church contains only hierarchical elements and with them is complete; or, as an opposite opinion holds, that it is composed only of those who enjoy charismatic gifts – though members gifted with miraculous powers will never be lacking in the Church. That those who exercise sacred power in this Body are its chief members must be maintained uncompromisingly. It is through them, by commission of the Divine Redeemer Himself, that Christ’s apostolate as Teacher, King and Priest is to endure.

Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (Nov. 21, 1964)

Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after rashly, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good (n. 12).

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997)

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.” 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.

Paul VI, General Audience (Feb. 28, 1973)

[Italian]

La novità è questa: la valutazione degli elementi carismatici della religione sopra quelli così detti istituzionali, la ricerca anzi di fatti spirituali nei quali gioca una indefinibile ed estranea energia che rende persuaso, in certa misura, chi la subisce d’essere in comunicazione con Dio, o più genericamente col Divino, con lo Spirito, indeterminatamente. Noi che ne diciamo? diciamo che questa tendenza è molto rischiosa, perché s’inoltra in un campo dove l’autosuggestione, o l’influsso d’imponderabili cause psichiche possono condurre nell’equivoco spiritual … .

[English]

The novelty is this: the valuation of the charismatic elements of religion above the so-called institutional, the search even for spiritual realities in which there comes into play an indefinable and strange energy which, to a certain extent, persuades the one who experiences it that he is in communication with God, or more generically with the Divine, with the Spirit, indeterminately. What do we say about this? We say that this tendency is very risky because it advances into a field in which auto-suggestion or the influence of imponderable psychic causes can lead to spiritual error ….”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to Ordinaries regarding Norms on Exorcism (Sept. 29, 1985)

Recent years have seen an increase in the number of prayer groups in the Church aimed at seeking deliverance from the influence of demons, while not actually engaging in real exorcisms. These meetings are led by lay people, even when a priest is present.

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been asked how one should view these facts, this Dicastery considers it necessary to inform Bishops of the following response:

1. Canon 1172 of the Code of Canon Law states that no one can legitimately perform exorcisms over the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local Ordinary (§ 1), and states that this permission 1should be granted by the local Ordinary only to priests who are endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life (§ 2). Bishops are therefore strongly advised to stipulate that these norms be observed.

2. From these prescriptions it follows that it is not even licit that the faithful use the formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels, extracted from the one published by order of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, and even less that they use the integral text of this exorcism. Bishops should take care to warn the faithful, if necessary, of this.

3. Finally, for the same reasons, Bishops are asked to be vigilant so that – even in cases that do not concern true demonic possession – those who are without the due faculty may not conduct meetings during which invocations, to obtain release, are uttered in which demons are questioned directly and their identity sought to be known.

Drawing attention to these norms, however, should in no way distance the faithful from praying that, as Jesus taught us, they may be delivered from evil (cf. Mt 6:13). Finally, Pastors may take this opportunity to recall what the Tradition of the Church teaches concerning the role proper to the sacraments and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Angels and Saints in the Christian’s spiritual battle against evil spirits.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Prayers for Healing (Sept. 14, 2000)

5. The «charism of healing» in the present-day contest

In the course of the Church’s history there have been holy miracle-workers who have performed wondrous healings. The phenomenon was not limited to the Apostolic period; however, the so-called «charism of healing,» about which it seems appropriate to offer some doctrinal clarifications, does not fall within these phenomena of wonder-working. Instead, the present question concerns special prayer meetings organized for the purpose of obtaining wondrous healings among the sick who are present, or prayers of healing after Eucharistic communion for this same purpose.

There is abundant witness throughout the Church’s history to healings connected with places of prayer (sanctuaries, in the presence of the relics of martyrs or other saints, etc.). In Antiquity and the Middle Age, such healings contributed to the popularity of pilgrimages to certain sanctuaries, such as that of St. Martin of Tours or the Cathedral of St. James in Compostela, as well as many others. The same also happens today at Lourdes, as it has for more than a century. Such healings, however, do not imply a «charism of healing,» because they are not connected with a person who has such a charism, but they need to be taken into account when we evaluate the above-mentioned prayer meetings from a doctrinal perspective. [emphasis added]

With respect to prayer meetings for obtaining healing, an aim which even if not exclusive is at least influential in their planning, it is appropriate to distinguish between meetings connected to a «charism of healing,» whether real or apparent, and those without such a connection. A possible «charism of healing» can be attributed when the intervention of a specific person or persons, or a specific category of persons (for example, the directors of the group that promotes the meetings) is viewed as determinative for the efficacy of the prayer. If there is no connection with any «charism of healing,» then the celebrations provided in the liturgical books, if they are done with respect for liturgical norms, are obviously licit and often appropriate, as in the case of a Mass pro infirmis. If the celebrations do not respect liturgical law, they lack legitimacy.

In sanctuaries, other celebrations are held frequently which may not be aimed per se at specifically asking God for graces of healing, but in which, in the intentions of the organizers and participants, the obtaining of healing has an important part. With this purpose in mind, both liturgical and non-liturgical services are held: liturgical celebrations (such as exposition of the Blessed Sacrament with Benediction) and non-liturgical expressions of popular piety encouraged by the Church (such as the solemn recitation of the Rosary). These celebrations are legitimate, as long as their authentic sense is not altered. For example, one could not place on the primary level the desire to obtain the healing of the sick, in a way which might cause Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament to lose its specific finality, which is to «bring the faithful to recognize in the Eucharist the wonderful presence of Christ and to invite them to a spiritual union with him, a union which finds its culmination in sacramental Communion.» (26)

The «charism of healing» is not attributable to a specific class of faithful. [emphasis added] It is quite clear that St. Paul, when referring to various charisms in 1 Corinthians 12, does not attribute the gift of «charisms of healing» to a particular group, whether apostles, prophets, teachers, those who govern, or any other. The logic which governs the distribution of such gifts is quite different: «All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually just as the Spirit choses» (1 Cor 12:11). Consequently, in prayer meetings organized for asking for healing, it would be completely arbitrary to attribute a «charism of healing» to any category of participants, for example, to the directors of the group; the only thing to do is to entrust oneself to the free decision of the Holy Spirit, who grants to some a special charism of healing in order to show the power of the grace of the Risen Christ.[emphasis added] Yet not even the most intense prayer obtains the healing of all sicknesses. So it is that St. Paul had to learn from the Lord that «my grace is enough for you; my power is made perfect in weakness» (2 Cor 12:9)

12:9), and that the meaning of the experience of suffering can be that «in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church» (1:24).

II. DISCIPLINARY NORMS

Art. 1 – It is licit for every member of the faithful to pray to God for healing. When this is organized in a church or other sacred place, it is appropriate that such prayers be led by an ordained minister.

Art. 2 – Prayers for healing are considered to be liturgical if they are part of the liturgical books approved by the Church’s competent authority; otherwise, they are non-liturgical.

Art. 3 – § 1. Liturgical prayers for healing are celebrated according to the rite prescribed in the Ordo benedictionis infirmorum of the Rituale Romanum(28) and with the proper sacred vestments indicated therein.

§ 2. In conformity with what is stated in the Praenotanda, V. De aptationibus quae Conferentiae Episcoporum competunt (29) of the same Rituale Romanum, Conferences of Bishops may introduce those adaptations to the Rite of Blessings of the Sick which are held to be pastorally useful or possibly necessary, after prior review by the Apostolic See.

Art. 4 – § 1. The Diocesan Bishop has the right to issue norms for his particular Church regarding liturgical services of healing, following can. 838 § 4.

§ 2. Those who prepare liturgical services of healing must follow these norms in the celebration of such services.

§ 3. Permission to hold such services must be explicitly given, even if they are organized by Bishops or Cardinals, or include such as participants. Given a just and proportionate reason, the Diocesan Bishop has the right to forbid even the participation of an individual Bishop.

Art. 5 – § 1. Non-liturgical prayers for healing are distinct from liturgical celebrations, as gatherings for prayer or for reading of the word of God; these also fall under the vigilance of the local Ordinary in accordance with can. 839 § 2.

§ 2. Confusion between such free non-liturgical prayer meetings and liturgical celebrations properly so-called is to be carefully avoided.

§ 3. Anything resembling hysteria, artificiality, theatricality or sensationalism, above all on the part of those who are in charge of such gatherings, must not take place.  [emphasis added]

Art. 6 – The use of means of communication (in particular, television) in connection with prayers for healing, falls under the vigilance of the Diocesan Bishop in conformity with can. 823 and the norms established by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Instruction of March 30, 1992. (30)

Art. 7 – § 1. Without prejudice to what is established above in art. 3 or to the celebrations for the sick provided in the Church’s liturgical books, prayers for healing – whether liturgical or non-liturgical – must not be introduced into the celebration of the Holy Mass, the sacraments, or the Liturgy of the Hours.

§ 2. In the celebrations referred to § 1, one may include special prayer intentions for the healing of the sick in the general intercessions or prayers of the faithful, when this is permitted.

Art. 8 – § 1. The ministry of exorcism must be exercised in strict dependence on the Diocesan Bishop, and in keeping with the norm of can. 1172, the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of September 29, 1985,(31) and the Rituale Romanum (32)

§ 2. The prayers of exorcism contained in the Rituale Romanum must remain separate from healing services, whether liturgical or non-liturgical.

§ 3. It is absolutely forbidden to insert such prayers of exorcism into the celebration of the Holy Mass, the sacraments, or the Liturgy of the Hours.

Art. 9 – Those who direct healing services, whether liturgical or non-liturgical, are to strive to maintain a climate of peaceful devotion in the assembly and to exercise the necessary prudence if healings should take place among those present; when the celebration is over, any testimony can be collected with honesty and accuracy, and submitted to the proper ecclesiastical authority.

Art. 10 – Authoritative intervention by the Diocesan Bishop is proper and necessary when abuses are verified in liturgical or non-liturgical healing services, or when there is obvious scandal among the community of the faithful, or when there is a serious lack of observance of liturgical or disciplinary norms.

Benedict XVI, Regina Caeli Address (May 11, 2008, Solemnity of Pentecost)

Thus Pentecost is in a special way the Baptism of the Church which carries out her universal mission starting from the roads of Jerusalem with the miraculous preaching in humanity’s different tongues. In this Baptism of the Holy Spirit the personal and community dimension, the “I” of the disciple and the “we” of the Church, are inseparable. The Holy Spirit consecrates the person and at the same time makes him or her a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ, sharing in the mission of witnessing to his love. And this takes place through the Sacraments of Christian initiation: Baptism and Confirmation. [emphasis added] In my Message for the next World Youth Day 2008, I have proposed to the young people that they rediscover the Holy Spirit’s presence in their lives and thus the importance of these Sacraments. Today I would like to extend the invitation to all: let us rediscover dear brothers and sisters the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us recover awareness of our Baptism and our Confirmation, ever timely sources of grace.

Pope Francis, Address of Pope Francis to Participants in the 37th National Convocation of the Renewal in the Holy Spirit (Olympic Stadium 1 June 2014)

Another danger is that of becoming arbiters of God’s grace. Many times, leaders (I prefer the name “servants”) of a group or community become, perhaps without intending to, “managers” of grace, deciding who can receive the prayer of outpouring or baptism in the Spirit and who cannot. If any of you are doing this, I ask you to stop; no more! You are dispensers of God’s grace, not its arbiters! Don’t act like a tollhouse for the Holy Spirit!  [emphasis added]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Letter ‘Iuvenescit Ecclesia’ to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Regarding the Relationship Between Hierarchical and Charismatic Gifts in the Life and the Mission of the Church” (May 15, 2016)

[6] In some texts we find a list of charisms, sometimes summarized (cf. 1 Pt 4:10), other times more detailed (cf. 1 Cor 12:8-10, 28-30; Rm 12:6-8). Among those listed there are exceptional gifts (of healing, of mighty deeds, of variety of tongues) and ordinary gifts (of teaching, of service, of beneficence), ministries for the guidance of the community (cf. Eph 4:11) and gifts given through the imposition of the hands (cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). It is not always clear that these gifts are considered “charisms” in the strict sense of the term. The exceptional gifts mentioned repeatedly in 1 Cor 12-14, disappear from the latter texts: the list of Rm 12:6-8 presents only the less visible charisms, that have an ongoing usefulness for the life of the Christian community….

[7] … Far from situating the charisms on one side and the institutional entity on the other, opposing a Church “of charity” and a Church “of the institution,” Paul gathers in one list the recipients of the charisms of authority and teaching, of charisms that are useful to the ordinary life of the community, and of the more striking charisms. … Paul shows himself to be aware of the drawbacks that a disordered exercise of the charisms can provoke in the Christian community. The Apostle, therefore, intervenes, with authority, to establish precise rules for the exercise of charisms “in the Church” (1 Cor 14:19-28), that is, in the gatherings of the community (cf. 1 Cor 14:23-26). He limits, for example, the exercise of glossolalia. Similar rules are also given for the gift of prophecy (cf. 1 Cor 14:29-31).

[17] … Here emerges the decisive task of discernment that appertains to the ecclesial authorities. Recognizing the authenticity of a charism is not always an easy task, it is, nonetheless, a dutiful service that pastors are required to fulfill. The faithful have “the right to be informed by their pastors about the authenticity of charisms and the trustworthiness of those who present themselves as recipients thereof”. These authorities should, to this end, bear in mind the unforeseeable nature of the charisms inspired by the Holy Spirit and evaluate them according to the rule of faith with the intention of building up the Church. This process is time-consuming. It requires an adequate period to pass in order to authenticate the charisms, which must be submitted to serious discernment until they are recognized as genuine. The reality of the group that arises from the charism must have the proper time to grow and mature. This would extend beyond the period of initial enthusiasm until a stable configuration arises.

John Doe – identity suppressed (November, 2017)

Introduction:

The many lay ecclesial movements in the Church since Vatican II (Faggioloi, 2014), compared to the impact of the local parish on ordinary Catholic parishioners, pale in significance. The average parishioner is seldom directly influenced by these ecclesial movements (EM) but, on occasion, contact between a parishioner and a member of an EM may occur, and often that contact is negative. Whether intended or not, the EM member may leave the impression that they are a better Catholic than the ordinary parishioner! Indeed, this is precisely why Pope Francis has expressed concern about lay ecclesial movements – the CCR being one of them – their elitism. Given this ongoing concern with CCR groups, I suggest, sociologically, that CCRs should function and operate as a special purpose group (SPG) within the parish rather than as an extra-parish group or movement.

Special purpose groups, sociologically considered, are smaller groups within the parish which connect parishioners in a deeper way (such as choir or youth group or Christian service group). They function to supplement Mass attendance and strengthen faith and community bonds (defined below and in Wuthnow, 1988). There are many different kinds of SPGs (Wuthnow identifies more than 800 such groups) and I propose CCR groups should be understood and should function as an SPG. Identifying CCR groups as SPGs broadens the ecclesiology of the CCR group because it is placed within the broader ecclesial context of the parish and, moreover, places CCR groups on the same operating plane as any other parish SPG. Accordingly, CCR groups are not better or worse than other SPGs and, understood as such, might just temper their elitism. Moreover, now located within the context of the parish, CCR groups can find a more secure identity within the broader institution of the Church. Be reminded that CCR presently exists in a kind of ecclesial limbo. It does not have standing as a religious order like the Christian Brothers, nor is it solidly parish based, and, thus, their limbo status gives weight to the argument that CCR groups should be located within the parish. Pope Francis has stated in no uncertain terms that the parish has a long institutional history and, by no means, should be considered outdated (2013: paragraph 28). Consequently, I believe the parish is the proper institutional context for CCR groups. Indeed, being identified as one among many parish SPGs should assist CCR leaders and members in understanding the many other forms through which parishioners’ faith can legitimately be expressed. It would be hoped that this would soften their perceived elitism and, importantly for CCR, provide greater institutional support (as a new SPG) in recruiting new members. Moreover, pastors would have a more direct link to CCR groups if they were located in parishes and thereby could more realistically and pastorally assist in curbing their elitism if such were needed.

In this paper I propose to, first, discuss the sociological notion of special purpose groups and CCR groups operating like SPGs. I do not discuss the history of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and its varied expressions. Not only because many others have provided this history (Hunt 2009, Csordas 1997, 2002), but primarily because such a history is not directly related to this paper’s central proposal. Second, I discuss what SPGS are, sociologically, and then make the claim that CCR groups should be embedded in parishes, as any other SPG, in order to operate in a more balanced ecclesial manner. Third, I briefly discuss the modern rational temporal order. This is a sociological theory of time and how time commitments are socially conditioned. I raise this point to show how this social temporal order impacts SPGs, CCR groups, and the parish at large. I conclude with ecclesiological and sociological implications of the proposal that CCR groups should be located within parishes and therefore organizationally operate like any other parish SPG.

CCR Groups are Similar to Special Purpose Groups:

Many CCR groups and other lay ecclesial movements operate on the margins of the larger institutional Catholic Church (Lee and D’Antonio, 2000). CCR groups, in other words, are betwixt and between, straddling two worlds somewhere between Protestant Pentecostalism and institutional Roman Catholicism. This marginal status naturally creates conflicting loyalties and commitments with respect to various Catholic behaviors and beliefs as well as creating the elitist attitudes mentioned above. Moreover, in occupying this marginal status and thereby embracing more Protestant Pentecostal behaviors and beliefs, CCR groups operate out of a narrow ecclesiology compared to the larger Catholic Church (diocese) or the local parish. CCR groups need the parish and diocesan church to broaden their ecclesiology or, to be more accurate, to operate within an institutional context that has a broader ecclesiology, and, by so doing, places them in relationship to proper authority figures (pastors) who can oversee their theological and spiritual direction.

CCR groups’ marginal status is a claim made not just from personal experience. Two other sources legitimating this claim come from St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. Although St. Pope John Paul II was supportive of the CCR and spoke approvingly of such activity in Redemptoris Missio (51), he also had concerns about CCR as well as other lay ecclesial movements ever since the late 1970s. Second, Pope Francis has spoken with great concern about lay ecclesial movements, especially the CCR, in noting their tendency toward elitist orientations. For example, in his June 2014 address to participants in the “37^th National Convocation of the Renewal in the Holy Spirit”, he warned not only of the danger of divisiveness but the danger of excessive planning and organization in an attempt to become “‘managers of grace” or “arbiters of God’s grace.” Pointedly, he declared: “Don’t act like a tollhouse for the Holy Spirit!” and “never lose the grace of letting God be God!” A third substantiating factor of CCR’s marginal status is the fact that this group and other lay ecclesial movements do not have a structured, legitimated ecclesial location or a specified relationship to a parish or, in some cases, a diocese. They have no juridical character. Although some bishops and pastors are supportive and welcoming, this in itself does not create a juridical home for CCR groups.

A pointed sociological observation about groups occupying a marginal status is that such marginalized groups become breeding grounds for religious virtuosi. Although religious virtuosi can be positive forces revitalizing the faith of followers, they also can spin off in directions inimical to the larger institutional context that bred them in the first place. Religious virtuosi are those members who exhibit greater energy, enthusiasm, and zeal to revitalize the spiritual life and larger organizational structure of the church. Religious virtuosi are spiritual athletes who are up for a larger commitment and involvement in their faith than what the normal parish community expects of its members. But, in many cases, these religious virtuosi may also exhibit a spiritual elitism that ordinary parishioners find demeaning. For example, Meredith McGuire (1982: 161-65) directly observed Catholic charismatics frequently referring to other Catholics, not baptized in the Spirit, as ‘baptized pagans.’ They were fellow Catholics who followed Catholic traditions but, in the charismatics’ opinion were not truly ‘born again.’ Mary Jo Neitz (1987: 217), another sociologist of religion engaged in ethnographic research of Catholic charismatics, found that the ecumenical desire in Catholic charismatics may lead them to feel more at home with their Protestant friends than in their own Catholic parishes. My own experience with Catholic charismatics in the late 1970s at my home parish strongly corroborates these sociological studies that found elitist attitudes among them.

The positive aspect of religious virtuosi, however, is the fact that they can create a certain collective effervescence that spills over into the larger social organization. Historically, monasteries and religious orders were social locations or institutional contexts for these enthusiastic virtuosi to express their spiritual athleticism. However, when Vatican II called for all Christians to strive for spiritual perfection and enthusiasm, the church indirectly opened up new social venues through which religious virtuosi could express their spirituality such as the many extra-parish lay ecclesial movements that now exist (CCR e.g.). Several sociologists and theologians (Lee, 2000; Finke and Wittberg, 2000) therefore claim that CCR groups or other extra-parish lay ecclesial movements may be functional equivalents of monasteries, offering an alternative communal space for religious virtuosi. Indeed, these same sociologists and theologians draw on CCR groups’ marginal status and their having no juridical home to support their argument that they are similar to and operate like monasteries. But this claim is overdrawn, and I argue instead that CCR groups are actually more similar to what Robert Wuthnow (1988) calls special purpose groups (SPGs) and therefore should operate as such. Sociological studies have shown (Finke and Wittberg, 2000; Weber, 1922; Collins, 1988) that the Catholic church has been able to maintain its institutional success throughout the ages, including our own post-Vatican II era, due to its ability to retain sect-like tendencies of religious virtuosi through the historical invention of convents, monasteries, seminaries, etc. (Max Weber in 1904 claimed this was the genius of the Catholic church – the retention of religious virtuosi through such institutional means compared to Protestants who did not have such an organizational system and were therefore prone to sectarianism). This sociological claim is also overdrawn because CCR groups have not been around long enough to have earned the same status as monasteries and because, more importantly, they have not been able to prevent some religious virtuosi from displaying spiritual elitism. Organizationally, then, equating CCR groups with special purpose groups (SPGs) is a better fit. So what are SPGs and why are they a better fit?

Special Purpose Groups as an Organizational Type and CCR Groups Embedded in Parishes

Sociologically, SPGs are different from both sects and churches/parishes – falling somewhere between these two religious organizational types. Dissimilar from sects in that SPGs are non-intensive whereas sects are “intensive.” SPGs demand time and energy but for only one “special purpose” (prison ministry, home bible study, Christian drag car racers, intensive prayer, etc.) and therefore are “non-intensive” in that one’s time, money, and social life are not overly extracted from its members as is done in sects. On the other hand, SPGs are dissimilar from parishes in that they are small whereas churches/parishes are large. Consequently, SPGs are more demanding than churches (in that parishes require only Sunday Mass attendance), but not as demanding as sects which require much familial and social time commitment from their members. Theoretically, SPGs function like monasteries in retaining sect-like tendencies from spilling outside of the church’s boundaries while at the same time different from monasteries in not being too greedy of members’ resources. SPGs, it could be said, combine the best of both worlds; like churches they require non-intensive commitment, and, like sects, they are small in size (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1 Involvement

		Intensive	Non-intensive
SIZE	Large	empty cell	CHURCH
	Small	SECT	Special Purpose Group

SPGs provide ways for the local parish to catch the attention of prospective members because they are small and focus on one issue. CCR groups and their focus on scripture and prayer is one of those ways – arguably one of the more “intense” Christian ways – compared to other SPGs (e.g., Christian drag racers). Nevertheless, most SPGs can revitalize the parish because, as Wuthnow shows, commitment is not entirely a function of personal values and beliefs as most social scientists assume – commitment “is also a function of the vast infrastructure of SPGs that makes available the activities to which people become committed” (1988: 122). In other words, when there are groups to join then people become involved and faith is revitalized. People do not necessarily become involved because they believe and are committed to group prayer and bible based faith sharing, for example, and then try to find such a group, but because there is a group to join in the parish that already is doing prayer and faith sharing. CCR groups, by focusing on scripture, prayer, and small group sharing, are more like SPGs than the sect-like monastic or religious orders which are more demanding of members’ time and resources.

If CCR groups are housed in parishes, then they can more easily fit into the broader ecclesiology of the parish just as other SPGs do. Most parishes already have SPGs involved in education, Christian service, prayer, devotions, youth ministry, music, or recreation. Linked to the parish more intimately, CCR groups may even branch out in terms of more Christian service or Catholic social justice ministry than when they are disconnected from parish life. Disconnected from parish life, CCR groups are prone to become too closed in on themselves, too individualistic, too inward looking, too narrow, too preoccupied with internal concerns, and not involved enough in Christian social action – exhibiting therefore a narrow ecclesiology. I find CCR groups’ disconnect from parishes to be sociologically naïve and inviting problems of authority relations, spiritually questionable behavior, and sectarianism. Located within parish structures these problems could be recognized, then checked and corrected, if necessary, by pastors and pastoral staff.

The organizational dimension of church life, I believe, would function more smoothly if CCR groups would link up with parishes. For example, could CCR groups link up with the Christian Service Commission of the parish to develop its social outreach if such an occasion arises? It is easier than trying to make Christian service a central aspect of their identity as a group disconnected from mainstream parish life. Moreover, maybe CCR group members are already contributing to the Christian Service dimension of parish life without necessarily doing so as CCR members? CCR groups being linked to parishes is the main ecclesial reason why CCR groups don’t have to do everything “Catholic” in that it is the parish that is expected to ensure that the various dimensions of church life are being implemented (worship, religious education, Christian service, stewardship, and evangelization), not any one segment of the parish. In other words, CCR groups disconnected from parish life easily become ecclesiologically narrow in their mission and ministry and, moreover, religious virtuosi can “run wild” in the community rather than be overseen by legitimate authorities (priest/pastor).

Another advantage to CCR groups being connected to parishes is their presence to more of the faithful and other prospective Catholics. We know from sociological research done at the parish level, especially since the 1990s (Warner: 1993), that this is where much vibrant religious activity happens. One of the organizational geniuses of the Catholic Church is its network of local parishes, and if CCR groups are not integrated into a parish, they not only risk becoming truly sectarian but lose the chance to revitalize the faith of Catholics and would be Catholics — their potential ecclesial influence diminishes. One CCR group or SPG cannot do everything, but organized together under one roof called a parish, much can be done.

Time and CCR Groups:

Another problem concerns the modern issue of time. The sociologist Zerubavel believes that we live in a highly rationalized “temporal order” and therefore time is a most effective principle of differentiation. Individuals inhabit separate private and public spheres and, more to the point, this rationalizing of time is a functional necessity today. As he states it:

With increasing functional and structural differentiation within individuals’ webs of social affiliations and the growing bureaucratic split between “person” and “role,” maintaining the partiality of the involvement of modern individuals in each of the various social roles they occupy becomes a necessity (1981: xv).

Rational temporal orders are thus necessary because today’s social order assumes that people can only be partially involved in most social arenas and only honor limited commitments. This puts CCR group members in a temporal tug-of-war between their CCR group asking for more time and commitment, their local parish asking for their participation, and society’s growing differentiation which demands they rationally order their time. If Zerubavel is correct about society’s temporal order, then why do charismatics want a social order separate from the historical and institutional structural system of the local parish? I realize one reason is that the CCR believes they can renew the Church better from the margins than from the center, but that is not necessarily true sociologically. The tremendous effort it takes to get people involved in CCR groups in the first place should tell us something about the time famine most ordinary lay people experience (this may, in part, explain why the CCR population in the United States is declining (see Flory and Sargeant, 2013; and in Appendix 1 page 327). CCR groups can easily become, to say it in other terms, “greedy organizations” (Coser: 1974). Greedy in that most ordinary laity cannot afford such time and resources that extra-parish CCR groups demand. Moreover, if laity do participate as much as CCR groups wish, then it is most likely they will be cutting back on their time commitment and support of their local parish. It is unrealistic and naïve, in my opinion, to negatively critique CCR groups by saying they are sectarian or they are not doing enough or they need to do more in terms of the other dimensions of church life (Christian service, etc.). Although such critiques might be legitimately made theologically, sociologically speaking, the critique of CCR groups should simply be that they need to be connected or institutionally embedded within the parish structure.

Conclusion:

Although I agree with sociologists who argue that, overall, people are seeking community and that communities should not become simply life-style enclaves (Bellah, et al: 1985), I also would urge church professionals to heed Putnam’s work (although debated – Ammerman, 1996; Fine, 2004) indicating that even though there is a decline in social capital or social connectedness in the last fifty years, it is in the mainline churches where “arguably the single most important repository of social capital [connectedness] in America” is to be found (Putnam: 2000: 66). Put simply, parishes are robust centers of community even though many church professionals don’t believe it. If they don’t believe it, then CCR leadership, disconnected from ordinary parish life, are even more prone to fall into this ideological trap of believing that ordinary Catholics are not good enough Catholics (elitism). CCR leaders are more prone to hold this attitude because they are more sectarian and are also producing future religious virtuosi who continue to believe ordinary Catholics are not good enough. One sociological conclusion, therefore, is an old one: there is an attitudinal and behavioral gap that exists between professionals (who are in this case CCR religious virtuosi) and ordinary lay people (that is, those in the pew – see Dinges, 1983; McSweeney, 1980; Hadden, 1970; Flanagan, 1991; Stark and Fink, 2000), showing over and again how misaligned many church professionals are with ordinary pew-dwellers. CCR leaders wanting “more” from CCR group members (and ordinary Catholics in general) communicate a message to ordinary pew-dwellers that they are not “good enough” (granted this communication is often ‘given off’ non-verbally). CCR leaders, in particular, need to be connected to ordinary parish life because then, just maybe, they will see and understand that their religious virtuosity and their demand for more from ordinary Catholics are unwarranted or overdrawn. Just maybe their religious elitism will be dampened as they troll through the ordinary lives of ordinary Catholics trying to live out their faith in a post-modern world that legitimizes multiple sacred forms and multiple lifestyles that often confuse many ordinary Catholics, leaving them bereft of a sense of community and a sacred center. Rather than beating-up on ordinary Catholics and their supposed deficiencies, CCR leadership might discover ‘welcoming’ as the best means of evangelization.

The purpose of this paper was to argue that CCR groups connected to parish life and operating like any other parish SPG can assist CCR groups in locating themselves in a broader ecclesiology and, at the same time, become another SPG through which parishioners, so inclined, might enrich their spiritual lives. Allegiances between CCR groups and historical Catholic parishes can act to temper some of the perceived excesses that Catholic charismatics display and, at the same time, afford CCR groups a better opportunity to reach out to ordinary Catholics and non-Catholics alike in a more balanced ecclesial context and with a more balanced pastoral approach.

References

1. Ammerman, Nancy. 1996. “Bowling Together: Congregations and the American Civic Order.” The
2. Arizona State University Lecture in Religion.
3. Bellah, Robert et al. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life.
4. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5. Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. 2000. “Small Christian Communities Growing.” Volume
6. 6 (2): 1.
7. Collins, Randal. 1988. Theoretical Sociology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
8. Coser, Lewis. 1974. Greedy Institutions. New York: Free Press.
9. Csordas, Thomas. 2002. Body / Meaning / Healing. New York: Palgrave.
10. ______________. 1997. Language, Charisma, and Creativity: The Ritual Life of a Religious Movement.
11. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12. Dinges, William D. 1987. “Ritual Conflict as Social Conflict: Liturgical Reform in the Roman Catholic
13. Church. Sociological Analysis 48, 2:138-157.
14. Dulles, Avery. 1983. A Church to Believe In: Discipleship and the Dynamics of Freedom. New York: Crossroad
15. Faggioli, Massimo. 2014. Sorting Out Catholicism: A Brief History of the New Ecclesial Movements.
16. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazer Books—The Liturgical Press.
17. Fine, Gary A. 2004. “Bowling Alone . . . .” Society.
18. Finke, Roger and Wittberg, Patricia. 2000. “Organizational Revival From Within: Explaining Revivalism & Reform in the Roman Catholic Church.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion: 39: 154-170.
19. Flanagan, Kieran. 1991. Sociology and Liturgy: Re-presentations of the Holy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
20. Flory Richard and Sargeant, Kimon H. 2013. “Conclusion: Pentecostalism in Global Perspective.” In
21. Spirit and Power: The Growth and Global Impact of Pentecostalism. Edited by Miller, Donald E., Sargeant, Kimon H. and Richard Flory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Gautier, Mary. 2003. Book Review of The Catholic Experience of Small Christian Communities. New York:
23. Paulist Press. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, volume 4: 192-93.
24. Hadden, Jeffrey. 1970. The Gathering Storm in the Churches. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
25. Hunt, Stephen. 2009. A History of the Charismatic Movement in Britain and the United States of
26. America: The Pentecostal Transformation of Christianity (Books 1 and 2). Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
27. Lee, Bernard, D’Antonio, William V. et al. 2000. The Catholic Experience of Small Christian Communities. New York: Paulist Press.
28. McSweeney, William. 1980. Roman Catholicism: the Search for Relevance. New York: St. Martins Press.
29. McGuire, Meredith. 1982. Pentecostal Catholics: Power, Charisma and Order in a Religious Movement. Philadephia, PE: Temple Press.
30. Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
31. Neitz, Mary Jo. 1987. Charisma and Community: A Study of Commitment Within Charismatic Renewal. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Books.
32. Pope Francis. 2014. Speech at the “37^th National Convention of the Renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
33. __________. 2013. The Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium).
34. Pope John Paul II. 1991. Redemptoris Missio. Encyclical of the Catholic Church.
35. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
36. Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37. Warner, Stephen R. 1993. “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (5): 1044-93.
38. Weber, Max. 1922. Sociology of Religion. New York: Free Press.
39. ___________. 1904. The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.
40. Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion.: Society and Faith Since WWII. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
41. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1981. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

The following is a summary of a thesis presented in Thomas J. Csordas, Language, Charisma, and Creativity: The Ritual Life of a Religious Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 108-111. Csordas is making a case that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) is trying to create its own CULTURE. This is a major objective of CCR that has significant ecclesiological implications. One means of creating its own culture is through practices of RADICALIZATION and RITUALIZATION. Loud Praise, as seen below, is one such means of radical ritualization in order to create a culture (a community). So it is not just singing, but loud singing (radicalization). Of course, this is just one means of radicalization, for Csordas goes on to discuss radicalization and ritualization in the areas of time, the domestic sphere, and organization of personal conduct. He also discusses SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

Excerpts from Csordas (pp. 108-111):

“The FIRST MAJOR radicalization in the domain of worship came with the introduction of loud praise. The principle behind loud praise is that collective praise for God is more edifying and expressive of real feeling the louder it is. Worshippers should thus attempt to RAISE THE ROOF with loud vocalization and hand clapping. In this, charismatics have found a virtually universal connection between sound and spirituality first formulated by Rodney Neeham [“Percussion and Transition,” in William Lessa and Evon Vogt, eds., Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach, 3d ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1972]

“Needham would have us focus on the percussive element, the expression of praise by tumultuous clapping and applause. He argues that practically everywhere it is found the percussion is resorted to in order to communicate with the other world, specifically in rites of passage from one social status to another, such that the impact of percussion in effect impels persons across the boundaries of social categories. (p109).

“If we apply this to WORD of GOD (WofG) community we might say that loud praise effects a transition from a collectivity of selves to a single people.”

Differences between Needham and WofG:

• For Needham percussion marks a transition from everyday silence to sacred sound, but for WofG the onset of percussion marks the ESCALATION OF SACRED SOUND.
• Whereas for Needham the transition takes place once and for all within a single ritual event, in WofG the transition is an ONGOING one, sustained by the practice of percussive praise as a regular feature of collective ritual.
• Finally, whereas Needham was preoccupied with the incompatibility between affective impact of percussion and logic or logical change, WofG there is an emphasis on UNITY between affect and cognition in the percussive generation of a phenomenological shift for participants. That is loud praise not only moves people across category boundaries, it also helps to create those very categories.

Needham’s thesis summarized:

Putting these three points together, we can elaborate Needham’s point that what is at issue in RITUAL PERCUSSION is AURALLY GENERATED EMOTION.

Here percussion is an accompaniment to vocalization: first insofar as applause is a form of praise and second insofar as the aural is the privileged sensory modality for transmission of the divinely inspired word.

An escalation of volume is then quite literally an ESCALATION OF ENTHUSIAM. And it seemed that the louder the collective clamor becomes, the more it appears to have a life of its own. It is an unmistakably Durkheimian Occurrence, in which the reality of the collectivity becomes more vivid than the reality of its individual members.

The sense of spontaneous outpouring that characterizes quiet collective prayer of praise is transformed to one of self-sustaining transport, and hierophany occurs. The ritual practice is a vehicle of RADICALIZATION, upon which people enter an imaginative terrain as a divinely constituted people and advance toward the horizon of a divine plan for their lives.

The phenomenological immediacy of this effect is enhanced by the fact that loud praise is a technique of the body. It is thus existentially engaging insofar as it requires THAT EFFORT THAT we have seen as essential to a definition of self grounded in embodiment. Sound has aesthetic and bodily effects.

But Needham conceives these effects in terms of sensory reception (representation) rather than of physical production (bodily experience). Just as the phenomenological effect of SPEAKING IN TONGUES is as much in the vocal gesture of the speaker as it is in audition of the syllables produced (Csordas, 1990s), the effect of LOUD PRAISE has its locus in the physical engagement of the body in the act of worship. In this connection, the Charismatics’ own praise RAISING THE ROOF should be understood as an image of strenuous effort.

The bodily effect in question comes not only from the vibrations of sound but also from the motion and from the heat and redness generated in one’s hands as they repeatedly strike one another. Adding to this dimension of bodily engagement, along with loud praise, members began to gingerly jump or hop in place while praying, both in solitary devotion and in collective worship. The result was a virtually CALISTHENIC SPIRITUALITY OF CORPORAL COMMITMENT, and furthermore one that explicitly reinforced the SOCIAL PRINCIPLE of Male Headship with a cultural celebration of masculine energy. . . . THIS KIND OF BODILY ENGAGMENT WAS DESIGNED TO AID THE RECRUITMENT OF MEN by offering an alternative to the FEMALE-DOMINATED spirituality of Charismatic prayer groups that was perceived as TOO INTROPSECTIVE AND EMOTIONAL. According to one Sword of the Spirit coordinator, “you had to be manly to do what we were trying to do – grunting, lifting heavy objects, and spittin’ was the thing to do so you didn’t have to feel like you had to be a sissy to be holy.”

The next step toward RADICALIZATION was made the following year with the RECOMMITMENT and adoption of MANTLES AND VEILS to be worn as symbols of public commitment during community gatherings. (This became very controversial.)

Fr. Bertrand de Margerie …

Ed. note — The following article reproduces the comments of one of the finest theologians of the post-conciliar period, the internationally known Jesuit theologian Fr. Bertrand de Margerie (now deceased), who spoke in Buffalo for the Credo Chapter of CUF [Catholics United for the Faith] on April 29, 1976. When he was asked in a Question and Answer session after his magnificent Lecture “The Gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church” (published in Social Justice Review, February 1977), what to think of alleged “Charismatic Experiences,” he replied as reported below. — James Likoudis

---

Immediate and Mediated Experiences: Problems about the Charisms

Fr. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J.

As far as the questions of our friend James Likoudis are concerned, I would say that there are indeed difficult problems. People who claim the gift of speaking in tongues, of causing healings … well, if this be the case, if they claim such gifts, this would leave me rather perplexed and particularly make me fear that if the gifts were authentic, they might be lost if they are claimed. That is, I do remember that in general (and though one might quote St. Peter, Acts 3: 1-12, in a contrary sense), the Saints who have these gifts, particularly miracles, healings, etc., were rather wanting to hide these gifts than to claim them. Now, this does not, of course, exhaust the problem, and so, I think you know well that in the world of today, there is not on the part of many a great interest in the mysteries of angels and devils. No, and you know also that a small minority of apostles of satanic cults are very fascinated. However, it seems to me that one cannot understand the Mystery of the Church and various gifts without having recourse to the consideration of the holy angels in the Church and of the possible activities of devils against it.

This afternoon, preparing myself for our meeting, I was reading the articles from St. Thomas’ Summa dealing with the possibilities of the devils to prophesy, to make miracles. In the treatise on prophecy in the II Part of the II Part, Question 173, art. 5, I was very impressed to see that St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that, after all, devils can — as they are angels, as they are pure spirits, and as dominating the cosmic world — can do many things that we men and women of this earth can not do.

They know many things, even in an actual way, that we can not know. And so, they can on the basis of their knowledge, simulate prophecies, simulate miracles. The Angelic Doctor does not believe they can do true miracles, that they can be truly prophets, but they can, he says, communicate some aspects of their knowledge to man. It seems to me, if we read the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 7, that Christ explicitly foresees that a certain number of extraordinary things will be done by the devils — apparently extraordinary things — and will somehow put in difficulty His own disciples.

“Many will say to Me on that day! Lord, Lord, was it not in Your Name that we prophesied, and in Your Name that we drove out demons, and by Your Name that we did many mighty acts? Then, I will say to them, I never knew you, Go away from Me, you who do wrong.” (Matt. 7: 22)

And the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, reflecting on such texts, have recognized that there could be things claimed by men as prophecies and miracles, and in reality operated by the devils on the basis of their natural power. This does not mean, of course, that all the healings, all the prophecies we hear about, are coming from devils. This means that it is not so easy to be sure from whence they come.

And I recognize that they may come also, a certain number of them, from the Holy Spirit; some of them may be purely natural phenomena. However, I think that the main point is to do what the Saints do — to relativize all this: gifts of tongues, gifts of healing — all this is secondary. In the eyes of Paul, the gift of prophecy (i.e., the charismatic explanation of the Scriptures) is in its turn secondary in comparison with the supreme charism of charity. Indeed, it seems to me that there is today in our world a fascination (especially, I must acknowledge in the Anglo-Saxon world, but not only)- a fascination around this term “EXPERIENCE.” And, of course, the charismatics, in the sense of the members of the Charismatic Renewal, know much better than I do, what are not only the advantages but the perils included in the Movement. And so, they also know probably better than I do, how this recourse (which we hear so often today) to experience is really the occasion of grave confusions.

If you look at philosophical dictionaries, if you look at the definition of what is experience, you will find unanimity that experience implies evidence and intuition. In other words, experience is an immediate knowledge. Well, it is precisely against the pretension of an earthly immediate knowledge of God and of the action of God, that St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 13 and 14, warned the Corinthians. It is a doctrine of the faith which Paul exposed in Chapter 13 when he said that “Here below we see as in a mirror” and that it is only after death (except, of course, in the hypothesis of an act of beatific vision before our death which some theologians have thought possible) that we come to the evidence, the intuition, the immediate experience of God — if hopefully, we come to it.

And so, I see today the urgent necessity of recalling such truths which seem to me to be amazingly absent from the contemporary theological panorama, and particularly, amazingly absent from the in-general cautiously-elaborated rules, theological criteria about charisms set forth in Belgium about three or four years ago by an international group of Catholic theologians who also gave in to this so fascinating fashion of the exaltation of experience. After all this, I would wish to add that one can speak of the mediated experience. And I think that this is really what many people inside and outside the Charismatic Renewal, have in view. They really do not want, if they are reasonable, to speak of an immediate experience. They want to speak of a mediated experience. But the consequences of such a distinction are very far reaching. For instance, this group of international theologians at Louvain was speaking of a more or less immediate experience of the Holy Spirit. Well, I regret to say that as long as we are in this world there is no immediate experience of the Holy Spirit. I cannot on the level not only of my senses but even of my ideas — without the revelation in words and deeds (the revelation through the mediation of human words and human deeds) — I cannot distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Father or the Son, nor can I here below ever see (if not admitted to the beatific vision) the divine essence of the Holy Spirit. And I can’t, of course, on the basis of the convictions of faith (which is different from experience, for faith is a knowledge through human concepts of the divine word in human language) — on the basis of faith I can say that I probably experience the action of the Spirit; I can judge without pretending to an infallible certitude that I am in a state of grace. If I had immediate experience of the Spirit, I could be absolutely sure of being in a state of grace. And this is, without private revelation (in words), impossible here below.

And so, it seems that we ought to correct our ways of speaking to avoid the language of experience — or to justify it with the adjective mediated. Otherwise, since those who hear us also read and hear persons who use this word “experience” in its normal, universally accepted philosophical meaning of immediate evidence, we are inducing them in error. Even though our charity reaches God immediately, and though God’s action on us can also be immediate, we have no immediate experience of it.

So, I would say that nonetheless there exists, there has always existed in the Church during the last 20 centuries extraordinary gifts of healing, of prophecy (in the sense of revealing in advance future events, acts of contingent freedom, etc.), of speaking in tongues. But I would say that precisely it is one of the snares of the devil to try and retain too much of our attention about these secondary things to the detriment of the major charism of prophecy (in the sense of the transmission of Divine Revelation) and of the still greater charism of charity. So the very discernment of spirits inclines us to relativize all these secondary things, recognizing in them possible gifts of God and declaring that, after all, for our own salvation and for the salvation of others, we don’t need to know. We just go on building up the Church with the charisms we have already received and of which we don’t declare ourselves too sure.

What I said exactly was this: that one could know through a private revelation if one is in a state of grace and know it with moral certitude. However, of course, there is the teaching of St. John of the Cross inviting us to be very careful of private revelations. And so the problem of the authenticity of a private revelation returns to us. We see how Saints suffered with this problem. I did not mean to say — when I said that through private revelation one could know one was in a state of grace — that this private revelation by itself was an immediate experience of God (because a private Revelation is in words or deeds). But the object of the private revelation — to know that one is in a state of grace — well, transcends somehow words. So I do not deny under this angle the possibility of knowing that one is in a state of grace with moral certitude. But still, knowing that is not yet the immediate experience of God, which can only be the Vision face-to-face. As long as I am only in a state of grace and not yet in a state of glory (even knowing eventually with absolute certitude that I am in a state of grace), I’m not in the immediate experience of God. So, in other words, what all this means is that we are still in a vale of tears; we are not yet in Paradise, in Heaven; and there is a danger which was precisely the danger that St. Paul pointed out to the Corinthians in his First Letter: of thinking that we have already, purely and simply, risen from the dead. In other words, we are still in the Pilgrim Church. We are not yet in the Triumphant Church. And behind all this fascination for experience there is an unconscious Triumphalism. This is an expression perhaps not so much used here but very much used in Europe, i.e., the feelings, the state of mind of those Christians who are always triumphing as if heaven and earth had already passed and as if they were installed in the glory of God.

I think that this question (accusing the Charismatic Renewal of subjectivism, elitism, and gnosticism) recalls to us that there are perils which have been pointed out, for instance, in the collective Pastoral Letter of the Canadian Episcopal Conference. But there are not only perils. In that same letter, the Canadian bishops also point to a certain number of values to which people, many people among the Catholic charismatics are deeply attached. And so I would recognize that subjectivism is a peril not only to Catholic charismatics but to each and all of us. And I would say that is is precisely because I think too great an accent has been put on “I’s”, individuality, etc., that I chose as the title of my lecture, “The Charisms Given by the Holy Spirit to the Church” — through the Church, for the Church, in the Church. And so indeed I recognize with the person who asked that question — and this would be my humble plea to our charismatic brethren — that in their way of speaking, they would much less, if possible, allude to any kind of individual experience, because these individual experiences are doubtful, and even if true, incommunicable.

And so, it seems highly desirable that we detach ourselves from our own particular feelings, etc. — to incorporate ourselves in the mediated experience of the Church, and that we replace the language of individual experience by the language of the ecclesial mediated experience.

[Note: some proper names below have been changed to mask the identity of certain individuals and sensitive institutions.]

An Evaluation by Dr. Jane Doe, professor at Seminary X [a major midwestern seminary in the United States]

–A Case Study: “Encounter Ministries” (EM). Based in Columbus, OH (and overseen by “Nancy Smith” of Seminary X), this “ministry” is devoted to “power evangelization” (evangelizing through “signs and wonders”) and claims, among other things, that “there is a prophet inside each one of us.”

The practices of the CCM must be determined by observation–​ lex orandi, lex credendi. For there is a frequent disparity between CCM ​ teaching ​ and practice (especially regarding the ​ emphasis on, sense of entitlement to, or seeking of extraordinary gifts. EM is is facilitated by “Fr. Matt Thielicke” (diocese X) and “Nancy Smith” of Seminary X (“Smith” is the “senior overseer of the Encounter School curriculum”).¹

EM students pay a tuition fee to attend talks, workshops, and classes intended to promote “power evangelization,” in particular, to activate their extraordinary gifts (EGs) and “impart” those gifts. “Impartation” is supposedly the practice of imparting EGs from one person to another, based on Romans 1:11. However, this interpretation of that passage is baffling, since verse 12 clearly states that it is ​ faith ​ which St. Paul intends to “impart,” not EGs.² [Note: the EM website originally stated that “Everyone who graduates will receive a Certificate of Ministry Diploma,” and that EM was currently “working with” Seminary X on an agreement that this certificate would be in official partnership with them due to their professors oversight on the curriculum and guest teaching.”³ This statement subsequently has disappeared from the EM website.]

During an hour-long “power evangelization” training session, given by “Fr. Matt Thielicke” and “Peter Ryan” (​et al.) of EM, held at the International House of Prayer in 2016,⁴ it is claimed that “there is a prophet inside each one of us” and that EM, a “school of supernatural ministry,” can teach us to “walk in signs and wonders,” praising Protestants who are on “the cutting edge” of power evangelization. “Peter Ryan” claims that he and “Fr. Matt” are performing an “activation” of the audiences’ charismatic gifts. “Christy,” who has chronic headaches, and “Spencer” are brought from the audience to the stage following Patrick’s call to “find someone who is in pain … testable pain!” There is clapping and whooping for both “Fr. Thielicke” and “Ryan”: “Give it up for Father!” “Go ‘Ryan’!” “Give it up for ‘Ryan’!” “Ryan” puts his hands on Christy’s head and attempts, over several minutes, to rebuke her headache. During this time, “Fr. Thielicke” whispers to “Ryan” the words that he should use. At one point, “Peter” suggests that the audience break into pairs and practice giving “words of knowledge,” i.e., trying to guess what someone’s name is, his occupation, etc. When the “word of knowledge” exercise is met with limited success (based on a show of hands), it is followed by an exercise “that can’t go wrong”– i.e., “words of encouragement.”⁵ At one point, “Peter” claims that if a prophecy is “right,” we can be confident that it is God speaking. Another participant assures the audience: “This is Catholic. This is genuine.”⁶

–The CCM regards “signs and wonders” (healing, tongues, prophecy, etc.) as ​ ordinary gifts that are ​ necessary for evangelization. The Catholic charismatic movement generally regards gifts such as prophecy, healing, and “tongues” as ordinary for all Christians. Moreover, they claim that society is so secular that most unchurched (as well as many “sacramentalized” Catholics) will no longer listen to arguments or catechetical discussions. Thus, “signs and wonders” are essential for evangelization. This practice is frequently referred to as “power evangelization.” (NB: “Tongues” is often seen as a “personal devotion” rather than an evangelical tool; we address this below.)

–The Magisterium teaches that healing, prophecy, etc. are ​ extraordinary and emphasizes the need for discernment. ​ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, ​ Lumen Gentium, and Christifideles Laici (among others) teach that healing, prophecy, etc. are “extraordinary” and “exceptional” (CCC 2003, 799-800; ​ CL 24; ​ LG​ 12). Such gifts must not be sought “rashly” (LG, 12). Even Cardinal Suenens, a supporter of the charismatic movement, considered these gifts to be “extraordinary.” Cardinal Ruffini, in his comments regarding ​LG​ 12 at the Second Vatican
Council, “acknowledges that such charisms are mentioned in apostolic writings and were widespread at the beginning of the Church. He believes, however, that after the initial apostolic age these charisms ‘gradually decreased as to almost cease to be’ (​postea paullatim ita decreverunt ut fere cessaverint). He finds support for this view in St. John Chrysostom’s commentary on the Acts of the Apostles where the Church Father notes that a farmer needs to give more care to a newly planted tree until the roots are more firm. Thus, these special charisms were needed at the start of the Church until the roots of faith became more established. Cardinal Ruffini also refers to St. Gregory the Great’s explanation of Mark 16 where the illustrious pope makes a similar point. Cardinal Ruffini does not believe we should place our confidence in the charismatic gifts of the laity “because the charisms—contrary to the opinion of many separated brethren who speak freely about the service of charisms in the Church—are today most rare and truly remarkable” (​hodie charismata—contra opinionem plurium fratrum separatorum qui de servitio charismaticorum in Ecclesia libenter loquuntur—hodie rarissima sint et prorsus singularia).”⁷ (NB: Cardinal Ruffini does not claim that the charismatic gifts have ceased ​– only that they are “rare”).

-Are EGs truly ​ necessary for evangelization? ​ St. John of the Cross describes how Christ himself exhausted the natural means of evangelization before simply ​ revealing ​ His resurrected form to the disciples, so that he would not ​ damage ​ their faith! In other words, He tried everything besides the extraordinary first.⁸ Thus, the Saint teaches that “signs and wonders” are a last and undesirable means of evangelization, appropriate only when other means have been exhausted. Similarly, St. Augustine argued that “tongues” are no longer needed in the Church, since the Church now “speaks in all languages;” in other words, the gift is now corporate rather than individual.⁹ The CCM will object: “We live in a secular society; miracle-working is the only means of ‘shocking’ many unbelievers, so to speak.” But other means have certainly not been exhausted, e.g.: faithful and authentically Catholic liturgical practices, proper catechesis, apologetics, instruction in natural theology, exposure and habituation to the beauty and grandeur of traditional Catholic art, music and literature, proper sacramental preparation,
education in the history of the Catholic faith and the lives of the saints, thorough sacramental preparation, sacramentals and devotion to the Blessed Mother, “Ask a Priest” or “Q&A” -type events, ​ training in proper prayer habits/interiority according to the many spiritual traditions of the Church, et cetera — all of which have speedily converted souls throughout the centuries.¹⁰ Thus, far from being necessary, “power evangelization” can be an outright danger to faith. Moreover, the unchurched will certainly be off-put if a “sign or wonder” is ​ promised ​ or ​ expected ​ and fails to occur, or if a potential recipient is blamed for not having “enough faith.”¹¹

–EGs are for the good of ​ others​ ; they are not related to personal devotion or sanctity. EGs are gratiae gratis datae, and are primarily for the service of others.¹² Like priestly faculties, they remain intact even if the subject of the gifts is in mortal sin. Furthermore, EGs, like theoretical or technical virtues, can be exercised at the command of the miracle-worker; note that Jesus tells his disciples not to “call fire down from heaven” (Lk. 9:54).¹³ Moreover, EGs may be exercised in the absence of moral integrity and/or sanctifying grace. The Egyptian prophets performed signs and wonders in competition with Moses; as noted above, Jesus mentions wonder-workers who are decidedly not in his favor (Mt. 7:22-23), that “many false prophets will appear and deceive many people” (Mt. 24:11), and again, that “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Mt. 24:24). ​ St. John mentions cases of extraordinary knowledge given “naturally” (i.e., without the influence of grace) to “idolatrous prophets and many sybils” who were neither holy prophets, apostles nor saints (II.26.12). ​ This traditional understanding of EGs does not square with the very strong charismatic emphasis on EGs as signs of faith or as aids to personal ​ prayer (as in the case of “tongues”).¹⁴

–CCM Practices are Dangerously Undiscerning. ​ In practice, the CCM disregards multiple possible causes of miracles. One wonders whether CCM “miracles” would stand under scrutinous investigations such as those conducted by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. Most of the the millions of purported CCM miracles will never fall under any type of official investigation.

1. Auto-suggestion becomes more likely in situations that are emotionally charged (even manipulative), and where there is a high expectation already (e.g., the Encounter team attempting to heal “Christie” on a stage).
2. Deception or exaggeration on the part of the “healer” is an obvious concern, and could be rationalized by not wanting to disappoint onlookers or drive them away from the faith.
3. The ​ devil may produce ​ true prophecies and apparent healings in order, later, to deceive. Saint John of the Cross, again, notes the extent of devil’s knowledge of psychology and nature (his ability to know when, e.g., a storm, eclipse, physical recovery, mental collapse, sickness, etc. will occur). Thus, even if a prophecy or a “word of knowledge” turns out to be true, this is not evidence of its divine origin. The devil could certainly tell a person what a stranger’s name is: but this is precisely an example of the “word of knowledge” promoted by EM as a kind of “warm-up” exercise before prophecy.¹⁵ Regarding even seemingly “benign” prophecies–those that do not purport to “add” anything to revelation–St. John of the Cross writes: “how much more necessary will it be neither to receive nor to give credit” to them, for therein “the devil habitually meddles so freely that I believe it impossible for a man not to be deceived in many of them unless he strive to reject them, such an appearance of truth and security does the devil give them.”¹⁶ Diabolical causation is especially likely where miracles are “esteemed” or when one “rejoices” in them; the Saint quotes Lk. 10.20: “Do not rejoice that the devils are subject to you.” For, “when the devil sees

affectioned to these things, he opens a wide field to them, gives them abundant material and interferes with them in many ways; whereupon they spread their sails and become shamelessly audacious in the freedom wherewith they work these marvels.”¹⁷ Francisco Suárez (Jesuit theologian, 1548-1617) argues that healings can be accomplished by demons, who attempt to simulate a miracle.¹⁸ Suárez follows St. Thomas’s thinking on the matter (see Thomas’s Summa theologiae II-II, q. 178, a. 1, ad 2).¹⁹ God’s Action (​And even then….) St. John, of course, does not eliminate this possibility. However, even on the rare chance that we ​ know a prophecy (for example) is from God, St. John continually tells us to “reject” it since (a) Jesus is the final word of God, so looking for prophecies offends Him, as if we think He is inadequate (Heb. 1.2).²⁰ (b) We can be very mistaken about how to interpret prophecies (even Jeremiah the prophet, St. John notes, was deceived by his own prophecy!

). St. John adduces dozens of Old Testament examples to support this point (​ II.19-22)​ . (c) God’s prophecies might actually ​ not ​ come to pass since they are sometimes contingent upon the continuance of certain human behaviors/deeds (see II.20.3-4). Moreover, even if God does answer a request for supernatural “information,” the Saint writes, He is oftentimes “greatly offended and wroth” ​ (II.21.1 and ff.; cf. II.18.9). Like a father who sadly feeds candy to a toddler who will eat nothing else (II.21.2-3), God grants such requests, unwilling that a soul should leave his care completely. Or again, like a father who lets his child eat candy ​ until the child is sickened in order to teach him a lesson, God justly answers the spiritually greedy with the objects of their greed.²¹

Thus, receptivity to EGs (”boldness,” ”fearlessness” and “power evangelization”) is dangerously exaggerated by the CCM.²²

–“Power Evangelization” Endangers Faith. ​ Faith is solidified in what St. John calls the dark night of “sense” and “spirit.”²³ Faith, hope and love are continuously described as “dark” according to the Saint. When we seek the “palpable” to support faith (exclamations, expressions, gestures, supernatural phenomena, locutions, feelings, consolations) we actually show a ​ weakness of faith or what might be called “spiritual positivism”–the idea that the supernatural is not real unless it can be shown or evidenced. Thus, St. John writes: “If a man make much account of these miracles, he ceases to lean upon the substantial practice of faith, which is an obscure habit; and thus, where signs and witnesses abound, there is less merit in believing” (III.31.8); “the more God is believed without testimonies and signs, the more He is exalted by the soul, for it believes more concerning God than signs and miracles can demonstrate… [and] it is exalted in purest faith” (III.32.4).

–”Power Evangelization” Endangers Hope. ​ St. John describes hope, like faith, as a “darkness,” centered on what we ​ do not yet possess. The CCM over-emphasis on temporal goods (health, joy, etc.) dulls hope. The CCM will no doubt claim that the focus is on ​ spiritual goods attained, but again, spiritual healing, especially through suffering in imitation of Christ (see 2 Cor. 12:9 and Col. 1:24), is deemphasized in practice. The temporal benefits of miracles (e.g., healing, restoring sight, casting out devils, etc.) “merit little or no rejoicing on the part of the soul…since they are not in themselves a means for uniting the soul with God, as charity is” (III.30.4).

–”Power Evangelization” Endangers Charity​. St. John of the Cross, again, understands charity to be friendship with God which seeks a conformity of the soul’s will to His. It is duty-oriented, reverential (an orientation towards God’s honor/glory/latria), radically altruistic, and a perfection of the will (not emotion/passion). Thus, charity is compatible with and even shown most intensely in perseverance through aridity; seeking emotional experiences amounts to “spiritual gluttony.”²⁴ Commenting on Mark 8:34-35, St. John states that “to seek oneself in God is to seek the favours and refreshments of God; but to seek God in oneself is not only to desire to be ​ without both of these for God’s sake, but to be disposed to ​ choose ​ , for Christ’s sake, all that is most distasteful, whether in relation to God or to the world; and this is love of God. Oh, that one could tell us how far Our Lord desires this self-denial to be carried!”²⁵

Charity treats God and others as ​ends, and everything else as only as means to be used.²⁶ It is enormously tempting, when employing “signs and wonders,” to draw attention and glory to the means (charisms, miracles, the miracle-worker, etc.) rather than the ​ends ​of spirituality, thereby drawing glory away from God and attention from the true spiritual good of others. To see this, we must note how incredibly easy it is to “use” others in this way even in the most ordinary moral acts, such as holding a door or preparing a meal for someone. In fact, St. John mentions seven “principal evils” that result from “vain rejoicing” in (or treating as “ends”) otherwise morally good acts.²⁷ Here, we note only some of those evils: (1) “vanity, pride, vainglory, and presumption (III.28.2),” (2) comparing one’s acts to those of others, going “so far as to be angry and envious when…see[ing] that others are praised, or do more, or are of greater use … III.28.3)” and (3) deprivation of eternal reward (III.28.5; see Mt. 6.2). “I myself believe that the greater number of works which they perform in public are either vicious or will be of no value to them, or are imperfect in the sight of God, because they are not detached from these human intentions and interests” (III.28.5). St. John explains that, while a person cannot always literally “hide” these works from others (especially in the case of miracles), he must try to hide them from himself (III.28.6). “That is to say, [he] must find no satisfaction in them, nor esteem them as if they were of some worth, nor derive pleasure from them at all. It is this that is spiritually indicated in those words of Our Lord: ‘Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.’” Again, St. John teaches: do not “find satisfaction in oneself,” rejoicing secretly in those works, since this “is a great iniquity against God and a denial of Him.” Such rejoicing is the “sounding of the trumpet” (III.28.5) in the inner self. He states that, even regarding ​ ordinary good works, “hardly anyone is to be found​ who is moved to do such works simply for God’s sake, without the attraction of some advantage of consolation or pleasure, or some other consideration” (III.28.8).²⁸

The rule of “​a fortiori” applies here: if vanity so plagues even ordinary moral acts, it is supremely likely to be a problem, causing spiritual damage to both the “worker” and the “recipient,” in the practice of extraordinary acts. Thus, charity, detachment and humility must be marvellously strong in a person before he dare perform miracles without fear of actually harming faith. It is no wonder that, without detachment, we find souls being brought onto a stage and used as guinea pigs for a tyro’s miracle-working “practicum.”

Far from abhorring attention, any but the most holy person would secretly or not so secretly thrive upon the idea that he is a miracle-worker, festering in “vainglory.”²⁹ Unlike SS. Paul and Barnabas, who “tore their clothing in dismay” and “could scarcely restrain” the crowds from offering sacrifices to them, ​ we surely would accept an admiring comment, deference, attention, being singled out, dwelling on what others think of us, etc.

Thus, ​proper use of these gifts (eliminating moral monstrosities and wizards) requires *extraordinary spiritual advancement.* The CCM objection here will be: “We ​ are ​ advanced, being baptized in the Holy Spirit and washed in the ocean of God’s power.” It seems, according to the CCM, that by a prayer of “surrender” to the Spirit one is immediately washed and “ready to go” as a miracle-working evangelizer. If this is not the “teaching,” it is most certainly the impression, and the CCM must do all it can to eliminate this practice.³⁰ Its approach is contrary to Catholic moral theology which teaches that the virtues are developed by repeated, patient acts of sacrifice and self-denial.³¹

–​ Abusus Non Tollit Usum? True, but Trivial. “Fr. Matt Thieliecke” has claimed that abuses and excesses of EGs do not “take away their use.”³² Likewise, “Rudolph Murphy” [a major leader in the Catholic Charismatic movement] states that St. John of the Cross does not “condemn” the use of EGs. 33 But these claims are trivial. While neither the Church nor St. John of the Cross “condemn” such gifts or claim that they cannot be used, they do suggest that ​ it is extraordinarily difficult ​for them to be used without abuse. The conditions of “proper use” ​ regarding EGs are stringent. (1) On the part of the miracle-worker, a supreme degree of charity is requisite, that is, (a) a detachment from those gifts and (b) an ability truly to treat them as means and not ends. (2) EGs should be exercised only if other methods have been exhausted. Unless these conditions are met, the wonder-worker risks Jesus’ final disavowal: “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Mt. 7:22-23; AMC III.30.4).

–A Final Quote. ​ What follows is a lengthy quote that summarizes well St. John’s perspective on extraordinary phenomena:

“It will not be superfluous … to give more enlightenment as to the harm which can ensue, either to spiritual souls or to the masters who direct them, if they are over-credulous about [visions], although they be of God. The reason which has now moved me to write at length about this is the lack of discretion, as I understand it, which I have observed in certain spiritual masters. Trusting to these supernatural apprehensions, and believing that they are good and come from God, both masters and disciples have fallen into great error … [T]here are some whose way and method with souls that experience these visions cause them to stray, or embarrass them with respect to their visions…and edify them not in faith, but lead them to speak highly of those things. By doing this they make them realize that they themselves set some value upon them, or make great account of them, and, consequently, their disciples do the same. Thus their souls have been set upon these apprehensions, instead of being edified in faith, so that they may be empty and detached, and freed from those things and can soar to the heights of dark faith. All this arises from the terms and language which the soul observes its master to employ with respect to these apprehensions; somehow it very easily develops a satisfaction and an esteem for them, which is not in its own control, and averts its eyes from the abyss of faith. And the reason why this is so easy must be that the soul is so greatly occupied with these things of sense that, as it is inclined to them by nature, and is likewise disposed to enjoy the apprehension of distinct and sensible things, it has only to observe in its confessor, or in some other person, a certain esteem and appreciation for them, and not merely will it at once conceive the same itself, but also, without its realizing the fact, its desire will become lured away by them, so that it will feed upon them and be ever more inclined toward them and will set a certain value upon them. And hence arise many imperfections, at the very least; for the soul is no longer as humble as before, but things that all this is of some importance and productive of good, and that it is itself esteemed by God, and that He is pleased and somewhat satisfied with it, which is contrary to humility. And thereupon the devil secretly sets about increasing this, without the soul’s realizing it, and begins to suggest ideas to it about others, as to whether they have these things or have them not, or are this or are that; which is contrary to holy simplicity and spiritual solitude. There is much more to be said about these evils, and of how such souls, unless they withdraw themselves, grow not in faith, and also of how there are other evils of the same kind which, although they be not so palpable and recognizable as these, are subtler and more hateful in the Divine eyes…” (II.18.3-4).

Notes:

1. https://encounterministries.us/school/#recordings [back]
2. Romans 1.11-12: “ (11) I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong—​ ​ (12) that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith” (our emphasis). [back]
3. https://encounterministries.us/school/#graduate​ (under the tab, “What do I receive when I graduate?) [back]
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QvfzLzkpTw​ (EM, 2016) [back]
5. Compare St. John of the Cross’s words (the saint writes as if God were speaking): “If you desire Me to answer with a word of comfort, behold my Son, subject to Me and to others out of love for Me, and you will see how much He answers. If you desire Me to declare some secret truths or events to you, fix your eyes on Him, and you will discern hidden in Him the most secret mysteries, and wisdom, and the wonders of God, as My Apostle proclaims … And if you should seek other divine or corporeal visions and revelations, behold Him, become human, and you will encounter more than you imagine, because the Apostle also says: ​In ipso habitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter ​ (In Christ all the fullness of the divinity dwells bodily). [Col.2:9]” (Ascent of Mount Carmel ​[hereafter AMC] ​ ​ II.22.6). [back]
6. Compare this claim with II.5.3 of the CDF’s ​ Instruction on Prayers for Healing ​ (9/14/2000): “Anything resembling hysteria, artificiality, theatricality or sensationalism, above all on the part of those who are in charge of such gatherings, must not take place.” [back]
7. See n. 5 of Ruffini’s intervention found in the Acta Synodolia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II Vol. II Periodus Secunda Pars II (Vatican City, 1972), pp. 629-630. The comments were made in General Congregation XLIX and are summarized here by Robert Fastiggi. [back]
8. “​He did many things before he showed himself to them, so that they should believe Him without seeing Him. To Mary Magdalene … he showed the empty tomb, and afterwards bade the angels speak ​to her (Lk. 24:6; John 20:2) (for, as Saint Paul says, faith comes through hearing); so that, having heard, she should believe before she saw. And, although she saw him, it was as an ordinary man, that, by the warmth of His presence, He might completely instruct her ​ in the belief which she lacked. And He first sent to tell His disciples, with the women, and afterwards they went to see the tomb. And, as to those who went to Emmaus, He first of all enkindled their hearts in faith so that they might see Him, ​ dissembling with them as He walked. And finally he reproved them all because they had not believed those who had ​ announced to them His resurrection. And he reproved St. Thomas because he desired to have the witness of His wounds, by telling him that they who saw Him not and yet believed Him were blessed. ​ And thus it is not the will of God that miracles should be wrought: When He works them, he does so, as it were, because He cannot do otherwise. ​ And for this cause he reproved the Pharisees because they believed not save through signs, saying ‘Unless ye see marvels and signs, ye believe not’ (Jn. 4:48). Those, then, that love to rejoice in supernatural works lost much in the matter of faith” (III.31.8-9, our emphases). [back]
9. See Enarratio in Psalmum, CXLVII:19 (147:19). [back]
10. See ​ Enarratio in Psalmum ​ , CXLVII:19 (147:19). 10 “I consider, however, that the desire to know things by supernatural means is much worse than the desire for other spiritual favors pertaining to the sense; for I cannot see how the soul that desires them can fail to commit, at the least, venial sin, however good may be its aims, and however far it may be on the road to perfection; and if anyone should bid the soul desire them, and consent to it, he sins likewise. For there is no necessity for any of these things, since the soul has its natural reason and the doctrine and law of the Gospel, which are quite sufficient for its guidance, and there is no difficulty or necessity that cannot be solved and remedied by these means ​ …” (​AMC , II.21.4, our emphasis). [back]
11. The man who performs miracles with attachment to them both tempts God, “which is a great sin,” but also runs the risk of not succeeding, and so will “engender in the hearts of men discredit and contempt for the faith” (​AMC, III.31.8). [back]
12. See New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Gift of Miracles.” Also: “​ As the object of these [extraordinary] graces is, according to their nature, the spread of the ​ Kingdom of God​ on earth and the sanctification of men, their possession in itself does not exclude personal unholiness. The will of ​ God​ , however, is that personal righteousness and holiness should also distinguish the possessor” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Actual Grace”). [back]
13. St. John of the Cross also recommends discernment of circumstances in the exercise of EGs (see AMC, III.XXX). [back]
14. “…the exercise of these supernatural works does not require grace and charity” (AMC III.30.4). [back]
15. See EM, 2016. [back]
16. The Saint continues: “For [the devil] brings together so many appearances and probabilities, in order that they may be believed, and plants them so firmly in the sense and the imagination, that it seems to the person affected that what he says will certainly happen; and in such a way does he cause the soul to grasp and hold them, that, if it have not humility, it will hardly be persuaded to reject them and made to believe the contrary. Wherefore, the soul that is pure, cautious, simple and humble must resist revelations and other visions with as much effort and care ​ as if they were very perilous temptations. For there is no need to desire them; on the contrary, there is need not to desire them, if we are to reach the union of love” (II.27.6, my emphasis). [back]
17. III.31.4, my emphasis. “Vain rejoicing” and the dangers of joy in anything but God himself is a ubiquitous​ theme in the ​Ascent​. See, e.g., III.31.2: “Joy blunts and obscures the judgement,” and so, “It is a very easy thing to deceive others, and to deceive oneself, by ​rejoicing​ in this kind of operation. And the reason is that, in order to know which of these operations are false and which are true, and how and at what time they should be practised, much counsel and much light from God are needful, both of which are greatly impeded by joy in these operations and esteem for them.” At III.31.3 he writes, “It was for this reason that God complained of certain prophets, through Jeremias, saying: ‘I sent not the prophets, and they ran; I spake not to them, and they prophesied (Jer. 23.21).’ And later He says: ‘They deceived my people by their lying and their miracles, when I had not commanded them, neither had I sent them (Jer. 23.32).’ And in that place He says of them likewise: ‘They see the visions of their heart, and speak of them (Jer. 23.26);’ which would not happen if they had not this abominable attachment to these works” (III.31.3). These are they who “prophesied their own fancies and published the visions which they invented or which the devil represented to them” (III.31.4). See also III.28 for the deceptions caused by joy in good works. At III.26.8 and III.27.5 St. John writes that the soul must aspire to a darkness or “night” of rejoicing, that is, an absence of joy in anything created. [back]
18. Suárez, ​De gratia, proleg. III, cap. 5, n. 15 (ed. Vìves, vol. 7, p. 154). [back]
19. Compare Pseudo-Chrysostom: “…for they prophesy in the name of Christ, but with the spirit of the Devil; such are the diviners. …it is permitted to the Devil sometimes to speak the truth, that he may commend his lying by this his rare truth. Yet they cast out daemons in the name of Christ, though they have the spirit of his enemy; or rather, they do not cast them out, but seem only to cast them out, the daemons acting in concert with them. Also they do mighty works, that is, miracles, not such as are useful and necessary, but useless and fruitless” (Catena Aurea, commentary on Mt. 7:21-23). [back]
20. “…any who would enquire of me after than manner, and desire Me to speak to him or reveal aught to him, would in a sense be asking Me for Christ again, and asking Me for more faith, and be lacking in faith, which has already been given in Christ; and therefore he would be committing a great offense against my Beloved Son, for not only would he be lacking in faith, but he would be obliging Him again first of all to become incarnate and pass through life and death…” (II.22.5). [back]
21. The devil then “insinuates falsehoods, from which a soul cannot free itself save by fleeing from all revelations and visions and locutions that are supernatural. Wherefore God is justly angered with those that receive them, for he sees that it is temerity on their part to expose themselves to such great peril and presumption and curiosity, and things that spring from pride, and are the root and foundation of vainglory, and of disdain for the things of God, and the beginning of many evils to which many have come. ​ Such people have succeeded in angering God so greatly that He has of set purpose allowed them to go astray and be deceived and to blind their own spirits and to leave the ordered paths of life and give reign to their vanities and fancies, according to the word of Isaiah: ‘The Lord mingled in the midst of them of them a spirit of confusion’…[since] they desired to meddle with that to which by nature they could not attain. Angered by this, God allowed them to act foolishly, giving them no light as to that wherewith He desired not that they should concern themselves (II.21.11).” If God ​ does ​ answer a request for supernatural phenomena, “it is neither his will nor his pleasure” (II.18.8; cf. II.21.1). “And in this way God gives leave to the devil to blind and deceive many, when their sins and audacities merit it…and they give [the devil] credence and believe him to be a good spirit; to such a point that, although they may be quite persuaded that he is not so, they cannot undeceive themselves…” (II.21.12). [back]
22. The CCM apparently interprets pope Francis’ call to “risky” discipleship as a call to “walk in signs and wonders.” Spiritual caution is portrayed as sloth or spiritual paralysis; those of us who do not seek EGs are labelled as “couch potatoes” or Catholic “gamers” (EM, 2016). Fr. Mathias claims that a priest at the Institute for Priestly Formation counseled him to “pay attention to any words or images that come to your mind” and “if you don’t know whether it’s from you or not,” not to worry, “just share it. There’s no risk” (EM, 2016). However, St. John states that “…to desire to commune with God by such means is a most perilous thing, more so than I can express, and that one who is affectioned to such methods will not fail to err greatly and will often find himself in confusion…For over and above the difficulty that there is in being sure that one is not going astray in respect of locutions and visions which are of God, there are ordinarily many of these locutions and visions which are of the devil…he says many things that are true, and in conformity with reason, and things that come to pass as he describes them…” (II.21.7). In fact, St. John simply states that if ​ all ​ visions, for example, are rejected, the soul is better off: “…there is neither imperfection nor attachment in renouncing these things with humility and misgiving” (II.17.7). The passages of St. John wherein he mentions spiritual caution/safety are too numerous to cite. Any reader of the ​ Ascent ​ will immediately see this. I reproduce only one brief passage here: “One of the means by which the devil lays hold on incautious souls, with great ease, and obstructs the way of spiritual truth for them, is the use of extraordinary and supernatural happenings…” (III.37.1). [back]
23. “The soul must be voided of all such things as can enter its capacity, so that, however many supernatural experiences it may have, it will ever remain as it were detached from them and in darkness … leaning upon none of the things that he understands, experiences, feels and imagines. For all these are darkness, which will cause him to stray” (II.4.2). The soul must not “lean upon experience or feeling or imagination” (II.4.4). “The highest that can be felt and experienced concerning God is infinitely remote from God and from the pure possession of Him” (II.4.4). He is “beyond the highest thing that can be known or experienced” (II.4.4). “Leaving behind all that it experiences and feels, both temporally and spiritually, and all that it is able to experience and feel in this life, it will desire with all desire to come to that which surpasses all feeling and experience….it must in no wise lay hold upon that which it receives, either spiritually or sensually, within itself…” (II.4.6). [back]
24. “…they prefer feeding and clothing their natural selves with spiritual feelings and consolations, to stripping themselves of all things, and denying themselves all things, for God’s sake. For they think that it suffices to deny themselves worldly things without annihilating and purifying themselves of ​ spiritual attachment. Wherefore it comes to pass that, when there presents itself to them any of this solid and perfect spirituality, consisting of the annihilation of all sweetness in God, in aridity, distaste and trial, which is the true ​spiritual ​ cross, and the detachment of the spiritual poverty of Christ, the flee from it as from death, and seek only sweetness and delectable communion with God. This is not self-denial and detachment of spirit, but spiritual ​gluttony. Herein, spiritually, they become enemies of the Cross of Christ; for true spirituality seeks for God’s sake that which is distasteful rather than that which is delectable; and inclines itself rather to suffering than to consolation; and desires to go without all blessings ​ for God’s sake rather than to possess them; and to endure aridities and afflictions rather than to enjoy sweet communications, knowing that this is to follow Christ and to deny oneself, and that the other is perchance to seek oneself in God, which is clean contrary to love…” (AMC ​ II.7.5). [back]
25. AMC, II.7.5-6. Compare this to Michael Sullivan’s claim that we need “pink spoon” Catholicism, i.e., we need to offer “samples” of Catholicism like Baskin Robbins offers samples of ice cream (Sullivan is the director of the “Fearless” documentary). If religion tastes really good, he suggests, a person will want more (Ave Maria Radio broadcast, 7/30/17, 2-3 PM). [back]
26. Within his discussion of the use of images (III.35), the Saint warns against focusing on the images themselves instead of what they represent and, in general, warns against emphasizing instruments or means over ends. [back]
27. See III.28. [back]
28. The other “evils” mentioned in III.28 include: (1) a tendency to perform works only when “some pleasure and praise” will result from them, and not from pure love of God (28.4), (2) lack of spiritual perseverance and therefore progress (i.e., reluctance to perform good works in seasons of aridity) (28.7), (3) an overestimation of or prioritization of certain works because they satisfy the self and (4) an inability to consider the counsel of others (28.9). [back]
29. Ch. 31.3. See Bruce Yokum’s claim that he has been prophesying longer than the prophet Jeremiah (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlvwOBA98OI​; within the first minute of the video). 30 See this language at work in the Ave Maria Radio broadcast of Encounter Ministries (July 30, 2017), 2-3 PM. [back]
30. Adding to what seems to be an issue of inflated self-perception, here, is likely a de-emphasis on sustained interiority (wherein one is led into a true, and often disappointing, self-knowledge). For St. John, the state of the “beginner” (vs. that of the “proficient”) is not a state of simplicity and humility. It describes a soul mired in concupiscence, an “embarrassed” soul that is a veritable marionette to temptations, easily mistaking sensory states for spiritual realities (e.g., aridity for God’s absence or disfavor), with many attachments to both the natural objects of the exterior and interior senses (sweet foods, worldly images, meditation), but also to the supernatural objects of those senses (infused smells, imaginary visions, consolations, etc.). [back]
31. Personal conversation. [back]
32. In his essay, “Charismatic and Contemplative: What Would St. John of the Cross Say?” (found at the Renewal Ministries website), “Rudolph Murphy” makes the commendable point that St. John of the Cross’ teachings can be helpful as a way of reforming charismatic communities. Unfortunately, however, his main thesis in that article–that St. John does not “condemn” EGs–is negligible, since St. John rarely condemns any creaturely medium as a ​means​ to God. The pertinent question is whether or not the EGs are extraordinarily difficult to “handle” spiritually–much more so than other gifts–and whether they are truly necessary for evangelization. [back]

[Note: some proper names below have been changed to mask the identity of certain individuals and sensitive institutions.]

An Evaluation by Dr. Jane Doe, Seminary X

–Charismatics claim that (1) “speaking in tongues” involves primarily non-rational vocalizations, and that it is a “private prayer” language. (2) It is also claimed that “tongues” is an ​ ordinary ​ facet of Christian life.

(1) Those promoting “speaking in tongues” suggest that it involves making non-rational vocalizations or praying with “angelic voices;” they may claim that it also involves speaking in an actual foreign language. Despite the ubiquity of this practice, charismatics themselves do not agree on what the exact nature of tongues is. In her book on healing, “Nancy Smith” calls it a “non-rational prayer of the heart.” Steve Clarke, while seeming to think “tongues” involves unknown languages, emphasizes its non-cognitive character and recommends that its practitioners “by-pass” their intellects to begin speaking in tongues.¹ ​ De facto, much of “tongues” witnessed in the charismatic movement, for example, in Life in the Spirit seminars, is of the non-rational variety, oftentimes called “glossolalia.” Those promoting tongues-speaking typically explain it as a personal spiritual aid (based on Paul’s misgivings about public “tongues” in 1 Cor. 14).

(2) ​ When pressed, charismatics often concede that “tongues” is inferior to other gifts, and to the virtues; performatively, however, their practices suggest otherwise.² Indeed, speaking in tongues can function as a positivistic measure of spiritual progress or of having been “baptized in the Spirit.” The ​ Life in the Spirit Seminars Team Manual ​ claims:

“There are some people … who say that they do not want to have the gift of tongues. This is a wrong attitude. The person is placing limits on God’s working … Everyone should want to have tongues.”

“If you did not speak in tongues tonight, don’t worry about it! Expect it to come soon.” “Pray in tongues every day.”

“When the Holy Spirit comes to a person…he discovers that he can pray in tongues….”³

–The Church Fathers consider “tongues” to involve ​ actual languages​. This has complicated matters for charismatic Catholic scholars. ​ Augustine, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, the Ambrosiaster text, Pachomius, the Venerable Bede, Pope Benedict XIV and more have covered this subject. All agree that the gift of tongues involves speaking a ​human language (foreign to the speaker).⁴ Their critical debates were whether Pentecost was a miracle of hearing or speaking, and whether the language constructed itself in the mind or converted at the last moment on the lips. These writers were not aware of an alternate interpretation of tongues as ecstasy or glossolalia.⁵

Moreover, some of them argued that the gift of tongues ended with the time of the apostles. Augustine went so far as to say that the gift of tongues is no longer necessary since now the Church herself “speaks in the language of all men.” This claim resounds and finds agreement throughout the centuries and is taken up by others such as Thomas Aquinas, Johannes Vigerius, and Francisco Suarez.⁶

Only in the late 19th and 20th centuries do we find reference to ​ glossa ​ as “angelic speech,” prayer language, unintelligible sounds/babbling, or ecstatic utterances.⁷ Ironically, when the first Protestant Pentecostals began “speaking in tongues” (in the Azusa Street Revival of the early 1900s in Los Angeles), they believed they were speaking actual ​foreign languages​. They learned otherwise when the missionaries they sent to foreign lands discovered ​ they couldn’t communicate with the foreign nationals; at this point, “the gift of tongues” shifted to mean a “private prayer language​.”⁸

Given the scant evidence for “glossolalia” in Church history, some more academic
charismatics, such as “Smith” and Eddie Ensley, have attempted to identify charismatic tongues-speaking with the phenomenon of “jubilation”–non-rational prayer. Ensley’s book, Sounds of Wonder, includes an incredible range of phenomena under the category of “jubilation:” aspects of Gregorian chant, yodeling, tearful prayer, and various other non-linguistic intonations. “Smith” and Ensley see these phenomena as conclusive proof that the liturgy and spirituality of the Church has always involved charismatic “tongues” practice.

–The Church teaches that gifts such as “tongues” are ​ extraordinary and so not to be expected by all. Pauline statements on “tongues” need to be interpreted in light of Magisterial teaching. ​ Iuvenescit Ecclesia (CDF, 2016) addresses new ecclesial movements (such as the Catholic charismatic movement) and cautions against a “disordered exercise” of charisms. It also specifically states (in §6) that tongues, as well as healing, are “exceptional gifts” (the ​ Catechism of the Catholic Church, in §2003, uses the word “extraordinary”). ​ Lumen Gentium likewise states (in §12) that, far from being ordinary expectations of the faithful, such gifts “are not to be sought after rashly [temere]” by the faithful.⁹ Obviously, it is in the light of tradition and the Magisterium that we must read the various scriptural references to “tongues,” instead of accepting a private interpretation. Such interpretations are bound to conflict. For instance, a favorite passage of charismatics is 1 Cor 14:15: “I wish that you would all speak in tongues.” However, St. Paul also states (1 Cor 14:19) “I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue,”¹⁰ and clearly emphasizes that charity is the greatest gift. Moreover, Jesus’ final disavowal of certain “wonder-workers” should give us pause: “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Mt. 7:22-23).¹¹

–Spiritually, “tongues” is overly credulous and avoids discernment. Non-rational vocalizations could be consciously or unconsciously self-induced, especially in an emotionally charged, expectant atmosphere where it would be very awkward not to have something “happen.” Even worse, tongues could be diabolically induced. Speaking in a foreign, but unknown, human language is in fact a classic sign of diabolical possession. Given this questionable aspect of “tongues” (indeed, of many supernatural phenomena), it can’t be assumed that tongues-speakers are specially united to or in communication with the Holy Spirit. Indeed, if “tongues” are a sign of communication with the Spirit of Truth, why are protestant pentecostals not flocking to the one, true Catholic Church? In charismatic gatherings “tongues” are accepted naively as inspirations from God, as are “words of knowledge” and “prophecies.”

–“Tongues” may foster attachment instead of faith. St. John of the Cross cautions against attachment to spiritual gifts and favors in general, whether they be simple consolations or extraordinary phenomena, such as visions and locutions. ​ Even if they come from God (which, in itself, is very difficult to determine), the saint’s advice is to “reject” ​ the “material” aspect of these gifts, leaving only the spiritual goods (faith, hope, love, and other virtues) in the soul.¹²
St. John emphasizes that we ​ cannot ​ reject the spiritual goods that are communicated, since such communication occurs passively in the soul. Rather, an attitude of “rejection” involves ​ not dwelling on the manifest aspects of these favors, and so keeping the soul from using them as crutches, as an assurance of its spiritual “credentials.” It helps the soul to focus on the more sturdy but nebulous spiritual practices.

–“Tongues” may foster spiritual pride and elitism. ​ St. John of the Cross, again, cautions that humility should be preserved with respect to spiritual favors, something ​ very difficult to achieve with extraordinary gifts. We must not, he cautions, dwell on the fact that we have received them; think of them as a token of favor or appreciation from God; expect them as a matter of course; think of ourselves as “someone”/”the one who receives….”; become pleased by the thought of attention to our gifts; think that we must be doing some good, be self-satisfied, etc. Especially in the case of extraordinary phenomena, it is easy to put oneself “on a spiritual height.” The devil, in turn, preys on this attitude and can communicate his own favors, mimicking an “angel of light.” The soul must avert its eyes, then, from the allurement of such gifts. It should not easily speak of its favors, nor even ​ think ​ of them or recall them to itself, as Jesus advises: “do not let your right hand know what your left is doing.”¹³ This aversion is pleasing to God, since the soul shows that it prefers profound spiritual anonymity over self-glorification.

–“Tongues” may endanger spiritual fortitude. “Tongues” may give the soul an unhealthy sense of complacency. If the soul, because of its favors, begins to think it has “arrived somewhere,” it subtly avoids spiritual “work” and wants only what comes easily. Difficult, costly, and hidden habits of all kinds, such as self-control, mortification, study, and perseverance, may be undervalued and “swept under the carpet,” as it were. Oftentimes, charismatics will suggest that, instead of working on building virtues, the Holy Spirit “swoops in,” as it were, and takes care of “sin” in an instantaneous fashion. We know of a certain charismatic wonder-worker who was asked whether there was not a danger of spiritual pride or attention-seeking in his work, and he said “Oh, there’s a special gift for that,” in other words, a gift that preempts selfish motivations.

–​ Souls focussed on extraordinary phenomena ​ waste time​, St. John of the Cross teaches​ . Even ​ if ​ a tongues-speaker were truly to become discerning about the source and meaning of his “tongues,” his time and efforts would be much better spent in other meditations and less palpable aspirations.¹⁴ Again, the spiritual good, if it is there, is received passively in the soul anyway! As we can see, much good is reaped from these favors, ironically, by a vigilant, humble indifference to them.

Notes:

1. Clarke, together with “Rudolph Murphy,” began the “Word of God” community (Ann Arbor) in the late 1960s. [back]
2. It is common for charismatics to deny a certain position in theory (in academic conversation) while in practice (at prayer meetings, rallies, ministry events, etc.) that position is clearly emphasized. [back]
3. Life In the Spirit Seminars Team Manual: Catholic Edition (Servant Publications, 1979). 143, 149, 150, 114. [back]
4. Also of note is the fact that Augustine was writing against the Donatists, who claimed that they were the “true” church and that a sign of this was “tongues-speaking.” [back]
5. The noun language ​ was the dominant English word used to translate glôssa/γλῶσσα (the Greek term used in Acts 2.4 and 1 Cor. 12) before the introduction of the Geneva Bible in 1534. Using “tongues” instead of “languages” significantly, and unfairly, changes the nuance of the text. [back]
6. The Church does not take this “cessationist” standpoint, but considers tongues only to be a rare gift. [back]
7. The noun “glossolalia” was coined by the Protestant, Frederick Farrar in 1879. [back]
8. Pentecostal scholar Gary B. McGee testifies to this shift. [back]
9. Note on the term ‘temere‘: the English translation on the Vatican website leaves untranslated the Latin adverb temere, although it is translated in other European language editions. In the 2012 Latin-English edition of Denzinger, temere is translated as “rashly.” [back]
10. Sullivan argues that the issue in the churches of Corinth (1 Corinthians) was actually a debate over which local Greek language (Attic, Doric, or Ionic) the Hebrew instruction ought to be translated into. This is attested by multiple patristic authors, such as Epiphanius (4th c.). The speaker-interpreter offices were established by Ezra the Priest, ca. 430 BC; and it was the responsibility of the interpreter [​Meturgeman ​ or Amora] to translate the Hebrew of the public readers and teachers into the local language. [back]
11. This passage is cited by St. John of the Cross in his Ascent of Mt. Carmel (III.30.4). [back]
12. Relevant passages in the ​ Ascent of Mt. Carmel a re too numerous to cite here. Part II of the ​ AMC ​ deals extensively with the dangers of prophecy; Part III also addresses extraordinary gifts. [back]
13. The soul “​ has only to observe in its confessor, or in some other person, a certain esteem and appreciation for them, and not merely will it at once conceive the same itself, but also, without its realizing the fact, its desire will become lured away by them, so that it will feed upon them and be ever more inclined toward them and will set a certain value upon them. And hence arise many imperfections, at the very least; for the soul is no longer as humble as before, but things that all this is of some importance and productive of good, and that it is itself esteemed by God, and that He is pleased and somewhat satisfied with it, which is contrary to humility. And thereupon the devil secretly sets about increasing this, without the soul’s realizing it, and begins to suggest ideas to it about others, as to whether they have these things or have them not, or are this or are that; which is contrary to holy simplicity and spiritual solitude. There is much more to be said about these evils, and of how such souls, unless they withdraw themselves, grow not in faith, and also of how there are other evils of the same kind which, although they be not so palpable and recognizable as these, are subtler and more hateful in the Divine eyes…” (​AMC, II.18.3-4). [back]
14. The “soul may free itself from the peril and effort inherent in discerning between evil visions and good, and in deciding whether an angel be of light or of darkness. This effort brings the soul no advantage; it merely wastes its time, and hinders it, and becomes to it an occasion of many imperfections and of failure to make progress” (II.17.7, my emphasis; cf. II.18.7 on discernment of supernatural phenomena being a “waste” of time). [back]